I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
|
|
- Fay Cannon
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Filed 7/13/07 In re Michael A. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule (a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule (b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR In re MICHAEL A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL A., Defendant and Appellant. A (Solano County Super. Ct. No. J36134) The minor challenges the juvenile court s sustaining of an allegation of receipt of stolen property in a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 for receipt of stolen property. (Pen. Code, 496, subd. (a) count 1.) 1 Because we agree that there was insufficient evidence that the minor possessed stolen property, we reverse the order sustaining the allegation. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The minor was charged in two separate petitions with receipt of stolen property, a felony ( 496, subd. (a) count 1), unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle, a felony (Veh. 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 1
2 Code, 10851, subd. (a) count 2), receiving stolen property (motor vehicle), a felony ( 496d, subd. (a) count 3), and unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, a misdemeanor (Veh. Code, 12500, subd. (a) count 4). Counts 2 through 4 related to an incident that took place on July 22, The juvenile court did not sustain counts 2 and 3. The court sustained count 4; however, the minor does not challenge that finding on appeal. We therefore need not set forth the allegations with respect to counts 2 through 4. As to count 1, the following evidence was presented at a contested jurisdictional hearing on November 13, In the early morning hours (about 2:00 a.m.) between December 24 and December 25, 2005, Rosa Magallon was feeding her newborn baby at her home in Vacaville when she heard someone running through her backyard. She went to a room that faces the street and saw a red truck with its lights off. Magallon looked closely at the color of the truck, because people doing construction work at her house had a red truck, and she suspected it might be them breaking in. Magallon was unable to see the face of the driver or the passenger in the bed of the truck. She called the police. That same night, Jason W. (a minor) was walking near Foxboro Elementary School (close to where Magallon lived), when one or two cars or trucks pulled up, and the people inside said things that led Jason to believe they wanted to fight. Jason jumped the school fence, but was followed by about seven people. He was knocked to the ground in the middle of a park, and people started kicking him in the head and face until he was unconscious. They took his blue jeans and his shoes, a pair of red and white Nike Dunks. Jason was drunk at the time of the attack. Jason flagged down police officer David Spencer at around 2 a.m. in the 600 block of Youngsdale. Jason appeared disheveled, muddy, and wet; he was not wearing pants or shoes. While Spencer was speaking to Jason, a pickup truck passed them, and Jason pointed. At some point Spencer went to the location where a red pickup truck had been stopped. Officers had already detained four people by the time Spencer arrived at the 2
3 scene, and they were ultimately arrested. When asked what he observed when he arrived at the pickup truck, Spencer testified that [i]n the bed of the pickup truck there were a pair of blue jeans and a pair of... red and white Nike shoes. When asked on crossexamination whether he was the person who found the jeans and shoes, Spencer testified, I did not initially observe them, no. Police officer David Novelli testified that he was dispatched to the area of Foxboro Parkway and Youngsdale Drive at around 2 a.m. for a report of a possible strong-arm robbery, as well as a report of a suspicious vehicle. Novelli first saw the minor detained near a truck, standing on the sidewalk. Novelli did not see the minor (or anyone else) get out of the truck; he assumed based on radio traffic that those who were detained near the truck had come from the truck. He did not see anyone who walked up from somewhere else being detained. The police returned Jason s pants and shoes to him. Although Jason confirmed that the jeans and shoes belonged to him, he was unable to identify anyone who attacked him. He had his back toward his attackers when he was running from them, and he was unable to see them. The minor moved for a directed verdict, which the juvenile court denied. The juvenile court stated, however, that it was somewhat struggling with whether the prosecution had met its burden. The juvenile court concluded that the People had just squeaked by, and sustained count 1 of the petition. Following testimony regarding events that took place on July 22, 2006, the juvenile court sustained count 4 of the petition. (Counts 2 and 3 were not sustained.) The juvenile court declared wardship on November 27, 2006, and placed the minor on probation with various conditions. The minor timely appealed. 3
4 II. DISCUSSION We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a juvenile court judgment sustaining the criminal allegations of a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 to determine whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (In re Ryan N. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1371, original italics.) An appellate court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (Ibid.) Section 496, subdivision (a) provides, in relevant part: Every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison.... In order to sustain the People s petition on a receiving stolen property count, the People must prove that (1) the property was stolen; (2) the minor knew it was stolen; and (3) the minor had possession of the stolen property. (In re Anthony J. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 718, 728 [mere presence of minor in stolen vehicle not enough to show he possessed the car]; see also People v. Land (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 220, 223 [possession of stolen car established where defendant knew driver well, knew car was stolen, and vehicle was used for joint criminal enterprise]; People v. Myles (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 428 [passenger did not possess stolen television sets found in trunk of car].) The minor does not dispute that the property was stolen, but argues that the People failed to establish that he possessed the property, or that he had 4
5 knowledge that the items were stolen. We agree that there was insufficient evidence that the minor ever possessed the stolen property, and therefore reverse the judgment as to count 1. Possession of the stolen property may be actual or constructive and need not be exclusive. (People v. Land, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 223.) Physical possession is also not a requirement. It is sufficient if the defendant acquires a measure of control or dominion over the stolen property. (Id. at p. 224.) Dominion and control are essentials of possession, and they cannot be inferred from mere presence or access. Something more must be shown to support inferring of these elements. Of course, the necessary additional circumstances may, in some fact contexts, be rather slight. (People v. Zyduck (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 334, 336, italics added [mere presence of passenger in car with stolen chain saw on rear seat not enough to show possession].) Here, there was substantial evidence that the stolen jeans and shoes were found in the bed of a truck, and that the minor was detained next to that truck. However, there was insufficient evidence to show that the minor had a measure of control or dominion over the stolen property. Respondent acknowledges that there was no direct evidence that the minor was in the truck cab or bed when police officers stopped it, but argues that there was nonetheless substantial evidence that the minor was either in the cab or bed of the pickup when it was stopped by the officers. (Italics added.) Respondent then concludes that there was ample evidence that the minor had at minimum, constructive possession of the stolen pants and shoes.... We disagree. Even assuming that we may infer from the minor s detention near the truck that he was at one point in the truck, this is not enough to show that the minor ever had actual or constructive possession of the stolen property, because we do not know whether the minor was detained in the bed of the truck (where the stolen property was apparently found) or in the cab of the truck. Respondent does not direct us to any case where constructive possession was found where a defendant was detained in a different area of a truck than where stolen 5
6 property was discovered, and our independent research has not revealed any. However, People v. Myles, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d 423, which addressed the discovery of stolen property in the trunk of a car, is instructive. In Myles, defendant was a passenger in a car that held two stolen televisions in the trunk. (Id. at pp ) Defendant was at one point observed standing outside the car looking inside the trunk with the televisions. (Id. at p. 426.) He was a passenger in a car owned and driven by someone else, and he was one of several people seen looking into the trunk, which was insufficient to show that defendant possessed the stolen televisions. (Ibid.) Mere access or proximity to stolen goods is not sufficient to infer possession; dominion and control must be shown. (Id. at p. 429, italics added.) Because the evidence here does not reveal whether the minor was in the same area of the truck where stolen property was found (assuming that the minor was in the truck when it was stopped), we simply cannot say on this record that the minor had dominion or control over Jason s jeans and shoes. We note that there was no testimony about access to the bed of the truck from the cab i.e., whether there was a back sliding window through which someone in the front compartment could reach the bed. Respondent argues that Myles is distinguishable because, unlike here, the property at issue was found hours after it was stolen, at a distance from where it was stolen. (People v. Myles, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 426.) We agree that circumstances surrounding the minor s detention near the pickup truck are suspicious. The Myles court emphasized, however, that suspicious circumstances that might support an inference that a defendant knew property had been stolen are not enough to demonstrate that he 6
7 was in possession of that property. 2 (Id. at p. 428.) And although we agree with respondent that In re Anthony J., supra, 117 Cal.App.4th 718 and People v. Zyduck, supra, 270 Cal.App.2d 334 are distinguishable because the stolen property here was found closer to where it was taken and soon after it was reported stolen, the fact remains that the prosecution never sufficiently established that the minor possessed the stolen property. We agree with the general proposition that the additional evidence beyond mere presence or access that establishes possession may, in some fact contexts, be rather slight. (People v. Land, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 225.) Respondent, however, directs us to no additional circumstances that establish the minor s possession (actual or constructive) of stolen property. (Ibid.) Because we conclude that substantial evidence does not support the determination that the minor possessed stolen property, we need not consider whether the People established that the minor knew that the property had been stolen. (People v. Myles, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at p. 428.) 2 The juvenile court also acknowledged that the prosecution had to show more than suspicious circumstances, observing: [W]hat I am attempting to do here and it s very hard is separate what I believe happened that night, and personally I have very little doubt about what the legal standard of proof trying to hold the People s feet to the fire in proving their case. So before I say which way I m going, I m going to let you [the minor] know I have no doubt that you were part of it, but that s not the legal standard. Doesn t matter what I personally think. What matters is whether I think the prosecution has met [its] standard [its] burden of proof in this particular case. And I am, as you can well see, somewhat struggling with that issue. 7
8 III. DISPOSITION The order sustaining the allegations of count 1 is reversed and remanded for further dispositional proceedings consistent with this opinion. Sepulveda, J. We concur: Reardon, Acting P.J. Rivera, J. 8
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 8/28/09 In re S.D. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION 4
Filed 2/22/10 In re J.C. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A111525
Filed 8/18/06 P. v. Johnson CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A113296
Filed 4/25/08 P. v. Canada CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 7/25/11 P. v. Hurtado CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A125781
Filed 9/30/10 P. v. Romero CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A122523
Filed 10/30/09 P. v. Bolden CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A121535
Filed 4/13/09 In re E.G. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs May 17, 2017, at Knoxville
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs May 17, 2017, at Knoxville 06/20/2017 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER COLLIER Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 2/24/09 In re J.I. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Figueroa, 2010-Ohio-189.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO C. A. No. 09CA009612 Appellant v. MARILYN FIGUEROA Appellee
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 9/28/09 P. v. Taumoeanga CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Filed 3/28/05 P. v. Lowe CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A126207
Filed 4/15/10 In re Armani T. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A123145
Filed 1/12/11 P. v. Small-Long CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A105255
Filed 4/21/05 P. v. Evans CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A120235
Filed 10/27/08 In re T.C. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 5/19/11 In re R.L. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 9/24/15 P. v. Simmons CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationCASE NO. 1D The evidence at the suppression hearing showed that asset-protection
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. 1D14-577
More informationSTATE OF OHIO KIRKLAND FARMER
[Cite as State v. Farmer, 2010-Ohio-3406.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93246 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. KIRKLAND FARMER
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 9/21/11 P. v. Ferrando CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v JOHN VICTOR ROUSELL, UNPUBLISHED April 1, 2008 No. 276582 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 06-010950-01 Defendant-Appellee.
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2009
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2009 LUKCE AIME, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D07-1759 [February 18, 2009] MAY, J. The sufficiency of the
More information2016 PA Super 91. OPINION BY OTT, J.: Filed: April 28, Anthony Stilo appeals from the July 23, 2014, judgment of sentence
2016 PA Super 91 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANTHONY STILO Appellant No. 2838 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 23, 2014 In the Court of Common
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A109083
Filed 10/17/05 P. v. Foster CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,223 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. In the Matter of A.A-M. MEMORANDUM OPINION
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,223 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS In the Matter of A.A-M. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; DELIA M. YORK, judge.
More informationNo. 46,976-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * *
Judgment rendered February 29, 2012. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by art. 922, La. C. Cr. P. No. 46,976-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * *
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A118621
Filed 4/3/08 P. v. Ritch CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (Sacramento)
Filed 7/18/07 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) In re C.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE,
More informationCite as 2018 Ark. App. 435 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV
Cite as 2018 Ark. App. 435 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-18-50 CALVIN WALLACE TERRY APPELLANT V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered: September 26, 2018 APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 21, 2010
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 21, 2010 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KENNETH PAUL NIGHTENGALE Appeal from the Cocke County Circuit Court No. 0022 Rex H.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 31, 2003 v No. 235191 Calhoun Circuit Court CURTIS JOHN-LEE BANKS, LC No. 00-002668-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A123432
Filed 4/1/10 P. v. Jeter CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 3/20/09 P. v. Turner CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1998 MT 253N STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. BENJAMIN G.
No. 97-171 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1998 MT 253N STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. BENJAMIN G. LODGE, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Seventeenth
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A115807
Filed 10/19/07 P. v. Hosington CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A110076
Filed 3/21/06; pub. order & mod. 4/12/06 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HORACE WILLIAM
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 29, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D17-980 Lower Tribunal No. 16-1999-B C.T., a juvenile,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 5/16/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, 2d Crim. No. B283857 (Super. Ct. No.
More informationNo. 103,472 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, BILLY WHITE, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 103,472 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. BILLY WHITE, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The State has the burden of proving that a search and seizure was
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Hamilton, 2011-Ohio-3835.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95720 STATE OF OHIO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT vs. CHRISTOPHER
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012 Opinion filed March 14, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D10-2415 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 10/23/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E062760 v. TIMOTHY WAYNE PAGE, (Super.Ct.No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY. Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA
[Cite as State v. Popp, 2011-Ohio-791.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2010-05-128 : O P I N I O N - vs - 2/22/2011
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A116095
Filed 10/11/07 In re D.H. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationSEE DISSENTING OPINION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 3/21/11 P. v. Ibarra-Zaragoza CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO. : O P I N I O N - vs - 11/9/2009 :
[Cite as State v. Moore, 2009-Ohio-5927.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO PREBLE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2009-02-005 : O P I N I O N - vs - 11/9/2009
More informationTHERON ANTHONY FINNEY OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. January 16, 2009 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Present: All the Justices THERON ANTHONY FINNEY OPINION BY v. Record No. 080440 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. January 16, 2009 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Theron Anthony
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A110859
Filed 2/26/07 P. v. Noel CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A105113
Filed 4/22/05 P. v. Roth CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More information160 Cal. App. 4th 1615, *; 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 575, **; 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 381, ***
160 Cal. App. 4th 1615, *; 73 Cal. Rptr. 3d 575, **; 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 381, *** In re R.K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.K., Defendant and
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 11/30/17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, ) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) S230793 v. ) ) Ct.App. 4/2 E062760 TIMOTHY WAYNE PAGE, ) ) San Bernardino County Defendant and Appellant.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 11, 2002 v No. 230384 Oakland Circuit Court GEOFFREY EMANUEL THOMAS, LC No. 99-167032-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HENRY ARSENIO LARA II, Defendant and Appellant. S243975 Fourth Appellate District, Division Two E065029 Riverside County Superior
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 5/2/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, 2d Crim. No. B282787 (Super. Ct. No.
More informationChapter 4. Criminal Law and Procedure
Chapter 4 Criminal Law and Procedure Section 1 Criminal Law GOALS Understand the 3 elements that make up a criminal act Classify crimes according to the severity of their potential sentences Identify the
More information1 HRUZ, J. 1 Joshua Vitek appeals a judgment convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), third offense, based on the
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED October 27, 2015 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in
More informationPeople v. Ross, No st District, October 17, 2000
People v. Ross, No. 1-99-3339 1st District, October 17, 2000 SECOND DIVISION THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EARL ROSS, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the Circuit Court of
More informationNo. 103,358 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, ABBY L. RALSTON, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 103,358 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ABBY L. RALSTON, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Whether a defendant has abandoned property is an issue of standing.
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellant : JOURNAL ENTRY. vs.
[Cite as State v. Ely, 2006-Ohio-459.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 86091 STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellant JOURNAL ENTRY vs. AND KEITH ELY, OPINION Defendant-Appellee
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,132 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DIANA COCKRELL, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,132 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. DIANA COCKRELL, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Johnson District Court;
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 29,423. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUNA COUNTY Daniel Viramontes, District Judge
0 0 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Lopez, 2010-Ohio-2462.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93197 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ROBERTO LOPEZ DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN
Filed 5/15/17; pub. order 5/30/17 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B271406 (Los Angeles
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY. : O P I N I O N - vs - 5/29/2012 :
[Cite as State v. Barnett, 2012-Ohio-2372.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2011-09-177 : O P I N I O N - vs -
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Klein, 2005-Ohio-1761.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. THOMAS KLEIN, 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. PHILLIP CARL PECK Appellant No. 568 MDA 2014 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationCASE NO. 1D Joseph Christopher Acoff was convicted after a jury trial of leaving the scene
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JOSEPH CHRISTOPHER ACOFF, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE
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 APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----
Filed 5/30/18 In re J.V. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 23, 2008 v No. 277901 Oakland Circuit Court JOSEPH JEROME SMITH, LC No. 2007-212716-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More information125 East High Avenue New Philadelphia, OH New Philadelphia, OH 44663
[Cite as State v. Hahn, 2008-Ohio-4352.] COURT OF APPEALS TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO -vs- Plaintiff-Appellant RANDALL L. HAHN Defendant-Appellee JUDGES Hon. W. Scott
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. IN THE INTEREST OF: : EC, : No. JV : A Juvenile : OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN THE INTEREST OF: : EC, : No. JV 214-2016 : A Juvenile : OPINION AND ORDER An evidentiary hearing was scheduled for October 27, 2016, to
More informationv. CASE NO. 1D Michael Ufferman of the Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
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. 1D10-6695
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 2/13/15 County of Los Angeles v. Ifroze CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Spoon, 2012-Ohio-4052.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97742 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. LEROY SPOON 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 : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA v. : : KEVIN LUSTER, : : Appellant : No. 1013 WDA 2015 Appeal from the
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED September 22, 2016 v No. 327938 Ingham Circuit Court WILLIAM LATRAIL CROSKEY, LC No. 15-000098-FH Defendant-Appellee.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 8/3/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX GERARDO ALDANA, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, 2d Civil No. B259538 (Super.
More informationSTATE OF OHIO STEVEN GROSS
[Cite as State v. Gross, 2009-Ohio-611.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91080 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. STEVEN GROSS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D., 2012
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D., 2012 Opinion filed August 8, 2012. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D10-767 Lower Tribunal No. 09-6249
More informationFROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. of Appeals of Virginia, which affirmed his conviction in the
PRESENT: All the Justices DEMETRIUS D. BALDWIN OPINION BY JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE v. Record No. 061264 June 8, 2007 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Demetrius D. Baldwin appeals
More informationv No Oakland Circuit Court
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-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 19, 2017 v No. 332310 Oakland Circuit Court MICHAEL DOUGLAS NORTH, LC
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Geiter, 190 Ohio App.3d 541, 2010-Ohio-6017.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94015 The STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v.
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. LADAYA DA SHAE MITCHELL No. 1356 WDA 2016 Appeal from the Order
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A126254
Filed 7/7/10 In re Louis R. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Dent, 2008-Ohio-660.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) STATE OF OHIO C. A. No. 23855 Appellee v. LEONARD DENT Appellant APPEAL FROM
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 111,572. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JEREMY A. CHAPMAN, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 111,572 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JEREMY A. CHAPMAN, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. An appellate court reviews a district court's decision on a
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 5/27/11 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL DAVID CARMONA, JR. et al.,
More informationPetition for Writ of Certiorari Filed July 19, 1993, Denied August 12, 1993 COUNSEL
STATE V. SIZEMORE, 1993-NMCA-079, 115 N.M. 753, 858 P.2d 420 (Ct. App. 1993) STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Martha SIZEMORE, Defendant-Appellant No. 13674 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 1993-NMCA-079,
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,494 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, BRIAN ADAM NAMBO, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,494 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. BRIAN ADAM NAMBO, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Sedgwick District Court;
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A114558
Filed 5/2/08 P. v. Jackson CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationCOMMONWEALTH : : : No. CR : TYDRIC RICHARDSON, : Omnibus Pretrial Motion Defendant :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH : : vs. : No. CR-1317-2016 : TYDRIC RICHARDSON, : Omnibus Pretrial Motion Defendant : OPINION AND ORDER By Information filed on
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 10, 2012 v No. 301668 Wayne Circuit Court KARON CORTEZ CRENSHAW, LC No. 09-023757-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
REL: 10/03/2014 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Dykas, 185 Ohio App 3d 763, 2010-Ohio-359.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92683 THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. DYKAS,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO vs. : T.C. CASE NO. 06CR4007
[Cite as State v. Watts, 2007-Ohio-2411.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 21982 vs. : T.C. CASE NO. 06CR4007 ASHANTA WATTS : (Criminal
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 42008-2-II Respondent, v. KARL GEORGE ALLMAN, UNPUBLISHED OPINION Appellant. Penoyar, J. Karl George Allman appeals
More information