CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. CITY OF COLUMBUS Case No Plaintiff-Appellee,
|
|
- Carmel Washington
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CITY OF COLUMBUS Case No vs. Plaintiff-Appellee, STEPHEN E. ALESHIRE, Defendant-Appellant. On Appeal from the Franklin County Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate District Court of Appeals Case No. 09AP-104 APPELLEE'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION OF JURISDICTION CITY OF COLUMBUS, DEPARTMENT OF LAW RICHARD C. PFEIFFER, JR. ( ), CITY ATTORNEY LARA N. BAKER ( ), CITY PROSECUTOR MELANIE R. TOBIAS ( ), COUNSEL OF RECORD DIRECTOR, APPELLATE UNIT ORLY AHRONI ( ), ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR 375 South High Street, 17"' Floor Columbus, Ohio Telephone: (614) Fax: (614) COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, CITY OF COLUMBUS JON J. SAIA ( ), COUNSEL OF RECORD 713 South Front Street Columbus, Ohio Telephone: (614) COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT, STEPHEN E. ALESHIRE CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE STATEMENT OF WHY THIS CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND IS NOT OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS... 3 Reply to Appellant's Sole Proposition of Law... 6 CONCLUSION... 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE... 10
3 STATEMENT OF WHY THIS CASE DOES NOT INVOLVE A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND IS NOT OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST The sole issue presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion by not including the words "at the time of operation" in the jury instructions for the offense of operating a vehicle with a prohibited breath alcohol concentration under the Columbus City Code. This Court will not resolve any unique or unsettled area of the law by considering this issue. A trial court is not required to give a defendant's requested jury instructions verbatim, as long as the instructions given contain a correct statement of the law and are appropriate to the facts of the case. State v. Lessin (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 487, 493, 1993 Ohio 52, 620 N.E.2d 72. A determination as to which jury instructions are proper is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Guster (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 266, 271, 421 N.E.2d 157. A reviewing court will not reverse a conviction in a criminal case due to jury instructions unless it is found that the jury instructions amounted to prejudicial error. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212, paragraph two of the syllabus. Columbus City Code ("C.C.C.") (A)(1)(d), which is substantially similar to its statutory counterpart, provides: "No person shall operate any vehicle * * * within this City, if, at the time of the operation, * * * the person has a concentration of eight-hundredths (0.08) of one (1) gram or more but less than seventeen-hundredths (0.17) of one (1) gram by weight of alcohol per two hundred ten (210) liters of the person's breath." 1
4 There is a consensus among Ohio courts that the language "at the time of operation" is not required to be included in a trial court's jury instructions for operating a vehicle under the influence ("OVI impaired") and operating a vehicle with a prohibited breath alcohol concentration ("OVI per se"). State v. Fisher, Ist Dist. No. C , 2009-Ohio-2258, at 31-33; State v. Adams, 3a Dist. No , 2007-Ohio-4932, at 25-30; Columbus v. Aleshire, 10`h Dist. No. 09AP-104, 2010 Ohio 2773, at No courts have held otherwise. In upholding OVI convictions where the language "at the time of operation" was not included in the jury instructions, Ohio courts have found that the trial courts properly instructed the jury on all the statutory elements of OVI, the law was clearly and fairly expressed, and the exact language requested by the defense was not required to be given. Id. As such, no prejudicial error occurred by any omission. Additionally, the Ohio Jury Instruction for an OVI per se offense does not include the language "at the time of operation." See 3-CR 711 OJI (A)(1)(b)-(j). Furthermore, C.C.C (D)(1), which is substantially similar to R.C (D)(1)(b), states in relevant part: "In any criminal prosecution * * * for a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section, the court may admit evidence on the concentration of alcohol * * * in the defendant's * * * breath * * * at the time of the alleged violation as shown by chemical analysis of the substance withdrawn within three (3) hours of the time of the alleged violation." (Emphasis added:) The "may admit evidence" language in C.C.C (D)(1) refers to a trial court admitting evidence on the concentration of alcohol in a person's bodily substance subject to the state's compliance with Ohio's implied consent law or a blood or urine sample being obtained pursuant to a search warrant. See R.C (D)(1)(b). 2
5 It is unambiguous from the language in C.C.C (D)(1) that a breath sample acquired within three hours of the time of the alleged violation constitutes the defendant's breath alcohol concentration at the time of operation. Aleshire at Accordingly, the state is not required to present an expert witness in OVI per se cases to relate a chemical test back to the time of operation. Appellant's assertion that the state is required to do so is clearly contrary to the legislative intent under C.C.C (D)(1) and its statutory counterpart. Because no abuse of discretion occurred in this case as Appellant was not prejudiced, and no split of authority exists on this issue, this Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS On July 19, 2008, at approximately 1:40 a.m., Appellant was observed operating his motorcycle near Sloopy's bar by two "special duty" Columbus police officers, Sergeant Brian Kaylor and Officer Eric Houser. The officers, who were providing security for the bar and its parking lots, had just been advised by bar employees about a patron in the parking lot who had too much to drink. The bar employees tried to stop the patron from driving, and the patron was attempting to leave on his motorcycle. Upon witnessing Appellant travel the wrong direction on a posted one-way street and also nearly lose control of his motorcycle twice, Sergeant Kaylor ordered Appellant to stop. The officers spoke with Appellant and noticed a very strong odor of an alcoholic beverage about his person as well as slow, slurred speech. They also observed Appellant fumble with his wallet upon attempting to locate his driver's license. Appellant admitted to having a couple of drinks that night. Believing that Appellant was under the influence, the officers radioed for another officer to conduct field sobriety tests to determine 3
6 whether or not Appellant should be arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol ("OVI impaired"). Officer Christopher Hogan arrived and spoke to Appellant who appeared to be very intoxicated. Officer Hogan detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on Appellant's person and noticed that Appellant had difficulty standing upright. Officer Hogan administered standardized field sobriety tests which consisted of the one-leg stand, the walk-and-turn, and the horizontal gaze nystagmus tests. Appellant failed all three tests. Appellant was arrested and placed in the rear of the police wagon. While seated in the police wagon, Appellant vomited down the front of his shirt and on the floor of the wagon. Appellant was then transported to Columbus police headquarters where Officer Hogan administered a breathalyzer test using the BAC DataMaster breath testing machine. Appellant's breath test result was.138 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. As a result, Appellant was charged with both OVI impaired and OVI per se. Appellant filed a motion to suppress. After holding a hearing on the matter, the trial court granted Appellant's motion to suppress with respect to the results of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test but denied all other aspects of the motion. The matter proceeded to jury trial. At the conclusion of the evidence, Appellant offered his own proposed jury instruction on the charge of operating a vehicle with a prohibited breath alcohol concentration: The Defendant is charged with operating a vehicle with a prohibited concentration of alcohol in his system. Before you can find the Defendant guilty, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 19th day of July, 2008, and in Columbus, Ohio, the Defendant, at the time of operation, had a concentration of eight hundredths of one gram or more but less than seventeen 4
7 hundredths of one gram by weight of alcohol per two hundred-ten liters of the Defendant's breath. The trial court declined to give Appellant's proposed jury instruction and instructed the jury on all of the essential elements of operating a vehicle with a prohibited breath alcohol concentration: The Government has accused Mr. Aleshire of operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited breath alcohol concentration of percent of one gram by weight of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. A person commits the offense of operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited concentration of alcohol in his breath when he has a concentration of eight-hundredths of 1 percent or more by weight of alcohol per 2101iters of his breath. Before you can find Mr. Aleshire guilty of the offense of operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited breath alcohol concentration, the Government's evidence must convince you, beyond a reasonable doubt, of each of the elements of the offense. The elements are as follows: That the offense took place in Franklin County, Ohio; that Mr. Aleshire was operating a motor vehicle; and that Mr. Aleshire had a concentration of eight-hundredths of 1 percent or more by weight of alcohol per 210 liters of his breath. The trial court defined the term "operate" and supplied additional jury instructions. The jury subsequently returned guilty verdicts on both offenses and the trial court also found Appellant guilty of traveling the wrong way on a one-way street. On appeal, Appellant raised five assignments of error which included the argument at issue. The Tenth District Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to give Appellant's proposed jury instruction. The matter was remanded for resentencing because the trial court sentenced Appellant on both OVI offenses as opposed to merging both offenses for purposes of sentencing and having the prosecution elect on one of the two OVI offenses upon which to sentence Appellant. 5
8 Reply to Appellant's Sole Proposition of Law The jury was properly instructed on all the elements of operating a vehicle with a prohibited breath alcohol concentration, and consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not providing the jury with Appellant's proposed jury instruction. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to include the language "at the time of operation" in its jury instructions for an OVI per se offense. The trial court instructed the jury on all the essential elements of the charge, and thus gave the jury a correct statement of the law. A trial court has the responsibility to give all jury instructions that are relevant and necessary in order for the jury to weigh the evidence and perform its duty as the factfinder. State v. Comen (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 206, 553 N.E.2d 640, paragraph two of the syllabus. An instruction is proper when it adequately informs the jury of the law. State v. Conway, 10th Dist. No. 03AP-585, 2004 Ohio 1222, 24; Linden v. Bates Truck Lines, Inc. (1982), 4 Ohio App.3d 178, 181, 446 N.E.2d However, the trial court is not required to give requested instructions verbatim, as long as the instructions given contain a correct statement of the law and are appropriate to the facts of the case. State v. Lessin (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 487, 493, 1993 Ohio 52, 620 N.E.2d 72. When reviewing a trial court's jury instruction, the proper standard of review is whether the trial court's refusal to give a requested instruction was an abuse of discretion under the facts and circumstances of the case. State v. Gover, 10," Dist. No. 05AP-1034, 2006 Ohio 4338, 22, citing State v. Wolons (1989), 44 Ohio St.3d 64, 68, 541 N.E.2d 443. A reviewing court will not reverse a conviction in a criminal case due to jury instructions, unless it finds that the jury instructions amount to prejudicial error. State v. DeHass (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212, paragraph two of the syllabus.
9 When reviewing a specific challenged instruction on appeal, the instruction should not be judged in isolation, but instead, within the context of the overall charge. State v. Price (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 136, 398 N.E.2d 772, paragraph four of the syllabus. Ohio courts have held that the law has been clearly and fairly expressed and a defendant has not been prejudiced when the language "at the time of operation" is not included in the jury instructions for an OVI impaired or OVI per se offense. Fisher at 31-33; Adams at 25-30; Aleshire at No court has held otherwise. In Fisher, the defendant was convicted of driving a vehicle with a prohibited breath alcohol content. The defendant argued that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury because it failed to inform the jury that the defendant had to have a prohibited breath-alcohol content "at the time of operation." The First District Court of Appeals rejected this argument and held that the trial court properly instructed the jury on all the statutory elements of driving with a prohibited breath-alcohol content under R.C (A)(1)(d). The trial court had instructed the jury that in order to find the defendant guilty, it had to find that he had operated the vehicle on the day in question with a prohibited breath-alcohol content. Because the defendant was not prejudiced by any omission, the court affirmed the defendant's conviction. Id. at 33. The Third District Court of Appeals reached a similar result in Adams. In Adams, the trial court denied the defendant's proposed jury instruction on an OVI impaired offense which read as follows: "[O]n or about October 11, 2005 in Crawford County, Ohio the defendant did operate a vehicle and while-and at the time of operation was under the influence of alcohol." Id. at 28. Instead, the trial court instructed the jury that before the defendant could be found guilty, the State must prove beyond a reasonable 7
10 doubt that on or about October 11, 2005 in Crawford County, Ohio, the defendant did operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or alcohol and a drug of abuse. Id. The trial court did not include the "at the time of operation" language. In affirming the defendant's conviction, the Third District Court of Appeals held that the jury instruction given by the trial court, along with the other jury instructions, clearly and fairly expressed the law. The trial court gave the jury an instruction on all of the elements of the offense. Additionally, although the jury instruction given by the trial court differed from the instruction requested by the defense, the trial court was not required to give the jury instruction in the exact language requested by the defense. Id. at As in Fisher and Adams, the trial court in this case properly instructed the jury on all of the elements of the offense of operating a vehicle with a prohibited breath alcohol concentration as provided in C.C.C (A)(1)(d). The trial court was not required to give Appellant's requested jury instructions verbatim. See Lessin at 493. Also, no Ohio courts have held that a defendant is prejudiced if the trial court omits the language "at the time of operation" from its jury instructions on an OVI offense. Furthermore, the Ohio Jury Instruction for an OVI per se offense does not include the language "at the time of operation." See 3-CR 711 OJI (A)(1)(b)-(j). Contrary to Appellant's argument, the prosecution is not required to have an expert witness testify in OVI per se cases as to what a person's blood alcohol level is at the time of operation. The legislative mandate in C.C.C (D)(1) and its statutory counterpart, R.C (D)(1)(b) clearly and unambiguously states that a breath sample acquired within three hours of the time of the alleged violation constitutes the defendant's breath alcohol concentration at the time of operation. Because no abuse 8
11 of discretion occurred as the trial court adequately informed the jury of the law, this Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction. CONCLUSION Appellant does not present unique issues of public or great general interest and does not raise a substantial constitutional question. The law is well-settled on this matter, and there is no split in authority. Accordingly, this Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction. Respectfully submitted, CITY OF COLUMBUS DEPARTMENT OF LAW RICHARD C. PFEIFFER, JR. ( ) CITY ATTORNEY LARA N. BAKER ( ) CITY PROSECUTOR MELANIE R. TOBIAS ( ) DIRECTOR - APPELLATE UNIT 04 N ORL/' AHRONI ( ) ASSI TANT CITY PROSECUTOR 375 South High Street, 17`h Floor Columbus, Ohio Telephone: (614) COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE
12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true copy of the foregoing Memorandum in Opposition of Jurisdiction was mailed by regular U.S. Mail to Jon J. Saia, Counsel for Defendant- Appellant, 713 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43206, this 26th day of August, Orly Poni ( ) Assis ant City Prosecutor 10
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY CASE NO
[Cite as In re Minnick, 2009-Ohio-5274.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY IN THE MATTER OF: JACOB MINNICK, ALLEGED JUVENILE TRAFFIC OFFENDER - APPELLANT. CASE NO.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Appellee, : No. 08AP-519 (M.C. No TRC ) v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Freeman, :
[Cite as Columbus v. Freeman, 181 Ohio App.3d 320, 2009-Ohio-1046.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT City of Columbus, : Appellee, : No. 08AP-519 (M.C. No. 2007 TRC 175312) v. :
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY. v. O P I N I O N. CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court.
[Cite as State v. Loveridge, 2007-Ohio-4493.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NUMBER 9-06-46 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. O P I N I O N DENNIS M. LOVERIDGE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY APPEARANCES: C. Michael Moore, Jackson, Ohio, for appellant.
[Cite as State v. Fizer, 2002-Ohio-6807.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee, : : v. : Case No. 02CA4 : MARSHA D. FIZER, : DECISION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Miller, 2012-Ohio-5585.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N Plaintiff-Appellant, : - vs - : CASE NO. 2012-P-0032 JUSTIN
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Cleveland v. Harding, 2013-Ohio-2691.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98916 CITY OF CLEVELAND vs. LEON W. HARDING PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
More informationBRIEF OF THE APPELLANT
E-Filed Document May 5 2014 14:44:19 2013-KA-02048-COA Pages: 14 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CLARENCE DWAYNE JEFFERSON APPELLANT V. NO. 2013-KA-02048-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO CA 110. v. : T.C. NO. 04 TRC 03481
[Cite as State v. Garrett, 2005-Ohio-4832.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 2004 CA 110 v. : T.C. NO. 04 TRC 03481 BRYAN C. GARRETT :
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 29,303
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NO.,0 KEVIN JORDAN, Defendant-Appellant. 1 1 1 1 1 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Neil
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: May 11, 2009 Docket No. 27,938 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, LAMONT PICKETT, JR., Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL
More informationCriminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court. Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded
[Cite as State v. Cronin, 2011-Ohio-1479.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JOHN CRONIN, Defendant-Appellee. APPEAL
More informationIn the Court of Appeals of Georgia
FOURTH DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., MCFADDEN and BOGGS, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Robert S. Bickis, Jr., : (REGULAR CALENDAR) D E C I S I O N. Rendered on July 8, 2010
[Cite as Columbus v. Bickis, 2010-Ohio-3208.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT City of Columbus, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 09AP-898 v. : (M.C. No. 08 TRC 150664) Robert S. Bickis,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Wagner, 2011-Ohio-772.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N Plaintiff-Appellee, : - vs - : CASE NO. 2010-P-0014 MARK
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Anderson, 153 Ohio App.3d 374, 2003-Ohio-3970.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. DAVID G. ANDERSON, APPELLANT.
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 26, 2002
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 26, 2002 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JEFF L. COURTNEY, III Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamblen County No.
More information2018 IL App (3d) Opinion filed October 17, 2018 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT
2018 IL App (3d) 160124 Opinion filed October 17, 2018 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT 2018 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ILLINOIS, ) of the 12th Judicial
More informationPROSECUTING ATTORNEY Post Office Box 40 BRIAN T. WALTZ West Jefferson, Ohio ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 20 South Second Street Newark, Ohio 43055
[Cite as State v. Molla, 2008-Ohio-5331.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- ACHENAFI T. MOLLA Defendant-Appellant JUDGES: Hon. John W.
More informationO P I N I O N ... sentence, following a no-contest plea, for Operating a Motor Vehicle Under the
[Cite as State v. Kissinger, 2010-Ohio-2840.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case No. 23636 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial Court Case
More information[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Codeluppi, Slip Opinion No Ohio-1574.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Codeluppi, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1574.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision
More informationSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND & PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS. Dennis Lonardo : : v. : A.A. No : State of Rhode Island : (RITT Appellate Panel) :
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND & PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, Sc. DISTRICT COURT SIXTH DIVISION Dennis Lonardo : : v. : A.A. No. 12-47 : State of Rhode Island : (RITT Appellate Panel) : A M E N D E D O R
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY : : : : : : : : : :... O P I N I O N
[Cite as State v. Brown, 2016-Ohio-1258.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOREN BROWN Defendant-Appellee Appellate Case
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Cleveland v. Hopkins, 2012-Ohio-5170.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION Nos. 97600 and 97601 CITY OF CLEVELAND PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed December 30, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills County, James S.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 9-799 / 09-0061 Filed December 30, 2009 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JEFFREY CHADWICK DEAN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mills
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00498-CR Benjamin ELIAS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 12, Bexar County, Texas Trial
More informationCommonwealth v. Glick -- No Knisely, J. March 5, 2014 Criminal Evidence Suppression DUI Non-investigable offenses.
Commonwealth v. Glick -- No. 3218-2013 Knisely, J. March 5, 2014 Criminal Evidence Suppression DUI Non-investigable offenses. Defendant s suppression motion denied where officer saw vehicle abruptly change
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Brunty, 2014-Ohio-4307.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N Plaintiff-Appellant, : - vs - : CASE NO. 2014-A-0007
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-15-673 MATTHEW AARON BURR APPELLANT V. Opinion Delivered March 30, 2016 APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR-2014-1499-1] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
More informationCOURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff : CASE NO CR 00224
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff : CASE NO. 2012 CR 00224 vs. : Judge McBride BRYAN STEPHEN RITTER : DECISION/ENTRY Defendant : Lara A. Molnar, assistant prosecuting
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Clapper, 2012-Ohio-1382.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) STATE OF OHIO Appellee C.A. No. 11CA0031-M v. CHERIE M. CLAPPER Appellant
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. WD Trial Court No. 2006CR0047
[Cite as State v. O'Neill, 2011-Ohio-5688.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY State of Ohio Appellee Court of Appeals No. WD-10-029 Trial Court No. 2006CR0047 v. David
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF HOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 19, 2006 V No. 261228 Livingston Circuit Court JASON PAUL AMELL, LC No. 04-020876-AZ Defendant-Appellee.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO. MELISSA A. MURRAY : T.C. Case No. 01-TRC-6435
[Cite as State v. Murray, 2002-Ohio-4809.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : vs. : C.A. Case No. 2002-CA-10 MELISSA A. MURRAY : T.C. Case No. 01-TRC-6435
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: BARBARA J. SIMMONS Oldenburg, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana MICHAEL GENE WORDEN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis,
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs January 5, 2016
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs January 5, 2016 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LESLIE KENNEDY Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 14-02446 W. Mark Ward,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Shockey, 2014-Ohio-5004.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 9-14-06 v. DOUGLAS SHOCKEY, O P I N I O N
More informationJoseph R. Burkard and Matthew A. Miller for Appellee
[Cite as State v. Shaffer, 2013-Ohio-3581.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT PAULDING COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 11-13-02 v. KIMBERLY JO SHAFFER, O P I N
More informationO P I N I O N. Rendered on the 23 rd day of July,
[Cite as State v. Brewer, 2010-Ohio-3441.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case No. 23442 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial Court Case
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO JUDGES William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Sheila G. Farmer, J. Julie A. Edwards, J. -vs- Case No. 2007 CA 0087 JAMES
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. No. 34,126
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2010 KA 1446 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS YILVER MORADEL PONCE Judgment Rendered March 25 2011 Appealed from the Twenty
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Rice, 2009-Ohio-1080.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. REGINALD RICE, Defendant-Appellant. : : :
More informationState of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: March 29, 2012 103699 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROBERT CAROTA
More informationCASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division IV Opinion by: JUDGE TERRY Casebolt and Webb, JJ., concur. Announced: May 1, 2008
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 05CA1051 Douglas County District Court No. 03CR691 Honorable Thomas J. Curry, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Brett
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLIAM MCSORLEY, JR., Appellee No. 272 MDA 2014 Appeal from
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 04-1539 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DEVRIN P. DOUCETTE ********** APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 17149-01 HONORABLE
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : CR-1890-2015 v. : : GARY STANLEY HELMINIAK, : PRETRIAL MOTION Defendant : OPINION AND ORDER
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Mar 31 2015 23:29:39 2014-KA-01267-COA Pages: 13 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI LOREN WENDELL ROSS APPELLANT VS. NO. 2014-KA-01267-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
More informationFOR PUBLICATION April 24, :05 a.m. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v No Jackson Circuit Court. Defendant-Appellee.
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION April 24, 2018 9:05 a.m. v No. 337003 Jackson Circuit Court GREGORY SCOTT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Bettis, 2007-Ohio-1724.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALLEN BETTIS, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Whitsett, 2014-Ohio-4933.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101182 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ERNEST M. WHITSETT
More informationTHE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Janick, 2008-Ohio-2133.] THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N Plaintiff-Appellee, : - vs - : CASE NO. 2007-A-0070 ANDREW
More informationBLOOD TESTS SINCE MCNEELY by Walter I. Butch Jenkins III Thigpen and Jenkins, LLP. Biscoe, NC INTRODUCTION
BLOOD TESTS SINCE MCNEELY by Walter I. Butch Jenkins III Thigpen and Jenkins, LLP. Biscoe, NC INTRODUCTION Defending a driving while impaired case is a daunting task in itself. When the State has a blood
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Schneider, 2012-Ohio-1740.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96953 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. EDWARD SCHNEIDER
More informationIN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED September 12, CR DISTRICT II STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, JOANNE SEKULA,
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED September 12, 2001 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Milligan, 2012-Ohio-5736.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98140 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. VICTOR D. MILLIGAN
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO CR 3357
[Cite as State v. Jolly, 2008-Ohio-6547.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 22811 v. : T.C. NO. 2007 CR 3357 DERION JOLLY : (Criminal
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Jackson, 2011-Ohio-6069.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92531 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. MICHAEL JACKSON
More informationCitation: R. v. Smith, 2003 YKTC 52 Date: Docket: T.C Registry: Whitehorse Trial Heard: Carcross
Citation: R. v. Smith, 2003 YKTC 52 Date: 20030725 Docket: T.C. 02-00513 Registry: Whitehorse Trial Heard: Carcross IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF YUKON Before: His Honour Chief Judge Lilles Regina v. Tommy
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Appellee, : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO. 06 CR 5114/2
[Cite as State v. Fritz, 182 Ohio App.3d 299, 2009-Ohio-2175.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO The STATE OF OHIO, : Appellee, : C.A. CASE NO. 23048 v. : T.C. NO. 06 CR 5114/2 FRITZ,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 15, 2016 v No. 328255 Washtenaw Circuit Court WILLIAM JOSEPH CLOUTIER, LC No. 14-000874-FH
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY. : O P I N I O N - vs - 11/22/2010 :
[Cite as State v. Palmieri, 2010-Ohio-5667.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2009-12-294 : O P I N I O N - vs
More informationSTATE V. NOTAH-HUNTER, 2005-NMCA-074, 137 N.M. 597, 113 P.3d 867 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLARA NOTAH-HUNTER, Defendant-Appellant.
1 STATE V. NOTAH-HUNTER, 2005-NMCA-074, 137 N.M. 597, 113 P.3d 867 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLARA NOTAH-HUNTER, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 23,877 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ATHENS COUNTY APPEARANCES:
[Cite as State v. Guseman, 2009-Ohio-952.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ATHENS COUNTY State of Ohio, : : Plaintiff-Appellee, : : Case No. 08CA15 v. : : DECISION AND Eric Guseman,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CITY OF BLOOMFIELD HILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED May 11, 2010 v No. 289800 Oakland Circuit Court RANDOLPH VINCENT FAWKES, LC No. 2007-008662-AR Defendant-Appellee.
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Wyland, 2011-Ohio-455.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94463 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. WILLIAM WYLAND DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges McClanahan, Petty and Beales Argued at Salem, Virginia TERRY JOE LYLE MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0121-07-3 JUDGE WILLIAM G. PETTY APRIL 29, 2008
More informationv No Oakland Circuit Court I. BASIC FACTS
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 24, 2017 v No. 337933 Oakland Circuit Court NICHOLAS LOUIS STAPELS, LC
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued October 1, 2013. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-11-00975-CR STEVE OLIVARES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as Twinsburg v. Lacerva, 2008-Ohio-550.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) CITY OF TWINSBURG Appellee v. DIANNE S. LACERVA Appellant C. A. No.
More informationSTATE OF OHIO JEFFERY FRIEDLANDER
[Cite as State v. Friedlander, 2008-Ohio-2812.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90084 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JEFFERY FRIEDLANDER
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 15AP-636 v. : (C.P.C. No. 13CR-2045)
[Cite as State v. Ferguson, 2016-Ohio-363.] State of Ohio, : IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 15AP-636 v. : (C.P.C. No. 13CR-2045) Elizabeth J. Ferguson,
More informationDriving Under the Influence; House Sub. for SB 374
Driving Under the Influence; House Sub. for SB 374 House Sub. for SB 374 amends law concerning driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both (DUI). Specifically, the bill amends statutes governing
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 22, 2010 v No. 291273 St. Clair Circuit Court MICHAEL ARTHUR JOYE, LC No. 08-001637-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSTATE OF OHIO THOMAS JENKINS
[Cite as State v. Jenkins, 2009-Ohio-235.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91100 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. THOMAS JENKINS
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond, on Thursday, the 9th day of June, 2011.
VIRGINIA: In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond, on Thursday, the 9th day of June, 2011. Ellen Marie Rix, Appellant, against Record No. 101737 Court
More informationNo. 107,661 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. SHANE A. BIXENMAN, Appellee, KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant.
No. 107,661 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS SHANE A. BIXENMAN, Appellee, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Because K.S.A. 8-1567a is a civil offense with
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Justus, 2009-Ohio-137.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90837 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. MICAH JUSTUS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationCHAPTER 73: MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMES
CHAPTER 73: MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMES Section General Provisions (b) The person has a concentration of 0.08% or more but less than 0.17% by weight per unit 73.01 Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed June 13, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Audubon County, J.C. Irvin, Judge.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 2-367 / 11-1359 Filed June 13, 2012 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CONNIE JAE EMGARTEN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Audubon
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Williams, 2010-Ohio-893.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JULIUS WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL
More information2018 VT 100. No On Appeal from v. Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Criminal Division. Walker P. Edelman June Term, 2018
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Parma v. Benedict, 2015-Ohio-3340.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101480 CITY OF PARMA PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. KEVIN E. BENEDICT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KM-1129-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Jun 16 2014 10:52:26 2013-KM-01129-COA Pages: 10 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI D'ANDRE TERRELL APPELLANT VS. NO. 2013-KM-1129-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
More informationMAY MARCIA J MEII4GEL, CLERK SUPREME COUR'f OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Appellee, KEVIN JOHNSON
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO CASE NO. 2006-2154 -vs- Appellee, On Appeal from the Court of Appeals Twelfth Appellate District uutier county, unio KEVIN JOHNSON Appellant. COURT OF APPEALS
More information2017 VT 40. No On Appeal from v. Superior Court, Essex Unit, Criminal Division. Renee P. Giguere February Term, 2017
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellant, : CASE NOS P vs - : and 2012-P-0078
[Cite as State v. Hatcher, 2013-Ohio-445.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N Plaintiff-Appellant, : CASE NOS. 2012-P-0077 - vs - :
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. A-1-CA-37547
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note
More informationsample obtained from the defendant on the basis that any consent given by the
r STATE OF MAINE KENNEBEC, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION Docket No. CR-16-222 STATE OF MAINE v. ORDER LYANNE LEMEUNIER-FITZGERALD, Defendant Before the court is defendant's motion to suppress evidence
More information. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. June 16, As you know, this matter was tried to the Court on June 10, 2004.
. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOSEPH R. SLIGHTS, III ASSOCIATE JUDGE NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE 500 NORTH KING STREET WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 (302) 255-0656 June 16, 2004 Brian
More informationTHE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE,
[Cite as State v. Hoover, 123 Ohio St.3d 418, 2009-Ohio-4993.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE, v. HOOVER, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Hoover, 123 Ohio St.3d 418, 2009-Ohio-4993.]
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs December 9, 2015 Remanded by the Supreme Court November 22, 2016
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs December 9, 2015 Remanded by the Supreme Court November 22, 2016 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER WILSON Interlocutory Appeal
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MONICA A. MATULA v. Appellant No. 1297 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Cooper, 2012-Ohio-355.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96635 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. BRANDON COOPER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT M. MONTGOMERY, II Appellant No. 1489 WDA 2014 Appeal from
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY. vs.
[Cite as State v. Hooks, 2004-Ohio-1124.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 83193 STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : AND KEVIN HOOKS, : OPINION Defendant-Appellant
More informationSTATE OF OHIO SCOTT WHITE
[Cite as State v. White, 2009-Ohio-5557.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92229 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. SCOTT WHITE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ELLIOT ROJAS. DUI Traffic Stop -Suppression Reasonable Suspicion
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ELLIOT ROJAS DUI Traffic Stop -Suppression Reasonable Suspicion 1. The Defendant is charged with driving under the influence, possession of marijuana---small amount, and
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO. 12CR684
[Cite as State v. Haney, 2013-Ohio-1924.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 25344 v. : T.C. NO. 12CR684 BRIAN S. HANEY : (Criminal appeal
More information