IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A117929

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A117929"

Transcription

1 Filed 12/19/08 P. v. Joseph CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule (a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HIRAM RAYFIELD JOSEPH, Defendant and Appellant. A (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR ) Hiram Rayfield Joseph (appellant) was convicted, following a jury trial, of possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of a short-barreled shotgun, and possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from possessing a firearm. On appeal, he contends (1) the prosecutor violated his constitutional right to compulsory process by intimidating and threatening a defense witness; (2) his admissions to two prior convictions were invalid; (3) appointment of new counsel at the sentencing hearing resulted in a constructive denial of counsel; and (4) the trial court erred when it failed to stay the sentence on the possession of a short-barreled shotgun count. Because we conclude appellant s constitutional right to present witnesses in his defense was violated, we shall reverse the judgment. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by second amended information with possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1) 1 count one); possession of a short- 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 1

2 barreled shotgun ( 12020, subd. (a) count two); and possession of ammunition or reloaded ammunition by a person prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm ( 12316, subd. (b)(1) count three). The information also alleged two prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)), and one strike pursuant to the three strikes law ( ). A jury found appellant guilty as charged and appellant admitted the prior prison terms and strike conviction. On May 14, 2007, the trial court sentenced appellant to a total prison term of six years. On May 30, 2007, appellant filed a notice of appeal. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In January 2006, David Aggio, appellant s parole agent, received a request from appellant for permission to move to a home on Estrella Drive in Rohnert Park. Before giving his permission, Aggio interviewed the woman, Dina Rossiter, who already lived there with her two children. He asked if there were any firearms in the residence and Rossiter said there were not and she was concerned because she ha[d] children. On February 17, 2006, Aggio participated in a parole search of the Estrella Drive residence. Aggio asked Rossiter if there was a weapon in the house and she responded that there was a gun underneath the bed. Rohnert Park Police Officer David Rodriguez also participated in the parole search. He searched the master bedroom where he found an unloaded sawed-off shotgun between the mattress and box springs of the bed. Police Officer Steven Luscombe, who also participated in the parole search, found a blue gun case on top of a chest of drawers in the bedroom. The case contained a.9 millimeter Smith & Wesson high-capacity magazine, a manual for a Smith & Wesson handgun, and a Kool cigarette package containing seven shotgun shells. The shotgun and shells were tested for fingerprints, but none were found. Rohnert Park Police Sergeant Eric Robinson was present during the search when Rossiter initially made the comment that it was her gun, or nodded to a question from either [appellant] or somebody else in the affirmative that it was her gun. When 2

3 Robinson asked if the gun was registered to her, she responded that she had no idea if it was registered. Appellant was arrested and transported to jail. Later that evening, Robinson spoke with Rossiter on the phone and asked her some follow-up questions about the shotgun. He first asked if she knew where the safety was on the shotgun because he could not find it. She responded that she had no idea. When he asked what gauge the shotgun was, she said, I don t know. He asked if the shotgun could shoot two shells at the same time, or only one, to which she responded, I don t know. When he asked how she had acquired the weapon, she said, I don t know, and then asked him to call her back the next day. She also said something like, I never told you I got it [the gun], which Robinson interpreted to mean it was not her gun. During trial, Rossiter asserted her Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination and refused to answer questions. Troye Shaffer, an employee of the District Attorney s office, testified that she was present during a meeting with Rossiter and the prosecutor, at which Rossiter stated her intention to testify at trial that the gun was hers. The parties stipulated at trial that appellant was previously convicted of a felony. DISCUSSION I. Alleged Violation of Appellant s Compulsory Process Right Appellant contends the prosecutor violated his right to compulsory process by intimidating and threatening defense witness, Dina Rossiter. A. Trial Court Background Before trial, the prosecutor indicated he intended to call Dina Rossiter as a witness. Later, on September 27, 2006, defense counsel indicated that his case would involve Ms. Rossiter as well. The prosecutor then said: She may need counsel, also, it occurs to me, if we could have before she testifies. I am not giving immunity. I m not dissuading her from coming in in any way and taking responsibility for this gun, but if she does she s making judicial admissions to a crime and we don t intend to do that, so perhaps we could have an attorney. [ ]... [ ] For a few minutes to talk with her and 3

4 make sure she understands what she s doing. The court agreed, and the prosecutor added, That s fine. We have got to walk a delicate balance here, because I in no way want to dissuade her from coming in and testifying, but she needs to be aware of what she s doing. On October 2, 2006, outside of the jury s presence, the court stated that it had appointed Joseph Stogner to represent Rossiter as a witness and advise her regarding her rights. Stogner indicated he had met with Rossiter, they had fully discussed her prospective testimony, and she was going to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify. Then, during an Evidence Code section 402 hearing, Rossiter acknowledged that she had met with the prosecutor that morning in the District Attorney s office, and that she had thereafter spoken with Stogner. Upon questioning about the events of February 17, 2006, Rossiter asserted her Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination and refused to answer questions. Defense counsel then asked that Rossiter s statements to Sergeant Robinson regarding ownership of the gun be admitted into evidence as statements against penal interest. The prosecutor agreed. Later that same day, in front of the jury, Rossiter again asserted her right against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions. After Robinson s testimony, the prosecution rested. That afternoon, defense counsel informed the trial court that he had talked with Rossiter that morning and told her she would be speaking with counsel and that he expected counsel to direct her not to testify. She responded that she understood, but that it was her intention to testify. Counsel then said he had learned about and received a brief summary of a meeting later that morning between the prosecutor and Rossiter just before she met with appointed counsel at which Rossiter reiterated that the weapon was hers. He was surprised to learn thereafter that Rossiter had decided not to testify. Counsel then asked that he be permitted to call a witness who was present at that meeting who could testify regarding Rossiter s further statements against penal interest during the meeting with the prosecutor. 4

5 The prosecutor then told the court that there had been an investigative interview with Rossiter that morning, which Troye Shaffer, also an employee of the District Attorney s office, attended as a witness to the conversation. Shaffer had typed up a brief summary of what was talked about, primarily it was just to make an introduction to explain the process, to admonish her about being careful on her testimony and not volunteering things pertaining to [appellant s] criminal history. During the interview, according to the prosecutor, Rossiter had confirmed the prosecutor s stated understanding that she planned to testify that the gun was hers. The court read Shaffer s summary of the meeting with Rossiter, which stated: October 2, 2006 Interview with Dina People present: Bob Waner [the prosecutor], Troye Shaffer, Joe Stogner Mr. Waner informed witness that discussions were done in court regarding her testimony and that Mr. Stogner was being appointed as her attorney. Witness confirmed that she has talked to Bernie Hernandez [defense counsel] today and that she was going to testify that the gun was hers. Witness admonished that she should not rattle off the defendant s criminal history [because] that would make it an unfair trial. If she feels that the question being posed to her would make her talk about defendant s criminal history she should pause and tell the court she can t answer the question. She was told that she would be asked about a conversation with Mr. Adaggio [sic]. Witness confirmed that she was subject to a restraining order in 2004 by a Ms. Riley. She is not sure if it is still in effect but assumes so, [because] it was a three year order. Witness confirms that she still lives on Estrella with her two boys. Witness was advised that possession of a sawed off shot gun is a felony and she would be charged. She was left with her attorney to discuss it further. (Italics added.) 5

6 When the prosecutor offered to prepare a stipulation regarding the meeting, defense counsel said, And, Your Honor, I m not so inclined. I d like to know what transpired, and I just want the record clear, Your Honor, I think Mr. Waner [the prosecutor] has acted appropriately at all times. The court responded, There is no question in my mind of that. Before Shaffer testified at trial, the court, at the prosecutor s request, held an Evidence Code section 402 hearing, at which Shaffer testified that she had prepared a brief report regarding a meeting that morning with the prosecutor and Dina Rossiter. The prosecutor had told Rossiter that it was his understanding that she was going to testify that the gun was hers, to which Rossiter responded, That s correct. The court ruled that Shaffer s testimony about what Rossiter had said about the gun was admissible as a statement against penal interest. Shaffer subsequently presented the same testimony in front of the jury. The following day, October 3, 2006, after a verdict was reached but before the jury was brought in to read the verdict, defense counsel told the court that appellant had just handed him a motion to dismiss based on prosecutorial misconduct and witness tampering. The court said counsel could file it if he wished and counsel asked the court to file and consider it before the jury rendered its verdict. The court looked at the motion and noted that there was no declaration supporting the claim that Rossiter was intimidated. The court stated that it was going to deny the motion without prejudice and that, if appropriate, appellant could refile it as a motion for new trial. Appellant asked on what grounds the court would deny the motion for a mistrial given that, the day before, the prosecution had indicated that Rossiter was going to testify for the defense, but then something mysteriously happened and she comes in moments later like no, I m going to plead the Fifth. According to appellant, this showed clearly that something behind the scenes had just [taken] place. Appellant asserted that Rossiter s sudden change of mind clearly shows that she was intimidated in some form or fashion. 6

7 The court responded: I appreciate what you are saying, but I have a different take on it. What I heard yesterday was that Ms. Rossiter talked to the attorney that I appointed to represent her, and after speaking to that attorney decided to invoke the Fifth Amendment and not testify, as is her right. But I don t infer any misconduct by the prosecution. Based on that process, I think what occurred was appropriate as far as I saw it, and I am denying the motion at this time. If there is further evidence you want to present, it can be presented on a motion for new trial. After appellant admitted his prior convictions, defense counsel advised the court that it would file appellant s motion as a motion for new trial before the sentencing hearing. Defense counsel apparently never filed a motion for new trial. B. Legal Analysis The state and federal Constitutions guarantee the defendant a meaningful opportunity to present a defense. [Citations.] As [the California Supreme Court has] observed, [a] defendant s constitutional rights to compel the attendance of witnesses, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, and to due process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, are violated when the prosecution interferes with the defendant s right to present witnesses. [Citations.] (People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 456.) To prevail on a claim of interference with the right to present witnesses, a defendant must demonstrate, first, misconduct on the part of the prosecutor. To do so, he is not required to show that the governmental agent involved acted in bad faith or with improper motives. [Citations.] Rather, he need show only that the agent engaged in activity that was wholly unnecessary to the proper performance of his duties and of such a character as to transform [a defense witness] from a willing witness to one who would refuse to testify.... [Citations.] (In re Martin (1987) 44 Cal.3d 1, 31.) Second, the defendant must also demonstrate interference, i.e., a causal link between the misconduct and his inability to present witnesses on his own behalf. To do so, he is not required to prove that the conduct under challenge was the direct or exclusive cause. [Citations.] Rather, he need only show that the conduct was a substantial cause. [Citations.] The misconduct in question may be deemed a substantial 7

8 cause when, for example, it carries significant coercive force [citations] and is soon followed by the witness s refusal to testify [citation]. (In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 31.) Finally, the defendant must also demonstrate materiality. To carry his burden under federal law, he must at least make some plausible showing of how [the] testimony [of the witness] would have been both material and favorable to his defense. [Citation.] Under California law he must show at least a reasonable possibility that the witness could have given testimony that would have been both material and favorable. [Citations.] (In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 32.) Here, appellant argues that the prosecutor s warning to Rossiter that possession of a sawed off shotgun is a felony and she would be charged led to Rossiter s sudden decision not to testify, thereby undermining appellant s right to present a defense. 2 In People v. Robinson (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 962, 969, defense counsel advised a defense witness of her privilege against self-incrimination and the possibility that her testimony could be used against her. Subsequently, the prosecutor began her crossexamination of the witness by telling her: As a representative of the District Attorney s Office, I need to advise you that charges not only can be charged against you, but they will be filed, should you take the stand. (Id. at p. 970.) The witness stated that she was still willing to testify, but after she sought counsel from the public defender, at the trial court s suggestion, she changed her mind and declined to testify further. (Ibid.) 2 We note that appellant raised this issue himself in the trial court by way of a hand-written motion and a verbal discussion with the trial court. The trial court denied the motion without prejudice, and invited appellant to file a motion for new trial if he wished to submit additional evidence. Thus, appellant preserved the issue for appeal. Moreover, even had appellant not objected to the prosecutor s conduct, our Supreme Court has found that failure to object to alleged prosecutorial interference with a defendant s right to present witnesses does not waive the issue since the claim involves a question of fundamental fairness, and any misconduct, had it existed, could not readily have been cured by the trial court s intervention, in contrast to other instances of prosecutorial misconduct in the course of trial. (People v. Lucas, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 457.) 8

9 Division Four of this District held that the prosecutor s warning was an improper threat that deprived the defendant of a witness s testimony. (People v. Robinson, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d at p. 970.) The court also concluded, however, that the misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of identical testimony given by another defense witness. (Id. at pp ) In People v. Bryant (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 582, 588, a defense witness called to the stand was the only witness to the events in question other than the defendant and police officers. The prosecutor immediately stated that perjury proceedings had been instituted against the witness because he believed the witness had lied at the preliminary hearing about what had in fact occurred. (Ibid.) Once the witness was sworn, the prosecutor further stated that he wanted to inform the witness that if he... testifies... essentially [to] the same things... he did before, in [his] opinion that again would be perjury and he [the witness] would be facing another count. (Id. at p. 589.) In concluding that the prosecutor s warning was misconduct, the appellate court explained that the statement went far beyond reminding the witness of the duty to tell the truth or advising him of the consequences of perjured testimony, and in fact revealed the prosecutor s expectation that the witness [s] testimony would be perjurious if favorable to appellant, as was his preliminary hearing testimony. (People v. Bryant, supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at p. 589.) In finding causation, the court further stated that the prosecutor s statements were intimidating in that only after the prosecutor threatened this material witness did the witness refuse to testify, and the record strongly suggested that the witness was influenced not to testify by the prosecutor s references to perjury charges. (Id. at pp. 590, 594.) With respect to prejudice, the court held that the constitutional rights at issue were so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error.... [Citation.] [Citation.] Therefore, reversal is required without an examination of prejudice. [Citation.] (People v. Bryant, supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at p. 594.) In People v. Warren (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 961, 967, a defendant was charged with the unlawful taking of a vehicle. The defendant s key witness was expected to 9

10 testify that he, not the defendant, had stolen the vehicle. Before the witness testified, the court conducted a voir dire examination, during which it advised the witness of his privilege against self-incrimination. (Id. at pp ) The prosecutor then conducted his own voir dire examination, during which he told the witness that if he admitted to the crime, the district attorney would be likely to prosecute him. (Id. at pp ) The prosecutor then summed up: You can testify or not. If you take the 5th right now, you go back to Y.A. [Youth Authority] and God bless you. If you start testifying, [defense counsel] asks you questions about this crime, I ask you questions about this crime, and we are going to use everything against you we have got. The witness immediately replied, I am taking the 5th right now then. (Id. at p. 970.) A panel of this Division recognized that when a trial court has reason to believe a witness could be charged with a crime arising out of events to which he or she might testify, the court has a duty to ensure that the witness is advised of his or her privilege against self-incrimination. (People v. Warren, supra, 161 Cal.App.3d at p. 972.) We concluded, however, that in the circumstances of that case, the trial court had adequately advised the witness, but the prosecutor s remarks were improper and likely received by the witness as a threat, as shown by his invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege immediately thereafter. (Id. at pp ) In this regard, we noted that the defendant need not establish that the prosecutor s remarks were either the direct or exclusive factor in the witness [s] decision not to testify; all that need be shown is a strong suggestion the comments were the cause. [Citation.] (Id. at p. 974.) We further observed that the prosecutor s power to prosecute infects a prosecutorial admonition of the right of a defense witness not to testify with a perilous potential for improper intimidation; and this is so regardless of the propriety in fact of the prosecutor s motives. (Id. at p. 974.) Finally, we agreed with the court in People v. Bryant that such misconduct should likely be treated as reversible per se, but found it unnecessary to determine the appropriate standard because we could not conclude that the error there was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Warren, supra, 161 Cal.App.3d at p. 975, citing 10

11 Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 23.) As we explained, despite the testimony of another defense witness as to what the nontestifying witness had previously told her, the testimony of that witness himself would have carried far more weight than that of [the other witness] relating what [he] purportedly told her. (People v. Warren, at p. 975.) In In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d 1, the defendant, convicted of second degree murder, argued that the prosecutor had interfered with his right to present the testimony of witnesses at trial. Our Supreme Court held that the prosecutor had committed misconduct with respect to several defense witnesses. The prosecution s investigator arrested the first defense witness outside the courtroom, in the presence of other people the investigator knew to be defense witnesses, immediately after the witness gave testimony that contradicted a key prosecution witness. (Id. at p. 33.) A second defense witness was subsequently told that he would also be arrested if he testified as the first witness had. (Id. at pp ) Our Supreme Court specifically found that the prosecutor s statement to the effect that [the witness] would be prosecuted for any crime he revealed or committed in the course of his testimony amounts to misconduct under the circumstances of this case. (In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 40.) Similar statements to the attorneys for two other prospective defense witnesses also constituted misconduct. (Id. at pp. 44, 46, 48.) In addition to demonstrating prosecutorial misconduct, the court found that the defendant had shown a causal link between the misconduct and the refusal of three defense witnesses to testify, and also had shown materiality under both federal and state standards. (In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 51.) Thus, the defendant had carried his burden of showing that prosecutorial misconduct had interfered with his constitutional right to present the testimony of witnesses at trial. (Ibid.) As to prejudice, the court did not resolve the question whether the violation was prejudicial per se since prejudice appeared under both the federal standard of Chapman v. 11

12 California, supra, 386 U.S. at page 24, and the state standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, (In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 51.) In the present case, appellant has shown misconduct on the part of the prosecutor. Regardless of whether he acted with improper motives, the prosecutor s warning went far beyond advising Rossiter of her privilege against self-incrimination and amounted to an unnecessary threat. In telling her that she would be prosecuted if she testified that she owned the shotgun, the prosecutor thus transformed Rossiter from a willing witness to one who would refuse to testify.... [Citations.] (In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at pp. 31, 40 [prosecutor s warning that witness would be prosecuted for any crime he revealed or committed in the course of his testimony amounted to misconduct]; see also People v. Warren, supra, 161 Cal.App.3d at p. 970 [prosecutor s statement that, if witness testified, we are going to use everything against you we have got was improper]; People v. Robinson, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d at p. 970 [prosecutor committed misconduct when he told witness that charges will be filed, should you take the stand ].) 3 Causation is also present. It is true that Rossiter met with newly appointed counsel just after meeting with the prosecutor. However, that same morning, before her meeting with the prosecutor, when appellant s counsel told Rossiter she would be meeting with appointed counsel who would probably direct her not to testify, Rossiter said she understood, but still intended to testify. We conclude that, even if the 3 Respondent argues that because the prosecutor initially suggested that independent counsel be appointed to advise Rossiter, because defense counsel expressed the belief that the prosecutor had acted appropriately at all times, and because the trial court did not infer any misconduct by the prosecution, no misconduct has been shown. As we have explained, however, the question is not whether the prosecutor acted with bad faith or improper motives. Rather, the question is whether the prosecutor engaged in activity that was wholly unnecessary to the proper performance of his duties and of such a character as to transform [a defense witness] from a willing witness to one who would refuse to testify.... [Citations.] (In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 31.) We have concluded that the prosecutor s warning was unnecessary to the proper performance of his duties and therefore constituted misconduct. 12

13 subsequent meeting with appointed counsel had some incremental effect on Rossiter s decision, the significant coercive force of the prosecutor s warning plainly was a substantial cause of Rossiter s sudden refusal to testify. (In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 31; accord, People v. Warren, supra, 161 Cal.App.3d at p. 974 [defendant need not establish that the prosecutor s remarks were either the direct or exclusive factor in the witness [s] decision not to testify; all that need be shown is a strong suggestion the comments were the cause ].) This case is similar to People v. Robinson, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d 962, 970, in which the prosecutor advised a defense witness that charges would be brought against her should she take stand. The witness first said she was still willing to testify, but after seeking counsel from public defender, she changed her mind and declined to testify further. (Id. at p. 970.) Despite the subsequent meeting with counsel, the appellate court concluded that the prosecutor s improper threat resulted in depriving the defendant of this witness s testimony. (Ibid.; compare People v. Lucas, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 458 [prosecutor s comment was not a substantial cause of witness s decision not to testify where record demonstrated that before prosecutor made allegedly coercive statement, witness s counsel had already advised witness to invoke privilege against selfincrimination because of information witness related about his personal situation ].) 4 Finally, we conclude that appellant has shown materiality. Under the federal standard, he has made, to say the least, a plausible showing that Rossiter s testimony would have been both material and favorable to his defense. (See In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 32.) Similarly, under the California standard, he has shown at least a reasonable possibility that Rossiter could have given testimony that would have 4 Respondent asserts that, without a declaration from Rossiter regarding why she chose not to testify, there was no showing that her refusal was due to anything the prosecutor said. The evidence already in the record, however, demonstrates causation. Indeed, the evidence here is nearly identical to the evidence in People v. Robinson, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d 962, 970, which convinced Division Four of this District that the prosecutor s warning was at least a substantial cause of the witness s refusal to testify. A declaration from Rossiter was unnecessary to the determination of causation in this case. 13

14 been both material and favorable. (Ibid.) Rossiter had asserted from the beginning that the shotgun belonged to her and had repeatedly expressed her intent to testify to that effect at trial. Clearly, such testimony was favorable to appellant and would have been material to his defense that the shotgun did not belong to him. Although Troye Shaffer testified at trial that Rossiter had said she intended to testify that the shotgun belonged to her and Sergeant Robinson testified that Rossiter had indicated the gun was hers, obviously Rossiter s own testimony would have carried significantly more weight. (See People v. Warren, supra, 161 Cal.App.3d at p. 975 [explaining that, despite testimony of another defense witness as to what nontestifying witness had previously told her, testimony of that witness himself would have carried far more weight than that of [the other witness] relating what [he] purportedly told her ]; People v. Bryant, supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at p. 588 [noting that nontestifying defense witness was only witness to events in question other than defendant and police officers].) Accordingly, appellant has demonstrated prosecutorial interference with his constitutional right to present the testimony of witnesses at trial. (See In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at pp ) Respondent argues that even if appellant is correct that the prosecutor s warning to Dana Rossiter interfered with appellant s right to present witnesses, appellant cannot show prejudice. We disagree. Even assuming per se reversal is not required in these circumstances, we conclude the constitutional violation in question was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (See In re Martin, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 51; [not deciding whether such misconduct is prejudicial per se given prejudice appeared under both federal and state standards of error]; accord, People v. Warren, supra, 161 Cal.App.3d at p. 975.) First, as we have just explained in our discussion regarding the materiality of Rossiter s testimony, Rossiter s own testimony regarding her ownership of the shotgun would have carried far more weight than the second-hand testimony of other witnesses. (See People v. Warren, supra, 161 Cal.App.3d at p. 975.) 14

15 Second, as to respondent s argument that Rossiter s credibility would have been impeached with evidence that she knew virtually nothing about the shotgun, this fact underlines the potential value of her testimony. She was in essence impeached in absentia when Sergeant Robinson related the telephone conversation he had with her, in which she responded with I don t know to several questions Robinson asked about the gun. In fact, Robinson testified that he interpreted an ambiguous response by Rossiter as indicating the gun was not hers, in effect, saying I got nothing to do with the gun. Had Rossiter actually testified, the jury could have heard directly from her about her claim that the gun was hers as well as the circumstances of her conversation with Sergeant Robinson, without leaving Robinson s personal interpretation of her responses to his questions as the final word on the matter. (See People v. Warren, supra, 161 Cal.App.3d at p. 975.) Moreover, Shaffer s testimony that Rossiter had said she intended to testify the gun was hers might well have confused the jury and caused speculation regarding why she had changed her mind about testifying. Appellant was being prosecuted for possessing the shotgun, along with shotgun ammunition. The prosecutor improperly dissuaded a key witness from testifying. Rossiter s testimony potentially could have provided appellant with a complete defense to the charges against him. Such interference with appellant s right to present witnesses in his defense was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (See Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24.) For these reasons, reversal of the judgment is necessary. 5 5 In light of this conclusion, we need not address the additional issues appellant has raised on appeal. 15

16 The judgment is reversed. DISPOSITION Kline, P.J. We concur: Lambden, J. Richman, J. 16

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 9, 2015 v No. 317282 Jackson Circuit Court TODD DOUGLAS ROBINSON, LC No. 12-003652-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

v No Ingham Circuit Court

v No Ingham 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 July 18, 2017 v No. 332414 Ingham Circuit Court DASHAWN MARTISE CARTER, LC No.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A113296

IN 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 information

INTHE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A114344

INTHE 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 information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

NOT 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 information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A111525

IN 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 information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN 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 information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 4, 2004 v No. 245057 Midland Circuit Court JACKIE LEE MACK, LC No. 02-001062-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN 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 information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A105255

NOT 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 information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 26, 2006 v No. 263852 Marquette Circuit Court MICHAEL ALBERT JARVI, LC No. 03-040571-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A106090

NOT 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 information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A110076

IN 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 information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A114558

NOT 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 information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 20, 2005 v No. 263104 Oakland Circuit Court CHARLES ANDREW DORCHY, LC No. 98-160800-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE 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 information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A115807

IN 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 information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE Filed 10/3/07 P. v. Elliott 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 information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A119999

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A119999 Filed 4/30/09 P. v. Murphy 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 information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE Filed 10/14/09 P. v. Walton 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 information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 113,543 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, VANKHAM VONGNAVANH, Appellant.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 113,543 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, VANKHAM VONGNAVANH, Appellant. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 113,543 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. VANKHAM VONGNAVANH, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Sedgwick

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A117922

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A117922 Filed 10/29/08 P. v. Artieres 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 information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 19, 2005 v No. 254007 Wayne Circuit Court FREDDIE LATESE WOMACK, LC No. 03-005553-01 Defendant-Appellant.

More information

JARRIT M. RAWLS OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. September 15, 2006 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

JARRIT M. RAWLS OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. September 15, 2006 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA Present: All the Justices JARRIT M. RAWLS OPINION BY v. Record No. 052128 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. September 15, 2006 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Jarrit M. Rawls

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. L Trial Court No.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. L Trial Court No. [Cite as State v. Morales, 2008-Ohio-4619.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio Appellee Court of Appeals No. L-07-1231 Trial Court No. CR-2007-1545 v. Basil

More information

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2017-0023, State of New Hampshire v. Michael Regan, the court on October 17, 2017, issued the following order: Having considered the parties briefs

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 24, 2013 v No. 304163 Wayne Circuit Court CRAIG MELVIN JACKSON, LC No. 10-010029-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 17, 2008 v No. 276504 Allegan Circuit Court DAVID ALLEN ROWE, II, LC No. 06-014843-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN 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 information

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: December 16, 2004 77750 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DARRELL

More information

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 103,164. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, PEPIN F. SUTER, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 103,164. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, PEPIN F. SUTER, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 103,164 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. PEPIN F. SUTER, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The right to present witnesses to establish a defense is guaranteed

More information

STATE OF OHIO LARRY GRAY

STATE OF OHIO LARRY GRAY [Cite as State v. Gray, 2010-Ohio-5842.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94282 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. LARRY GRAY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as State v. Allen, 2008-Ohio-700.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : v. : No. 07AP-473 (C.P.C. No. 05CR-6364) Dante Allen, : (REGULAR

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 12, 2005 v No. 251355 Genesee Circuit Court MONTEZ LEONDRE COOPER, LC No. 03-011469-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 23, 2016 v No. 323200 Macomb Circuit Court TERRY LAMONT WILSON, LC No. 2013-002379-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

COUNSEL JUDGES. STOWERS, J. wrote the opinion. WE CONCUR: DAN SOSA, JR., Senior Justice, WILLIAM RIORDAN, Justice AUTHOR: STOWERS OPINION

COUNSEL JUDGES. STOWERS, J. wrote the opinion. WE CONCUR: DAN SOSA, JR., Senior Justice, WILLIAM RIORDAN, Justice AUTHOR: STOWERS OPINION 1 STATE V. WORLEY, 1984-NMSC-013, 100 N.M. 720, 676 P.2d 247 (S. Ct. 1984) STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CURTIS WORLEY, Defendant-Appellant No. 14691 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1984-NMSC-013,

More information

CASE NO. 1D Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Nada M. Carey, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Nada M. Carey, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ANTONIO MORALES, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 1D13-1113 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed May 22, 2015. An appeal from the Circuit Court

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED July 20, 2004 v No. 246154 Wayne Circuit Court EFRAIM GARCIA, LC No. 01-011952-03 Defendant-Appellant.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

IN 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 information

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : No. CR : v. : : CRIMINAL DIVISION ROGER MITCHELL RIERA, : Petitioner : OPINION AND ORDER

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : No. CR : v. : : CRIMINAL DIVISION ROGER MITCHELL RIERA, : Petitioner : OPINION AND ORDER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : No. CR-1459-2011 : v. : : CRIMINAL DIVISION ROGER MITCHELL RIERA, : Petitioner : OPINION AND ORDER After a jury

More information

On Appeal from the 22 Judicial District Court Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana No

On Appeal from the 22 Judicial District Court Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana No NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 KA 1021 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS KERRY LOUIS DOUCETTE Judgment rendered DEC 2 2 2010 On Appeal from the 22 Judicial

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A123432

IN 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 information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs August 15, 2006

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs August 15, 2006 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs August 15, 2006 JAMES MATTHEW GRAY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2002-D-2051

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2009

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2009 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2009 Opinion filed August 12, 2009. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D07-2612 Lower Tribunal No. 03-28569

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED July 20, 2004 v No. 247534 Wayne Circuit Court DEREK MIXON, a/k/a TIMOTHY MIXON, LC No. 01-013694-01

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 19, 2006 v No. 261895 Wayne Circuit Court NATHAN CHRISTOPHER HUGHES, LC No. 04-011325-01 Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD32548 ) DONALD WILLIAM LANGFORD, ) Filed: June 26, 2014 ) Defendant-Appellant.

STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD32548 ) DONALD WILLIAM LANGFORD, ) Filed: June 26, 2014 ) Defendant-Appellant. STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD32548 ) DONALD WILLIAM LANGFORD, ) Filed: June 26, 2014 ) Defendant-Appellant. ) AFFIRMED APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TANEY COUNTY Honorable

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos CA-101 And 2002-CA-102

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos CA-101 And 2002-CA-102 [Cite as State v. Kemper, 2004-Ohio-6055.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos. 2002-CA-101 And 2002-CA-102 v. : T.C. Case Nos. 01-CR-495 And

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED July 9, 2015 v No. 320838 Wayne Circuit Court CHARLES STANLEY BALLY, LC No. 13-008334-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION October 2, 2003 9:05 a.m. v No. 241147 Saginaw Circuit Court KEANGELA SHAVYONNE MCGEE, LC No. 01-020523-FH

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 12, 2014 v No. 315276 St. Clair Circuit Court RAFIKI EKUNDU DIXON, LC No. 12-002405-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 3/26/19 Colborn v. Chevron U.S.A. 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

More information

No. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Marianne L. Aho, Judge. August 1, 2018

No. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Marianne L. Aho, Judge. August 1, 2018 FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D16-1882 FRANCIS MAJAK LAI, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Marianne L. Aho, Judge. August

More information

IN 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 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 information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 19, 2010 v No. 292998 Genesee Circuit Court CORDARO LEVILE HARDY, LC No. 07-020165-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Filed 6/15/15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, ) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) S202921 v. ) ) Ct.App. 4/1 D057392 ERIC HUNG LE et al., ) ) San Diego County Defendants and Appellants. )

More information

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2017-0439, State of New Hampshire v. Cesar Abreu, the court on November 15, 2018, issued the following order: The defendant, Cesar Abreu, appeals his

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A121535

IN 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 information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2008

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2008 Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2008 Opinion filed July 16, 2008. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D06-2072 Lower Tribunal No. 04-33909

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 29, 2016 v No. 327340 Genesee Circuit Court KEWON MONTAZZ HARRIS, LC No. 12-031734-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 14, 2005 v No. 252559 St. Clair Circuit Court HAMIN LORENZO DIXON, LC No. 02-002600-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO KA-1717 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL GERARD TILLMAN FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * *

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO KA-1717 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL GERARD TILLMAN FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * * STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS GERARD TILLMAN * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2010-KA-1717 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 484-033, SECTION

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER NO IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER NO IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I NO. 29846 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LYLE SHAWN BENSON, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A113508

IN 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 information

RECIPE FOR FRESH AND CRISPY ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY WILL DO YOU PROUD

RECIPE FOR FRESH AND CRISPY ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY WILL DO YOU PROUD RECIPE FOR FRESH AND CRISPY ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY WILL DO YOU PROUD Staples Hughes Nuts and Bolts of Appellate Procedure, NCATL Headquarters, July 7, 2006 No client s chance for relief

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE APPELLEE DOES NOT REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE APPELLEE DOES NOT REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT E-Filed Document Jun 27 2018 15:48:34 2017-KA-01632-SCT Pages: 19 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIAN KING APPELLANT VS. NO. 2017-KA-01632 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF FOR THE

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

CERTIFIED 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 information

ON APPEAL FROM THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR POLK COUNTY HONORABLE ROBERT J. BLINK, DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

ON APPEAL FROM THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR POLK COUNTY HONORABLE ROBERT J. BLINK, DISTRICT COURT JUDGE SUPREME COURT NO. 17-1075 POLK COUNTY NO. FECR217722 ELECTRONICALLY FILED JUN 13, 2018 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA STATE OF IOWA Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KENNETH LEROY HEARD Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 17, 2011 v No. 296222 Washtenaw Circuit Court DERRICK ALDEN JOHNSON, LC No. 08-002097-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 22, 2005 v No. 255873 Jackson Circuit Court ALANZO CALES SEALS, LC No. 04-002074-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

No COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 1975-NMCA-139, 88 N.M. 541, 543 P.2d 834 December 02, 1975 COUNSEL

No COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 1975-NMCA-139, 88 N.M. 541, 543 P.2d 834 December 02, 1975 COUNSEL 1 STATE V. SMITH, 1975-NMCA-139, 88 N.M. 541, 543 P.2d 834 (Ct. App. 1975) STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Larry SMITH and Mel Smith, Defendants-Appellants. No. 1989 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW

More information

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N SUPREME COURT. v No In this case we consider whether the admission at a joint trial with a single jury of

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N SUPREME COURT. v No In this case we consider whether the admission at a joint trial with a single jury of Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan OPINION Chief Justice: Stephen J. Markman Justices: Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Kurtis T. Wilder Elizabeth T. Clement

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 3, 2007 v No. 262858 St. Joseph Circuit Court LISA ANN DOLPH-HOSTETTER, LC No. 00-010340-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

CASE NO. 1D Shannon Padgett of Dale C. Carson Attorney, PA, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D Shannon Padgett of Dale C. Carson Attorney, PA, Jacksonville, for Appellant. FEDERICO MARTIN BRAVO, II, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 15, 2014 v No. 314007 Wayne Circuit Court CHRISTOPHER DANIEL JACKSON, LC No. 12-003008-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-1275 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. James

More information

APPEAL from a judgment and order of the circuit court for Racine County: GERALD P. PTACEK, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded.

APPEAL from a judgment and order of the circuit court for Racine County: GERALD P. PTACEK, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED November 14, 2007 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear

More information

S12A0623. JACKSON v. THE STATE. Following a jury trial, Cecil Jackson, Jr. appeals his conviction for malice

S12A0623. JACKSON v. THE STATE. Following a jury trial, Cecil Jackson, Jr. appeals his conviction for malice In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: April 24, 2012 S12A0623. JACKSON v. THE STATE. MELTON, Justice. Following a jury trial, Cecil Jackson, Jr. appeals his conviction for malice murder, aggravated

More information

S07A1352. LEWIS v. THE STATE. Defendant Jeffrey Daniel Lewis was convicted of the felony murder of

S07A1352. LEWIS v. THE STATE. Defendant Jeffrey Daniel Lewis was convicted of the felony murder of FINAL COPY 283 Ga. 191 S07A1352. LEWIS v. THE STATE. Thompson, Justice. Defendant Jeffrey Daniel Lewis was convicted of the felony murder of Richard Golden and possession of a firearm during the commission

More information

Someone Must Be Lying

Someone Must Be Lying GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2015 Someone Must Be Lying Stephen A. Saltzburg George Washington University Law School, SSALTZ@law.gwu.edu Follow this and additional works

More information

v No Wayne Circuit Court

v No Wayne 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 April 17, 2018 v No. 337220 Wayne Circuit Court STEPHEN FOSTER, LC No. 16-005410-01-FC

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID COIT Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 561 EDA 2017 Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered

More information

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 August v. Rowan County Nos. 06 CRS CRS NICHOLAS JERMAINE STEELE

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 August v. Rowan County Nos. 06 CRS CRS NICHOLAS JERMAINE STEELE An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)

More information

Submitted January 31, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Fasciale and Gilson.

Submitted January 31, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Fasciale and Gilson. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) THE QUEEN AND SHAM SANGANOO

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) THE QUEEN AND SHAM SANGANOO . THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CRIMINAL) SAINT LUCIA CRIMINAL CASES NOS. SLUCRD 2007/0653, 0669 & 0670 BETWEEN: THE QUEEN AND SHAM SANGANOO Claimant Defendant Appearances:

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 2, 2004 v No. 247310 Otsego Circuit Court ADAM JOSEPH FINNERTY, LC No. 02-002769-FC Defendant-Appellant.

More information

STATE OF OHIO DEVONTE CANNON

STATE OF OHIO DEVONTE CANNON [Cite as State v. Cannon, 2010-Ohio-6156.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94146 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DEVONTE CANNON

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 29, 2012 v No. 302265 Jackson Circuit Court TRENTON RASHAAN PALMER, LC No. 10-005836-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

Steven M. Sharp, for appellant. Bruce Evans Knoll, for respondent. This appeal raises the question whether a defendant can

Steven M. Sharp, for appellant. Bruce Evans Knoll, for respondent. This appeal raises the question whether a defendant can ================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 100,247. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, XAVIER MILLER, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 100,247. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, XAVIER MILLER, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 100,247 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. XAVIER MILLER, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. When the appellant fails to object at trial to the inclusion of

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D CORRECTED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D CORRECTED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2003 THADDEUS LEIGHTON HILL, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D02-2299 CORRECTED STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. Opinion Filed April

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2010

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2010 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2010 BILLY HARRIS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 01-02675 Carolyn Wade

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO CA 89

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO CA 89 [Cite as State v. Brocious, 2003-Ohio-4708.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 2002 CA 89 v. : T.C. NO. 02 CRB 00513 MATTHEW BROCIOUS :

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE E-Filed Document Sep 30 2016 10:44:44 2016-KA-00422-COA Pages: 17 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JAIRUS COLLINS APPELLANT VS. NO. 2016-KA-00422 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED July 14, 2016 v No. 325110 Wayne Circuit Court SHAQUILLE DAI-SH GANDY-JOHNSON, LC No. 14-007173-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE NOVEMBER 1997 SESSION

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE NOVEMBER 1997 SESSION IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE NOVEMBER 1997 SESSION FILED December 23, 1997 WILLIE JOSEPH LAGANO, Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk Appellant, No. 01C01-9701-CC-00009

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as State v. Smead, 2010-Ohio-4462.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) STATE OF OHIO C. A. No. 24903 Appellee v. MARK ELLIOTT SMEAD Appellant

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Hall, 2014-Ohio-1731.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100413 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ROBIN R. HALL DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 11, 2011

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 11, 2011 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 11, 2011 ORLANDO M. REAMES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2006-D-3069

More information