IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A123145
|
|
- Florence Gilmore
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Filed 1/12/11 P. v. Small-Long CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule (a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KAREN ANNE SMALL-LONG, Defendant and Appellant. A (Marin County Super. Ct. No. SC147327) Karen Anne Small-Long appeals from a judgment upon her plea of guilty to perjury by declaration (Pen. Code, 1 118, subd. (a)), offering to record a forged instrument ( 115), and misdemeanor use of her official position to influence a governmental decision in which she had a financial interest (Gov. Code, 87100). She contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant her certain offsets against the restitution order. We remand the matter to the trial court for a determination of offsets to the restitution amount for certain real property but otherwise affirm the judgment. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On November 17, 2006, an information was filed alleging that defendant committed 12 offenses: three counts of perjury by declaration ( 118, subd. (a)), two counts of presenting a false claim to a county board or officer ( 72), two counts of offering to record a forged instrument ( 115), conspiracy to commit grand theft ( 182, 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1
2 subd. (a)(1), 487, subd. (a)), attempted grand theft ( 664, 487, subd. (a)), grand theft ( 487, subd. (a)), theft by false pretenses ( 532, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor use of her official position to influence a governmental decision in which one has a financial interest (Gov. Code, 87100). The charges stemmed from a scheme in which defendant used her position as an employee of the Office of the Marin County Assessor-Recorder to obtain a property tax exemption reassessment for property located in Corte Madera that was to be held in trust for her son, Daniel; and her perjury, forgery of documents, and fraud relating to that property. On July 2, 2007, defendant pled guilty to three of the counts, with the remaining counts being dismissed with a Harvey 2 waiver. As part of the plea agreement, defendant stipulated that she owed Daniel, approximately $724, in restitution related to the Harvey-waived Count 6 [theft by false pretenses]. The stipulation provided that the restitution amount represented the sale price of the home at 33 Hickory, Corte Madera, CA when [defendant] sold it in 2005, minus the $191,666 [she claims she] paid to Trustee/Beneficiary Jean Thompson to settle the Small 1992 Trust. At the sentencing hearing, the court ordered restitution in the stipulated amount of $724,334. The court found that the amount of restitution included the value of the property stolen or damaged and interest at 10 percent per year from the date of February 1, 2006, through October 6, The court reasoned that the documentation provided by defendant was very confusing in its presentation, is summary and conclusory in a lot of respects, and doesn t include original documents in a lot of circumstances. So it is really impossible to audit it and to make any determination on the basis of the numbers there. There are some bills and receipts, but most of the spread sheet information seems to be related to checkbooks and other things that are not here and can t be viewed. The court found that defendant was entitled to a credit against the restitution order for the Georgia property and the value of the Oregon property, but that it had little confidence in the accounting defendant provided. The court noted that defendant or the People could 2 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d
3 seek a hearing at any point during the probation period to address the restitution order. This appeal followed. II. DISCUSSION Relying on People v. Weaver (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1301, , the Attorney General moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is premature. In Weaver, the defendant sought to reduce her restitution fine by the amount her insurance company paid the victim of her offense. (Id. at p ) The court held that the restitution fine could not be reduced because the evidence proffered by the victim (a letter from the victim s attorney to her attorney concerning a pending settlement) to support the offset did not prove that the insurance company had actually paid the victim. The court concluded that defendant s contention was premature because she had not sought modification of the fine by requesting a modification hearing pursuant to section , subdivision (f)(1)and obtaining an order from the trial court on that request. (Id. at p ) Defendant opposes the motion, arguing that the Weaver court s holding that the defendant s restitution claim was premature was an alternative ruling because the court had already determined that the evidence did not support the offset. Defendant is correct that although the Weaver court ultimately found the defendant s restitution claim to be premature, it nevertheless addressed the merits of her contention that her evidence was sufficient to support an offset against the restitution fine. While we conclude that defendant s evidence here is deficient to prove the amount of the offset she claims and that she must seek modification below, we address her arguments concerning the documentation she presented in the trial court. At a victim restitution hearing, a prima facie case for restitution is made by the People based in part on a victim s testimony on, or other claim or statement of, the amount of his or her economic loss. [Citations.] Once the victim has [i.e., the People have] made a prima facie showing of his or her loss, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the amount of the loss is other than that claimed by the victim. [Citations.] [Citation.] [ ] The standard of review of a restitution order is abuse of 3
4 discretion. A victim s restitution right is to be broadly and liberally construed. [Citation.] When there is a factual and rational basis for the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court, no abuse of discretion will be found by the reviewing court. [Citations.] (People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26 (Millard).) Here, defendant stipulated that the amount of restitution she owed was $724,334. The parties agreed that defendant would establish a trust for Daniel s benefit that included the proceeds of the sale of the Corte Madera property in order to comply with the restitution order. The court thereafter held a hearing to determine to what extent defendant had transferred assets to the trust to satisfy the restitution order. At the hearing, the prosecutor argued that its trust expert had not been able to determine the value of the assets defendant transferred to the trust from the documentation defendant provided. When pressed by the court for a minimum value, the prosecutor said that the property transferred to the trust totaled approximately $224,000 in value but that defendant had not yet provided a full accounting. 3 The court thus opined that there was approximately $500,000 which was missing for which defendant had not provided an explanation or an accounting. The court, while acknowledging that defendant was due a credit against the restitution owed for the value of the Georgia and Oregon properties that were placed in the trust, did not include a credit in its restitution order because it was unable to determine the amount of the credit, noting that the documentation presented by defendant was confusing, summary, and conclusory. We, too, have reviewed the documentation defendant provided in the trial court, and agree that defendant did not adequately support her entitlement to credits against the restitution order. In addition, we note that the parties have not briefed the issue of what is properly charged against the restitution order, nor was the issue briefed below. The credits that defendant seeks here run the gamut from the cost of the Georgia house including its maintenance and furnishing, the expenses incurred in getting there, and the vehicles. 3 This amount included the values of the Georgia and Oregon properties and two 4
5 costs associated with selling and remodeling the Corte Madera house as well as medical expenses, tuition, and the cost of a computer. 4 There is nothing in the record which sheds light on whether the court deemed any of these expenses as proper charges against the trust and hence, against restitution ordered even assuming the expenses were adequately documented. Defendant concedes that she must return to the trial court to provide better documentation of certain payments, but argues that the documents she presented in the trial court are sufficient to support credits in the amount of $311, We are not persuaded. Defendant s documentation is inadequate. Not only does defendant, in numerous instances, simply state the amount she claims on a spreadsheet, she did not provide an original of the appraisal completed on the Georgia property nor did she adequately document any improvements to that property. Moreover, as the People argued below, many of the expenses defendant claims as a credit against the restitution order are properly charged against defendant and cannot be deemed to be trust expenses, as it appears she simply spent a large portion of the proceeds of the Corte Madera property for her own purposes. Thus, we agree with the trial court that defendant is entitled to a credit against the restitution order for the value of the Georgia and Oregon properties, and we remand the matter to the trial court for a determination of that amount. To the extent defendant seeks an offset for other amounts she paid that benefitted the trust, she may file a motion to modify the restitution order pursuant to section , subdivision (f)(1), including appropriate and verifiable proof, and support for her claim that the expenses claimed are legally chargeable against the trust. We note that defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the expenses she seeks to offset are properly considered restitution to Daniel. (See Millard, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 26.) 4 Defendant does not seek here numerous expenses she claimed below, acknowledging that more substantial documentation is required. Yet we are still left with the question of whether any of those expenses are properly charged against the restitution ordered or, as a threshold matter, against the trust. 5
6 III. DISPOSITION The matter is remanded to the trial court for a determination of the amount of the offset to the restitution order attributable to the value of the Georgia and Oregon properties. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. RIVERA, J. We concur: REARDON, Acting P.J. SEPULVEDA, J. 6
IN 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 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 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 informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A113716
Filed 3/29/07 P. v. Lopez 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
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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A106894
Filed 1/9/06 P. v. Carmichael CA1/2 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 THREE A106090
Filed 7/29/05 P. v. Ingwell CA1/3 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 informationI. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Filed 7/13/07 In re Michael A. 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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE B265917
Filed 7/29/16 P. v. Bivens CA2/1 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 not certified for
More informationINTHE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A114344
Filed 11/19/07 P. v. Anderson 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 6/28/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B280646 (Los Angeles County Super.
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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT
[Cite as State v. Fodal, 2003-Ohio-204.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO GREENE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 2001-CA-115 : O P I N I O N -vs- : JOE FODAL,
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 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 informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. St. Martin, 2012-Ohio-1633.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96834 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JEFFREY ST.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A125301
Filed 12/23/10 P. v. Tupper 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
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, No. A144157 v. Plaintiff and Respondent, Related Writ Petition Pending A145069
More informationENFORCEMENT RULES & DISCIPLINARY BOARD RULES RELATING TO REINSTATEMENT
ENFORCEMENT RULES & DISCIPLINARY BOARD RULES RELATING TO REINSTATEMENT PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT (Contains Amendments Through July 14, 2011) Rule 218. Reinstatement. (a) An attorney
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 informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Hemingway, 2012-Ohio-476.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION Nos. 96699 and 96700 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. RICKY
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 informationORDER AFFIRMED. Division VII Opinion by JUDGE BERNARD Connelly, J., concurs Lichtenstein, J., dissents. Announced September 2, 2010
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 09CA0083 Jefferson County District Court No. 06CR97 Honorable R. Brooke Jackson, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charlotte
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 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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A112207
Filed 11/6/07 P. v. Hylton CA1/5 Opinion following remand by U.S. Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A113508
Filed 6/29/07 P. v. Senegal 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 publication
More informationCase 1:17-cr RC Document 3 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 10. United States v. Michael T. Flynn
Case 1:17-cr-00232-RC Document 3 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 10 U.S. Department of Justice The Special Counsel's Office Washington, D.C. 20530 November 30, 2017 Robert K. Kelner Stephen P. Anthony Covington
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 07-06023-02-CR-SJ-DW ) STEPHANIE E. DAVIS, ) ) Defendant.
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: May 5, 2016 106916 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROBERT D. DECKER,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. Judges PLEA AGREEMENT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs. Plaintiff, KEVIN CLARK, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Case No. Judges PLEA AGREEMENT '3: 11~_;-z_ (0! The United States
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 5/10/18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, ) ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) S237602 v. ) ) Ct.App. 4/2 E064099 STEVEN ANDREW ADELMANN, ) ) Riverside County Defendant and Respondent. )
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 6/16/11 In re Jazmine J. 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 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 informationSTATE OF OHIO ) CASE NO: CR B ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs ) ) M. D. ) JOURNAL ENTRY ) Defendant. )
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO CASE NO: CR 98 360551-B Plaintiff, vs M. D. JOURNAL ENTRY Defendant. On July 2, 2008, defendant M.D. filed a motion to seal the record of
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 12/18/09 P. v. Carrigg 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 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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 9/27/12; pub. order 10/23/12 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE MICHAEL JEROME HOLLAND, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B241535
More informationFN2. The jury found defendant guilt of petty theft and defendant admitted having committed the specified prior.
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Judith K. Nakamura, District Judge
This decision was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note that this
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Tokar, 2009-Ohio-4369.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91941 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JEFFREY TOKAR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Carey, 2011-Ohio-1998.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 14-10-25 v. SHONTA CAREY, O P I N I O N DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
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 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 1/5/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, H044507 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. B1688435)
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Ivy, 2010-Ohio-2599.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93117 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JOHN H. IVY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationCase 6:15-cr WSS Document 4 (Court only) Filed 01/08/15 Page 1 of 6
Case 6:15-cr-00003-WSS Document 4 (Court only) Filed 01/08/15 Page 1 of 6 FILED JAN 0 B 2015 IN THE UNiTED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CLERK US. oij COURT WESThRNX WACO DIVISION
More information1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: July 12, NO. 34,653 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: July 12, 2016 4 NO. 34,653 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v. 8 DANIEL G. ARAGON, 9 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Date: Time: Dept: C53
ATTORNEY (Bar No. 10000 LAW OFFICES OF ATTORNEY 123Main, Suite 1 City, California 12345 Telephone: Facsimile: Attorney for Defendant, DDD SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY
More informationSample argument that Estrada retroactivity applies to SB 180
Parts in blue print are instructions to user, not to be included in filed document unless so noted. Sample argument that Estrada retroactivity applies to SB 180 Note: Substantial parts of this argument
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2002 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-7-2002 USA v. Saxton Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-1326 Follow this and additional
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 informationCase 3:06-cr AWT Document 4 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 8
Case 3:06-cr-00308-AWT Document 4 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 8 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney District of Connecticut Connecticut Financial Center 157 Church Street (203) 821-3700 rd 23
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Raines, 2015-Ohio-5089.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 15AP-477 (C.P.C. No. 14CR-3827) v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Dawn
More informationIN 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 informationI N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MEMORANDUM DECISION 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
More informationGuidelines for Completing the White Collar Crime Complaint Form
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY S OFFICE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION WHITE COLLAR CRIME UNIT JACKIE LACEY District Attorney JOHN SPILLANE Chief Deputy District Attorney JOHN J. NEU Chief KRIS CARTER Deputy
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DARKE COUNTY : : : : : : : : :... O P I N I O N...
[Cite as State v. Wright, 2006-Ohio-6067.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DARKE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOHN F. WRIGHT Defendant-Appellant Appellate Case No.
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 informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 9/23/10 P. v. Villanueva 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 information2014 Minnesota Statutes
609A.01-2014 Minnesota Statutes https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609a.01 2014 Minnesota Statutes Authenticate 609A.01 EXPUNGEMENT OF CRIMINAL RECORDS. This chapter provides the grounds
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B204853
Filed 1/23/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE PRO VALUE PROPERTIES, INC., Cross-Complainant and Respondent, v. B204853
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 1/23/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D072121 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN197963) MODESTO PEREZ,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 32,910
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 informationFlLED RECEIVED. Case 2:09-cr ROS Document 152 Filed 11/08/10 Page 1 of 8 ~LODGED COPY NOV Ct.ERK US DISTRICT COURT DISTR CT OF A.
Case 2:09-cr-00717-ROS Document 152 Filed 11/08/10 Page 1 of 8 1 DENNIS K. BURKE United States Attorney District of Arizona 2 Howard D. Sukenic 3 Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 011990 Two
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 16, 2014
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 16, 2014 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAMES ALLEN BALLEW Appeal from the Criminal Court for White County No. CR5363 Leon
More informationAppeal from the PCRA Order June 20, 2001 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal, No. 977 CA 1985
2002 PA Super 115 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF Appellant : PENNSYLVANIA : vs. : : JOHN MARSHALL PAYNE, III, : Appellee : No. 1224 MDA 2001 Appeal from the PCRA Order June 20,
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 SESSION LAW HOUSE BILL 642
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 SESSION LAW 2011-192 HOUSE BILL 642 AN ACT TO IMPLEMENT CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE JUSTICE REINVESTMENT PROJECT AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE ACT SHALL BE
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 46 1
Article 46. Crime Victims' Rights Act. 15A-830. Definitions. (a) The following definitions apply in this Article: (1) Accused. A person who has been arrested and charged with committing a crime covered
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) SHAWN RAMON ROGERS, ) ) Defendant and Appellant. )
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 11/16/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Petitioner, v. B239849 (Los Angeles County Super.
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-26-2013 USA v. Jo Benoit Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 12-3745 Follow this and additional
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 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 informationDistrict of Columbia False Claims Act
District of Columbia False Claims Act 2-308.03. Claims by District government against contractor (a) (1) All claims by the District government against a contractor arising under or relating to a contract
More information726 La. 176 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 3d SERIES
726 La. 176 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 3d SERIES withdraw. Additionally, we remand the matter for correction of the Uniform Commitment Order pursuant to the instructions provided in accordance with this opinion.
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----
Filed 3/28/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ---- THE PEOPLE, C077159 v. Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 12F5851,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 6/24/15; pub. order 7/17/15 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, E061733 v. ZACKARIAH WILLIAM
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 10/31/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B270470 Los Angeles County Super.
More informationUnited States v. Biocompatibles, Inc. Criminal Case No.
U.S. Department of Justice Channing D. Phillips United States Attorney District of Columbia Judiciary Center 555 Fourth St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 September 12, 2016 Richard L. Scheff, Esq. Montgomery
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A140059
Filed 10/28/14 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE KERI EVILSIZOR, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH SWEENEY, Defendant and Respondent;
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 7/31/12; pub. order 8/20/12 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CLAIRE LOUISE DIEPENBROCK, Plaintiff and Appellant v. KYLE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 07-00200-06-CR-W-FJG ) MICHAEL FITZWATER, ) ) ) Defendant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. ROBERT FREDERICK TAYLOR : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court Defendant-Appellant :
[Cite as State v. Taylor, 2003-Ohio-784.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case No. 19212 v. : T.C. Case No. 2001-CR-2579 ROBERT FREDERICK TAYLOR
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A115488
Filed 3/11/08 P. v. Apodaca 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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION PLEA AGREEMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 15-00106-01-CR-W-DW TIMOTHY RUNNELS, Defendant. PLEA AGREEMENT
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Lalain, 2011-Ohio-4813.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95857 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DANIEL LALAIN DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationcase 3:04-cr AS document 162 filed 09/01/2005 page 1 of 6
case 3:04-cr-00071-AS document 162 filed 09/01/2005 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Cause No. 3:04-CR-71(AS)
More informationCase 3:10-cr FDW Document 3 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKET NO. 3:1 OCR59-W v. PLEA AGREEMENT RODNEY REED CAVERLY NOW COMES the United States of America,
More informationCase 1:09-mj JMF Document 3 Filed 01/12/2009 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PLEA AGREEMENT
Case 1:09-mj-00015-JMF Document 3 Filed 01/12/2009 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) V. ) ) DWAYNE F. CROSS, ) ) Defendant. ) Case
More informationTO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
Filed 11/6/13 TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS his opinion has been certified for publication in the Official Reports. It is being sent to assist the Court of Appeal in deciding whether to order
More informationALABAMA PRIVATE INVESTIGATION BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 741-X-6 DISCIPLINARY ACTION TABLE OF CONTENTS
ALABAMA PRIVATE INVESTIGATION BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 741-X-6 DISCIPLINARY ACTION TABLE OF CONTENTS 741-X-6-.01 741-X-6-.02 741-X-6-.03 741-X-6-.04 741-X-6-.05 741-X-6-.06 741-X-6-.07 741-X-6-.08
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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION PLEA AGREEMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Cr. No. H-02-0665 BEN F. GLISAN, JR., Defendant. PLEA AGREEMENT Pursuant
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI V. CAUSE NO CA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
E-Filed Document Aug 5 2014 01:08:18 2014-CA-00054-COA Pages: 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DENNIS TERRY HUTCHINS APPELLANT V. CAUSE NO. 2014-CA-00054-COA
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2000 MT 202
No. 98-176 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2000 MT 202 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CLAY TAYLOR and KAREN TAYLOR, Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL FROM: District Court of
More information