IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. Third District Case No. 3D LEONARDO DIAZ, Petitioner, THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
|
|
- Alison Scott
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. Third District Case No. 3D LEONARDO DIAZ, Petitioner, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent ON REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION PAUL MORRIS ROBERT A. ROSENBLATT, Esq. Law Offices of 7695 S.W. 104 th Street Paul Morris, P.A. Pinecrest, FL S. Dadeland Blvd., Ste (305) Miami, FL (305) Counsel for Petitioner
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CITATIONS... ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT... 2 ARGUMENT CONCLUSION... 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE... 9 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE... 9 APPENDIX... App. 1
3 -i- TABLE OF CITATIONS Cases Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969) Downum v. United States, 372 U.S. 734, 83 S.Ct. 1033, 10 L.Ed.2d 100 (1963) Lebron v. State, 799 So. 2d 997 (Fla.2001)...-3-, -4- Morris v. Matthews, 475 U.S. 237, 106 S.Ct. 1032, 89 L.Ed.2d 187 (1986) ,-7- O Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999) Persaud v. State, 838 So. 2d 529 (Fla.2003) Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323, 90 S.Ct. 1757, 26 L.Ed.2d 300 (1970)...-1-, -6- United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 96 S.Ct. 1075, 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976) United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 485, 91 S.Ct. 547, 557, 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971) United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat). 579, 6 L.Ed. 165 (1824) OTHER AUTHORITIES 28 U.S.C U.S. Const. amend V... passim
4 -ii-
5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS The petitioner, Leonardo Diaz [Diaz], was tried by jury for first degree murder. The jury was instructed that it could consider the lesser included offenses of second degree murder or manslaughter, but only if there was reasonable doubt on the charge of first degree murder. When the jury announced it was deadlocked between the lesser offenses of second degree murder and manslaughter, Diaz requested that the trial judge poll the jury and/or receive a verdict on the charge of first degree murder. The judge refused and sua sponte declared a mistrial on all of the charges. The prosecution recharged first degree murder. Diaz claimed that the trial judge lacked manifest necessity for the declaration of the mistrial on the charge of first degree murder because there was an alternative to mistrial, namely, receiving a verdict on that charge. Therefore, Diaz moved for dismissal of that charge based upon the violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, claiming that the highest offense he could face on retrial was second degree murder. The motion was denied. Diaz was retried on the charge of first degree murder and the jury returned a verdict of guilty as to manslaughter. On appeal to the Third District, Diaz argued that because the retrial on the firstdegree murder charge violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, he was entitled to a new trial pursuant to Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323, 90 S.Ct. 1757, 26 L.Ed.2d 300 (1970). The Third District entered per curiam affirmance without opinion which cited Morris v. Matthews, 475 U.S. 237, 106 S.Ct. 1032, 89 L.Ed.2d 187 (1986). (App. 1). -2-
6 Diaz s requests for rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied by the Third District and he timely filed a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Diaz was charged with first degree murder and claimed self-defense. The jurors were instructed not to consider lesser included offenses unless there was reasonable doubt as to the charge of first degree murder. Following deliberations, the jurors announced they were deadlocked, but only as to the lesser included offenses of second degree murder and manslaughter. In view of the jury instruction, Diaz requested that the trial judge receive a verdict on the first degree murder charge or at least inquire whether the jury reached a verdict on that charge. The trial judge refused and sua sponte declared a mistrial on the charge of first degree murder. Diaz was retried on the charge of first degree murder (following denial of his motion to dismiss that charge on double jeopardy grounds). Following deliberations, the second jury returned an apparent compromise verdict of guilt as to manslaughter. The trial judge, by failing to inquire into whether the jury reached a verdict on the charge of first degree murder, lacked any manifest necessity to declare a mistrial as to that charge and thereby violated Diaz s federal constitutional rights as guaranteed by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It is fundamental that a defendant has a valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal. Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 503, 98 S.Ct. 824, 829, 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978), (quoting Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689, 69 S.Ct. 834, 837, 93 L.Ed. 974 (1940)). A high degree of necessity is required to justify a mistrial declared without the consent of the -3-
7 defendant. 434 U.S. at 506. Because the trial judge erred in declaring a mistrial on the charge of first degree murder, Diaz is entitled to a new trial upon the highest charge possible (that being manslaughter, the offense for which the jury convicted) pursuant to the indistinguishable and controlling authority of Price v. Georgia. In affirming, the decision of the Third District conflicts with the rule of law announced by this Court in Lebron v. State, 799 So. 2d 997, 1010 (Fla.2001), that where a defendant objects to a mistrial, the burden is on the prosecution to show that there was a manifest necessity for the trial court s declaration; otherwise, double jeopardy attaches. The prosecution was not at all held to this burden and the record reflects that the burden could not be met. ARGUMENT DIAZ S RETRIAL ON THE CHARGE OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER VIOLATED HIS RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE DECISION OF THE THIRD DISTRICT CONFLICTS WITH THE RULE OF LAW ANNOUNCED IN LEBRON v. STATE, 799 So. 2d 997 (Fla.2001). Diaz intends to seek habeas relief from the federal courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C Before the federal court may grant such relief, Diaz must exhaust his state remedies by raising his federal constitutional claims before this Court even if he does not have the right to review by this Court. See O Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 119 S.Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999). Diaz is aware that this Court does not review per curiam decisions of the district courts of appeal which only affirm the lower courts rulings with citations to opinions -4-
8 that are not pending before this Court, have not been reversed, and do not note a contrary holding. See Persaud v. State, 838 So. 2d 529 (Fla.2003). Nevertheless, in order to avoid a claim by the State in federal court that Diaz did not exhaust state remedies pursuant to Boerckel, Diaz does hereby raise before this Court his federal constitutional claims. Furthermore, Diaz alleges that the decision of the Third District conflicts with this Court s decision in Lebron which held that where a defendant objects to a mistrial, the burden is on the prosecution to show that there was a manifest necessity for the trial court s declaration; otherwise, double jeopardy attaches. Here, the Third District affirmed even though the prosecution was not at all held to this burden and the record reflects that the burden could not be met. THE STATE OF FLORIDA VIOLATED DIAZ S RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED BY THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AS APPLIED TO FLORIDA THROUGH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. The protection of an accused against being twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense is guaranteed by the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Constitution of the United States. See U.S. Const. amend V. The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Id. The Clause applies to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment. See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969). The Clause protects not only the right of a defendant against retrial after an acquittal and against multiple punishments for the same offense, but also a defendant s valued right to have -5-
9 his trial completed by a particular tribunal. Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. at 689. See also Arizona v. Washington. When a jury is truly deadlocked, the trial court may declare a mistrial. In that event, the defendant s valued right to have a particular jury decide his fate becomes subordinate to the public interest in affording the prosecutor one full and fair opportunity to present his evidence to an impartial jury. Arizona v Washington, 434 U.S. at 505, 98 S.Ct However, because of the countervailing constitutional right of the defendant, the prosecution must demonstrate manifest necessity for any mistrial declared over the objection of the defendant, and the burden is a heavy one. Id. A mistrial should not be declared sua sponte or upon the request of the prosecution except under urgent circumstances and for very plain and obvious causes. United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579,580, 6 L.Ed. 165 (1824); accord Washington, 434 U.S. at 506 n. 18, 98 S.Ct. 824.Accordingly, a judge is prohibited from declaring sua sponte a mistrial unless a scrupulous exercise of judicial discretion compels the conclusion that no worthwhile purpose would be served by an alternative to mistrial. United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 485, 91 S.Ct. 547, 557, 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971). Unless there is a manifest necessity for declaring a mistrial without the defendant s consent, a retrial is barred under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Perez, supra. Manifest necessity for declaring a mistrial without the defendant s concurrence may be demonstrated only if the trial court has considered and rejected all possible alternatives. Id. Any doubts about whether an offense is jeopardy-barred must be resolved in favor of the liberty of the citizen. Downum v. United States, 372 U.S. -6-
10 734, 738, 83 S.Ct. 1033, 1036, 10 L.Ed.2d 100 (1963). Another consideration is whether the granting of the mistrial denied the defendant the right to retain primary control of the course to be followed at trial. See United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 609, 96 S.Ct. 1075, 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976). Here, the trial court improperly declared a mistrial without first granting, much less exploring, the alternatives requested by Diaz, namely, polling the jury and/or receiving a verdict on the charge of first degree murder. The trial court s denial of the alternatives to mistrial was an abuse of discretion, particularly in view of the jury s announcement that it was deadlocked as to the lesser included offenses after the jury had been instructed not to consider the lesser included offenses unless there was reasonable doubt as to the defendant s guilt of first degree murder. In Price, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the relief required in such a case is a new trial. In Price, the defendant was charged with murder and the jury found him guilty of the lesser offense of manslaughter. The manslaughter conviction was reversed. Price was retried for murder and reconvicted of manslaughter. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the retrial for murder violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The state argued that the error was harmless because the jury convicted Price of manslaughter rather than the jeopardy-barred offense of murder. The Supreme Court rejected the state s argument. The following reasoning from Price is directly on point with the case at bar: The Double Jeopardy Clause... is cast in terms of the risk or hazard of trial and conviction, not of the ultimate legal consequences of the verdict. To be charged and to be subjected to a second trial for first-degree -7-
11 murder is an ordeal not to be viewed lightly. Further, and perhaps of more importance, we cannot determine whether or not the murder charge against petitioner induced the jury to find him guilty of the less serious offense of voluntary manslaughter rather than to continue to debate his innocence. Id. at 331, 90 S.Ct. at 1762 (emphasis supplied). The Supreme Court vacated Price s manslaughter conviction and ordered a retrial on the manslaughter charge only. Prior to oral argument in the Third District, the attorneys in this case received a notice from that court directing their attention to Morris v. Mathews. Much of the oral argument concerned whether the claimed double jeopardy violation was effectively cured or rendered harmless pursuant to Mathews. As noted, the Third District affirmed, citing Mathews. In Mathews, the defendant appealed a conviction of aggravated murder, claiming his prosecution for the crime following a separate conviction for the underlying crime of aggravated robbery violated double jeopardy principles. The Ohio Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant but entered judgment against him on the lesser included offense of murder in accordance with an Ohio rule of criminal procedure. The Supreme Court of the United States found no constitutional infirmity to the Ohio practice because the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would not have been convicted of the non-jeopardy-barred offense absent the presence of the jeopardy-barred offense. 475 U.S. at 247, 106 S.Ct. at The Supreme Court explained that the presumption of prejudice that was present in Price was absent in Mathews case because [t]he jury did not acquit Mathews of the greater offense of aggravated murder, but found him guilty of that charge and, a fortiori, of the lesser -8-
12 offense of murder as well. Based upon that distinction, the Price presumption of prejudice applies here as well because Diaz was not found guilty of the greater offense but was found guilty of manslaughter (which was improperly tried with the jeopardy-barred greater offense of first degree murder). A new trial is the required relief to remedy the denial of Diaz s constitutional rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Price, supra. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, Diaz respectfully requests that this Court quash the decision of the Third District which is contrary to controlling precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States, is violative of Diaz s rights as ensured by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, constitutes an unreasonable application of the precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States, and conflicts with this Court s decision in Lebron. -9-
13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing brief was mailed to Melissa Rubin, Office of the Attorney General, 110 S.E. 6th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301, this day of June, Respectfully submitted, PAUL MORRIS ROBERT A. ROSENBLATT, Esq. Law Offices of 7695 S.W. 104th Street Paul Morris, P.A. Pinecrest, FL S. Dadeland Blvd. (305) Suite 1528 Miami, FL (305) PAUL MORRIS Counsel for Petitioner Leonardo Diaz CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE This brief complies with the font requirements of Fla.R.App PAUL MORRIS -10-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LEONARDO DIAZ, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC03-1031 LEONARDO DIAZ, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY
More informationPresent: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Hassell, and Keenan, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Hassell, and Keenan, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice OLAN CONWAY ALLEN OPINION BY v. Record No. 951681 SENIOR JUSTICE RICHARD H. POFF June 7, 1996 COMMONWEALTH
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 10-1320 In The Supreme Court of the United States ALEX BLUEFORD, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ARKANSAS, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Arkansas Supreme Court BRIEF OF CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE STATE OF TENNESSEE V. WILLIAM JOSEPH TAYLOR
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE STATE OF TENNESSEE V. WILLIAM JOSEPH TAYLOR Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Wilson County No. 98-896 J. O. Bond, Judge No. M1999-00218-CCA-R3-CD
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 537 U. S. (2003) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 01 7574 DAVID ALLEN SATTAZAHN, PETITIONER v. PENNSYLVANIA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, EASTERN DISTRICT
More informationNo In The Supreme Court of the United States PAUL RENICO, Warden, Petitioner, vs. REGINALD LETT, Respondent.
No. 09-338 In The Supreme Court of the United States ------------------------------ PAUL RENICO, Warden, Petitioner, vs. REGINALD LETT, Respondent. ------------------------------ ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 11-168 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JAMES M. HARRISON, Petitioner, v. DOUGLAS GILLESPIE, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the
More information.. _. SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD, JUDGE: STATE OF OHIO ) )SS: CUYAHOGA COUNTY ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Case No. CR
.. _. STATE OF OHIO SS: CUYAHOGA COUNTY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff, -vs- CLARENCE BOGAN Defendant. Case No. CR-16-605087 OPINION SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD, JUDGE: The Defendant's,
More informationJanuary 13, Crimes and Punishments -- Kansas Criminal Code; Preliminary -- Effect of Former Prosecution
ROBERT T. STEPHAN ATTORNEY GENERAL January 13, 1986 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 86-4 Douglas Lancaster City Prosecutor City of Fairway Suite 1000, One Glenwood Place 9300 Metcalf Overland Park, Kansas
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 10-1320 In The Supreme Court of the United States ALEX BLUEFORD, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ARKANSAS, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Arkansas Supreme Court BRIEF OF CONSTITUTIONAL
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 537 U. S. (2003) 1 Opinion of O CONNOR, J. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 01 7574 DAVID ALLEN SATTAZAHN, PETITIONER v. PENNSYLVANIA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 10-554 ALEX BLUEFORD, VS. STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLANT, APPELLEE, Opinion Delivered JANUARY 20, 2011 APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI C O U N T Y C IR C U I T C O U R T, FOURTH
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II
Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two December 19, 2017 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 48384-0-II Petitioner, v. DARCUS DEWAYNE ALLEN,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC- IAN MANUEL L.T. No. 2D ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. Case No. SC- IAN MANUEL L.T. No. 2D08-3494 Respondent. ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
More informationDouble Jeopardy - Declaration of Mistrial Without Consent of Defendant
Louisiana Law Review Volume 32 Number 1 December 1971 Double Jeopardy - Declaration of Mistrial Without Consent of Defendant Carl Grant Schlueter Repository Citation Carl Grant Schlueter, Double Jeopardy
More informationPETITIONER S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ROBERT E. GONZALEZ, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. : : : Case No. : : : 2D06-1619 DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
More informationCAUSE NO STATE OF TEXAS IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT VS. CITY OF AUSTIN ANTONIO BUEHLER TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. 7886004 STATE OF TEXAS IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT VS. CITY OF AUSTIN ANTONIO BUEHLER TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT S MEMORANDUM OF LAW OPPOSING THE STATE S MOTION FOR MISTRIAL TO THE HONORABLE MITCHELL
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-0967-17 PETER ANTHONY TRAYLOR, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON STATE S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS COLLIN
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 3D THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, -vs- MAXIMILIANO ROMERO, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1141 DCA CASE NO. 3D03-2169 THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, -vs- MAXIMILIANO ROMERO, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
More informationConstitutional Law/Criminal Procedure
Constitutional Law/Criminal Procedure Double Jeopardy Does Not Bar Death at Retrial if Initial Sentence is Not an Acquittal Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101 (2003) The Fifth Amendment of the United
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 10-1320 In the Supreme Court of the United States ALEX BLUEFORD, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ARKANSAS, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Arkansas Supreme Court REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT
More informationA Second Shot at Proving Murder: Sacrificing Double Jeopardy for Rigid Formalism in Blueford v. Arkansas
Berkeley Law Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository The Circuit California Law Review 9-2013 A Second Shot at Proving Murder: Sacrificing Double Jeopardy for Rigid Formalism in Blueford v. Arkansas Jalem
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2017-NMSC-019 Filing Date: May 15, 2017 Docket No. S-1-SC-35881 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, CLIVE PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant.
More informationPeople v. Boone. Touro Law Review. Diane Somberg. Volume 18 Number 2 New York State Constitutional Decisions: 2001 Compilation. Article 4.
Touro Law Review Volume 18 Number 2 New York State Constitutional Decisions: 2001 Compilation Article 4 March 2016 People v. Boone Diane Somberg Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CHARLES DAVID POPE, Petitioner, v. Case No. SC03-890 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / Fifth DCA Case No. 5D02-3594 ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF
More informationWILLIAM CALHOUN. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Case No STATE OF OHIO. Appellant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Case No. 09-2324 STATE OF OHIO Appellant -vs- WILLIAM CALHOUN On Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District, Case No. 92103 Appellant ROBERT
More informationPETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
E-Filed Document Mar 13 2018 10:46:46 2015-CT-01467-SCT Pages: 6 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI KEITH FRISTON PETITIONER v. No. 2015-KA-1467 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE PETITION FOR
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 556 U. S. (2009) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2006
GROSS, J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2006 TARA LEIGH SCOTT, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. No. 4D06-2859 [September 6, 2006] The issue in this
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY APPELLANT, CASE NO O P I N I O N APPELLEE, CASE NOS.
[Cite as State v. Lee, 180 Ohio App.3d 739, 2009-Ohio-299.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, CASE NO. 15-08-06 v. LEE, O P I N I O N APPELLEE.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM. PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARK BAMBA ANGOCO, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION. Cite as: 2004 Guam 11
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARK BAMBA ANGOCO, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION Supreme Court Case No. CRA03-003 Superior Court Case No. CF0428-94 Cite as: 2004 Guam
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SCO5-938 Lower Case No. 3D RESPONDENT'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ROCCO NAPOLITANO Petitioner, v. Case No. SCO5-938 Lower Case No. 3D04--318 STATE OF FLORIDA, Florida Department of Corrections Respondent. ================================================================
More informationCASE NO. 1D Michael R. Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
ROY HOWARD MIDDLETON, JR., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
More informationCASE NO. SC L.T. CASE NO. 4D IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CATHERINE STANEK-COUSINS, Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
CASE NO. SC05-1987 L.T. CASE NO. 4D05-1129 ========================================================== IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CATHERINE STANEK-COUSINS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1998) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: March 25, 2013 Document No. 32,915 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Petitioner and Cross-Respondent GREG COLLIER, Defendant-Respondent
More informationDCA Case No: 3D
FILED JOHN A. TOMASINO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DEC 23 200 cuirk, SUPREME COURT BY CATHLYN PALMER, Petitioner, Vs.. Supreme Court Case No: SC(3-236t040 DCA Case No: 3D11-3331 L.T. Case No: 09-26658 THE
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 6, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D13-3119 Lower Tribunal No. 13-7057 Dwaine Merchant,
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC95738 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, vs. LARRY LAMAR GAINES, Appellee. PARIENTE, J. [November 2, 2000] CORRECTED OPINION We have for review State v. Gaines, 731 So. 2d 7 (Fla.
More informationTENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * On October 20, 2006, Jonearl B. Smith was charged by complaint with
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 23, 2011 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff - Appellee,
More informationDouble Jeopardy: The Prevention of Multiple Prosecutions
Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 54 Issue 2 Article 12 October 1977 Double Jeopardy: The Prevention of Multiple Prosecutions Peter Anthony Carusona Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview
More informationCASE NO. 1D Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Justin D. Chapman, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D13-4147
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 08-1403 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- CARISSA MARIE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA Filed:7 April 2015
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA14-878 Filed:7 April 2015 Hoke County, Nos. 11CRS051708, 13CRS000233, 13CRS000235 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DELANDRE BALDWIN, Defendant. Appeal by defendant
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 557 U. S. (2009) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 08 67 F. SCOTT YEAGER, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT [June
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Electronically Filed 05/20/2013 12:08:02 PM ET RECEIVED, 5/20/2013 12:08:39, Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC13-782 L.T. Case Nos. 4DII-3838; 502008CA034262XXXXMB
More informationDouble Jeopardy in Juvenile Justice, State v. R.E.F., 251 So. 2d 672 (Fla. App. 1971)
Washington University Law Review Volume 1971 Issue 4 January 1971 Double Jeopardy in Juvenile Justice, State v. R.E.F., 251 So. 2d 672 (Fla. App. 1971) Follow this and additional works at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO NOTICE OF APPEAL OF APPELLANT ANDREW BEVINS JR.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO EX RF'L. ANDREti^ BEVINS JR. VS Appellant JUDOE ETHNA M. COOPER COJ'Zt T OF COMNION PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202 AppaLl_ee CASE NO. TRIAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC ALVIN LEWIS, Petitioner. vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents. PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1605 ALVIN LEWIS, Petitioner vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents. PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Seeking Discretionary Review from the District Court of
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 537 U. S. (2003) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. vs. L.T. NO.: 3D ON NOTICE TO INVOKE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION FROM THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CATHERINE RIGGINS, Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC06-205 vs. L.T. NO.: 3D04-2620 AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK, Respondent. / ON NOTICE TO INVOKE DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION FROM
More informationNo SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston, and Antuwan Ball Petitioner- Appellants,
No. 13-10026 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston, and Antuwan Ball Petitioner- Appellants, v. United States, Respondent- Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. V CASE No. SCl ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH DISTRICT
Filing # 18934264 Electronically Filed 10/02/2014 02:09:43 PM RECEIVED, 10/2/2014 14:14:26, John A. Tornasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TIMOTHY HARRIS. Petitioner, V CASE No.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 9, 2012 v No. 301336 Wayne Circuit Court SHAVONTAE LADON WILLIAMS, LC No. 09-030893-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ORANGE, vs. Petitioner, CASE NO.: SC04-2045 Lower Tribunal No.: 5D03-4065 RALEIGH WILSON, SR. EVELYN WILSON and RALEIGH WILSON, JR., Respondents.
More informationVII. Criminal Law & Procedure
Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 41 Issue 2 Article 12 3-1-1984 VII. Criminal Law & Procedure Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Criminal Law
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, Case No. SC ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DALIA FIGUEROA, v. Petitioner, Case No. SC07-1212 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA JURISDICTIONAL
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED VIRON PAUL, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D15-866
More informationTHE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE,
[Cite as State v. Brewer, 121 Ohio St.3d 202, 2009-Ohio-593.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BREWER, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Brewer, 121 Ohio St.3d 202, 2009-Ohio-593.] When evidence admitted at
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 538 U. S. (2003) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationCircuit Court for Howard County Case No. 13-K UNREPORTED
Circuit Court for Howard County Case No. 13-K-17-057888 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0131 September Term, 2018 DANIEL RAJ YESUDIAN, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND Wright, Leahy,
More information1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: April 5, No. A-1-CA STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: April 5, 2018 4 No. A-1-CA-36304 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v. 8 STEVEN VANDERDUSSEN, 9 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC TH DCA CASE NO. 4D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE NO. SC-11-1477 4 TH DCA CASE NO. 4D08-4729 BRIAN HOOKS, ) Petitioner, ) vs. ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) Respondent. ) ) PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
More informationPursuant to G.S. 15A-1237(a) and (b), a verdict must be:
34.7 Verdicts A verdict is the unanimous decision made by the jury and reported to the court. State v. Hemphill, 273 N.C. 388, 389 (1968). A verdict in a criminal action should be clear and free from ambiguity
More informationPeople v. Lincoln Staple, 2016 IL App (4th) (December 20,2016)
People v. Lincoln Staple, 2016 IL App (4th) 160061 (December 20,2016) DOUBLE JEOPARDY On double-jeopardy grounds, the trial court dismissed a felony aggravated DUI charge after defendant pleaded guilty
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. Petitioner, DCA Case No.: 5D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA LORENZO WILLIAMS, Petitioner, DCA Case No.: 5D04-1704 v. S. Ct. Case No. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA INITIAL BRIEF ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ROBERT J. REARDON, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Supreme Court Case No. SC00-1395 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) 5 th DCA Case No. 5D97-2926 ) Respondent. ) ) INITIAL BRIEF ON BEHALF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC04-0485 5D03-120 STEVEN EUGENE ISELEY, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL PETITIONER
More informationState v. Cunningham and Montana's Rule on Double Jeopardy
Montana Law Review Volume 37 Issue 1 Winter 1976 Article 15 1-1-1976 State v. Cunningham and Montana's Rule on Double Jeopardy Diane Rotering Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/mlr
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. ERIC S. SMITH, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC07-901 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. ERIC S. SMITH, Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner.
JOHN SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA s. 7 0 TODD HOWARD, Appellee, By V. Case No.: 4D14-2439 L.T. No.: 89-4684CF10A STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner. I PETITIONER'S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF On Review From The District
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA AMERICA ONLINE, INC., : : Petitioner : : v. : Case No. : ROBERT PASIEKA, on behalf : L.T. Case No: 1D03-2290 of himself and all others : similarly situated,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RONALD COTE Petitioner vs. Case No.SC00-1327 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent / DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT BRIEF
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Goodman, 2002-Ohio-818.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 3220-M Appellee v. RAYMOND L. GOODMAN Appellant
More informationSeptember Term, 2004
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2008 September Term, 2004 CARL EUGENE WARNE V. STATE OF MARYLAND Salmon, Adkins, Barbera, JJ. Opinion by Salmon, J. Filed: December 5, 2005 On July
More informationv. DCA CASE NO: 2D L.T. CASE NO: CRC CFANO-D SThT OF FLORIDA, ppellee.
WALTER E. WILLIAMS, Appellant, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE SECOND DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA v. DCA CASE NO: 2D17-3550 L.T. CASE NO: CRC-92-02284-CFANO-D SThT OF FLORIDA, ppellee. O APPELLANT'S
More informationPITFALLS IN CRIMINAL JUDGMENTS: MULTIPLE CONVICTIONS Special Superior Court Judge Shannon R. Joseph (prepared for June 2011 conference)
PITFALLS IN CRIMINAL JUDGMENTS: MULTIPLE CONVICTIONS Special Superior Court Judge Shannon R. Joseph (prepared for June 2011 conference) I. OVERVIEW A. Although it may be proper to submit for jury consideration
More informationFifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment Rights
You do not need your computers today. Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment Rights How have the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments' rights of the accused been incorporated as a right of all American citizens?
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
Filing # 40977391 E-Filed 05/02/2016 04:33:09 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA LARRY DARNELL PERRY, Petitioner, v. Case No. SC16-547 RECEIVED, 05/02/2016 04:33:47 PM, Clerk, Supreme Court STATE OF FLORIDA,
More informationFAMILY COURT OF NEW YORK NASSAU COUNTY
FAMILY COURT OF NEW YORK NASSAU COUNTY In re S.S. 1 (decided May 25, 2007) S.S., a juvenile, was charged with acts, which, if he were an adult, would constitute criminal mischief and attempted criminal
More informationNo. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. John L. Miller, Judge. July 9, 2018
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-555 TREVOR AMOS BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. John L. Miller, Judge. July
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA BRENT HUCK, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC04-2046 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF OF RESPONDENT
More informationTENTH CIRCUIT. Petitioner - Appellee, No v. (D. Kansas) ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before HARTZ, HOLLOWAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
EDWIN TOMLIN, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 13, 2008 TENTH CIRCUIT Petitioner - Appellee, No. 07-3286 v. (D. Kansas) Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk
More informationv. DCA CASE N,O: 2Q STATE OF FLORIDA Respondent PETITIONER'S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SCOTTIE SMART, JR. Petitioner CASE NO: v. DCA CASE N,O: 2Q12-55037 STATE OF FLORIDA Respondent.>+t PETITIONER'S JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF ON REVIEW FROM THE 2" DISTRICT COURT
More informationS15A1717. OTIS v. THE STATE. Appellant Geary Otis was charged in a seven-count indictment with
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: February 8, 2016 S15A1717. OTIS v. THE STATE. BENHAM, Justice. Appellant Geary Otis was charged in a seven-count indictment with malice murder and other offenses
More informationNo. 29, 433. THE STATE OF TEXAS, ) IN THE 13th DISTRICT ) COURT Plaintiff, ) ) NAVARRO COUNTY, TEXAS v. ) ) GWENDOLYN XXX, ) ) Defendant.
No. 29, 433 THE STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE 13th DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, NAVARRO COUNTY, TEXAS v. GWENDOLYN XXX, Defendant. DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS1 Defendant, Gwendolyn XXX, hereby moves
More informationCriminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2010
Digest No. 1819 Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill 2010 Date of Introduction: 15 November 2010 Portfolio: Select Committee: Published: 18 November 2010 by John McSoriley BA LL.B, Barrister,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 3D FRANTZY JEAN-MARIE, Petitioner, -vs- THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC07-531 DCA CASE NO. 3D04-2570 FRANTZY JEAN-MARIE, Petitioner, -vs- THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
More informationFifth Amendment--Double Jeopardy
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 68 Issue 4 December Article 8 Winter 1977 Fifth Amendment--Double Jeopardy Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JORGE LUIS DOMINGUEZ, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. JORGE LUIS DOMINGUEZ, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD DISTRICT BRIEF
More informationNo. 06SC188, Medina v. People Sentencing for Crime Different than Jury Conviction Violates Due Process and Sixth Amendment
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcaseannctsindex.htm and are posted on the
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY
[Cite as State v. Johnson, 2017-Ohio-7257.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Case No. 16CA3579 Plaintiff-Appellee, : v. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 529 U. S. (2000) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC93037 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. ROBERT HARBAUGH, Respondent. [March 9, 2000] PER CURIAM. We have for review a district court s decision on the following question,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA KENNETH ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. SC07-1428 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
More informationFifth Amendment--Twice Jeopardizing the Rights of the Accused: The Supreme Court's TIBBS and KENNEDY Decisions
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 73 Issue 4 Winter Article 7 Winter 1982 Fifth Amendment--Twice Jeopardizing the Rights of the Accused: The Supreme Court's TIBBS and KENNEDY Decisions Deborah
More informationCASE NO. SC10- L.T. No. 3D GLK, L.P., a Washington limited partnership, and EMANUEL ORGANEK,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10- L.T. No. 3D09-591 GLK, L.P., a Washington limited partnership, and EMANUEL ORGANEK, vs. Petitioners, FOUR SEASONS HOTELS LIMITED, a Canadian corporation,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Lower Tribunal No. 3D JAMAR ANTWAN HILL, STATE OF FLORIDA, BRIEF OF PETITIONER ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-929 Lower Tribunal No. 3D06-468 JAMAR ANTWAN HILL, Petitioner, -vs- STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. BRIEF OF PETITIONER ON JURISDICTION ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 3D EDUARDO GIRALT, Petitioner, -vs- STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC04-950 DCA CASE NO. 3D03-857 EDUARDO GIRALT, Petitioner, -vs- STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC CLEMENTE JAVIER AGUIRRE-JARQUIN., Petitioner, v.
Filing # 20123458 Electronically Filed 11/03/2014 02:21:01 PM RECEIVED, 11/3/2014 14:23:39, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC 14-1332 CLEMENTE JAVIER AGUIRRE-JARQUIN.,
More information