IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D17-250
|
|
- Damon Jacobs
- 11 months ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED MAX MAGIC GUZMAN-AVILES, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed August 25, Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Donna L. McIntosh, Judge. Max Magic Guzman-Aviles, Quincy, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. LAMBERT, J. Max Guzman-Aviles appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure motion for postconviction relief. We affirm the denial of grounds three, four, and six of his motion without further comment. As to the remaining grounds one, two, and five, we also affirm, but not for the reasons provided by the postconviction court.
2 Guzman-Aviles was charged with robbery with a deadly weapon by being in actual possession of a firearm, a first-degree felony punishable by life imprisonment, 1 and fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, a third-degree felony. 2 Guzman-Aviles entered into a negotiated plea agreement and, consistent with this agreement, was sentenced to a ten-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for the armed robbery, followed by five years of probation, and to a concurrent five years imprisonment for the fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. In his facially sufficient motion for postconviction relief, Guzman-Aviles asserted in grounds one and five that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a pretrial motion to exclude or suppress the firearm from evidence because, according to Guzman-Aviles, the gun could not be connected to him. Guzman-Aviles specifically alleged that the gun was not found in his possession at the time of arrest, the police report does not reflect that the officer who pursued Guzman-Aviles saw him discard the firearm during the chase leading up to his arrest, the firearm was found in a public area two-and-one-half miles from where the crime occurred, and the firearm was never shown to the victim to identify it as the one used in the commission of the crime. In ground two of his motion, Guzman-Aviles alleged that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a pretrial motion to suppress the victim s identification of Guzman-Aviles at a show-up 3 done at the arrest site because the show-up was impermissibly suggestive. Guzman-Aviles asserted that (2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012) (1), Fla. Stat. (2012). 3 The show-up identification procedure differs from a line-up because the witness is presented with only one possible suspect for identification. See Perez v. State, 648 So. 2d 715, 719 (Fla. 1995). 2
3 he asked counsel to file these motions, but that counsel erroneously told him that motions to suppress this evidence could not be filed. He further alleged that there was a high probability that the motions, if filed, would have been granted. Finally, Guzman-Aviles alleged that, but for his trial counsel s misadvice, he would not have entered his no-contest plea and would have insisted upon proceeding to trial. In summarily denying the motion, the postconviction court held that because Guzman-Aviles entered a negotiated plea, [t]he effect of [the] plea [was] to preclude an attack, by way of a post-conviction motion, on the validity of evidence or the admissibility of evidence, quoting Parker v. State, 603 So. 2d 616, 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The court attached to the order on appeal a copy of the plea agreement and the transcript from the change of plea hearing at which Guzman-Aviles testified that he was waiving his right to trial and to confront the State s evidence and that he was not coerced into entering the plea. The court concluded that Guzman-Aviles voluntarily entered his plea and that his motion was simply an insufficient attack on the plea bargain, citing to Henry v. State, 679 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), and Stano v. State, 520 So. 2d 278, (Fla. 1988) (holding that the defendant could not go behind his plea by alleging that counsel should have investigated more because entry of the plea cuts off inquiry into all that precedes it). To the extent that the postconviction court interpreted Stano and Henry to preclude any challenges to a counsel s effectiveness following a plea, we disagree. In Stano, defense counsel placed on the record at the plea hearing that he had not yet received full discovery from the State and was not fully prepared to advise the defendant as to whether to proceed to trial or if the State had sufficient evidence to convict the defendant or not. 3
4 520 So. 2d at 280. Counsel also stated that the defendant confirmed to him that he had voluntarily confessed to law enforcement after being advised of his rights, that the defendant wanted to plea to avoid further delay, and that he did not want to proceed to trial. Id. Under these circumstances, the court found Stano s claim that counsel was ineffective for failure to make a proper investigation to be conclusively refuted by the record and that by insisting on pleading guilty and advising counsel that he had confessed freely and voluntarily, the defendant rendered any further investigation pointless. Id. at 281. In Henry, the defendant made a generic allegation that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to further investigate the case. 679 So. 2d at 886. However, unlike the instant case, the defendant in Henry made no claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress or how the failure to do so affected the voluntariness of his plea. In contrast, Guzman-Aviles essentially alleged that the evidence necessary for filing a motion to suppress evidence was known to his counsel but that his counsel mistakenly advised him that no motion to suppress could be filed, which Guzman-Aviles claimed to prejudicially rely upon in entering his plea. A trial attorney s failure to investigate a factual defense or a defense relying on the suppression of evidence, which results in the entry of an ill-advised plea of guilty, has long been held to constitute a facially sufficient attack upon the conviction. MacKinnon v. State, 39 So. 3d 537, 538 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (quoting Williams v. State, 717 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). In Hampton v. State, 217 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), this court recently held that a postconviction court erred in determining that a defendant s no-contest plea precluded a postconviction attack on the admissibility of evidence because a rule motion alleging that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance 4
5 by failing to file a motion to suppress is a legally sufficient claim, which is not waived by an entry of a plea. 217 So. 3d at 1097 (quoting Spencer v. State, 889 So. 2d 868, 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)). Moreover, the plea agreement attached to the order on appeal does not conclusively refute Guzman-Aviles claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence, nor did the trial court s plea colloquy with Guzman-Aviles address any specific issues regarding the suppression of evidence. See Zanchez v. State, 84 So. 3d 466, 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding that a general plea colloquy did not refute or address the specific issue of an alleged illegal search); Jones v. State, 846 So. 2d 1224, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (stating that a defendant s confirmation of satisfaction with counsel during a generalized plea colloquy was insufficient to refute a postconviction claim based on counsel s failure to advise of a specific defense). Thus, we find that Guzman-Aviles plea, by itself, did not preclude his ability to timely seek postconviction relief based upon the ineffective assistance of his counsel. Nevertheless, for the following reasons, we affirm the denial order under the tipsy coachman rule because the court reached the right conclusion. See Lamb v. State, 212 So. 3d 1108, 1112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (applying the tipsy coachman rule in a rule summary proceeding); Foss v. State, 24 So. 3d 1275, (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (same); Montero v. State, 996 So. 2d 888, 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (affirming a postconviction court s denial of a rule motion for reasons other than those given by the court in its order of denial). A defendant seeking postconviction relief based upon the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel must plead and prove both deficient performance of counsel and prejudice to the defendant. Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176, 1178 (Fla. 2004) (citing 5
6 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)). There is a similar two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims relating to cases resolved by a guilty or no-contest plea. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, (1985). The first prong is the same as in Strickland, while the second prejudice prong requires that a defendant demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel s errors, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Grosvenor, 874 So. 2d at 1179 (quoting Hill, 474 U.S. at 59). This second prong focuses the court s analysis on whether counsel s constitutionally ineffective performance affected the outcome of the plea process. Hill, 474 U.S. at 59. As previously discussed, Guzman-Aviles alleged that he asked his counsel to move to suppress the firearm and the out-of-court identification but that his counsel misadvised him that he could not file these motions and that the evidence would be admissible at trial. Guzman-Aviles claims that, but for his counsel s misadvice and deficient performance in not pursuing these motions to suppress this evidence, he would not have pleaded no contest and would have insisted on proceeding to trial. Nevertheless, a defendant s assertion of insisting on going to trial, standing alone, does not entitle a defendant to postconviction relief. Miller v. Champion, 262 F.3d 1066, 1072 (10th Cir. 2001) (citing United States v. Gordon, 4 F.3d 1567, 1571 (10th Cir. 1993)). Rather, the court evaluates such a claim from an objective standpoint, by applying the totality of the circumstances test as explained in Grosvenor: [I]n determining whether a reasonable probability exists that the defendant would have insisted on going to trial, a court should consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the plea, including such factors as whether a particular defense was likely to succeed at trial, the colloquy between the defendant and the trial court at the time of the plea, and 6
7 874 So. 2d at the difference between the sentence imposed under the plea and the maximum possible sentence the defendant faced at a trial. Under this test, a defendant seeking postconviction relief following a plea, based upon the ineffective assistance of counsel in not pursuing or misadvising about a defense, is not required to allege and prove that he or she would have prevailed at trial on the defense. Id. at However, the viability of the defense and the strength of the State s case are both relevant to analyzing the credibility of a defendant s assertion in a rule motion that the defendant would have insisted on going to trial. Id. at To that end, for a successful ineffective assistance claim based on counsel s failure to file a motion to suppress, a movant must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that the motion would have been granted. Cf. Robinson v. State, 972 So. 2d 1115, 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (finding that a probable cause affidavit claiming that the defendant consented to a search did not conclusively refute the defendant s claim that a motion to suppress would likely have been granted, had his attorney filed one, because the trial court would have been required to make a credibility determination in deciding the motion). Applying the totality of the circumstances test to the present record, we conclude that there is no reasonable probability that Guzman-Aviles would have insisted on going to trial. Stated differently, [w]here, under the totality of the circumstances, no objectively reasonable probability of prejudice exists, the claim may be summarily denied. Capalbo v. State, 73 So. 3d 838, 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). The detailed factual basis provided by the prosecutor at the change of plea hearing, based on the evidence that the State was prepared to present at trial, was that 7
8 Guzman-Aviles had answered a Craigslist ad to purchase a cellular phone and thereafter arranged to meet the seller at a local restaurant to consummate the transaction. The two met in the parking lot, and after negotiations apparently broke down, Guzman-Aviles pointed a.25 caliber semi-automatic handgun at the victim s face, who then handed over the phone. Guzman-Aviles then fled in his car. The police were immediately notified, and within moments, they had Guzman-Aviles car in front of them. The police initiated their police lights and siren, but Guzman-Aviles did not stop his vehicle. Instead, he turned off his own headlights and led them on a high-speed chase. Then, according to Guzman-Aviles own sworn motion, he stopped his car, jumped out and started running, ignoring the officer s loud verbal command to stop. The officer employed his taser, which hit Guzman-Aviles and caused him to drop to the pavement, where he was arrested. A separate officer, who was not involved in the chase, promptly brought the victim to the arrest site, and the victim identified Guzman-Aviles as the individual who had just robbed him at gunpoint. Two of the officers then walked back over the two-and-one-half-mile chase route and located the.25 caliber handgun near a sewer. Guzman-Aviles argued below and asserts here that because he was not in possession of the firearm when arrested and the officer who chased him did not list in his police report that he saw Guzman-Aviles discard the gun during the chase, the gun recovered along the chase route would have been suppressed. Assuming the truthfulness of Guzman-Aviles factual allegations, as is required when reviewing the summary denial of a rule motion to the extent they are not refuted by the record, See Peede v. State, 748 So. 2d 253, 257 (Fla. 1999), and even assuming that Guzman- Aviles legal conclusion that the gun would have been suppressed is correct, this does 8
9 not preclude the state from prosecuting Guzman-Aviles as charged. Eyewitness testimony that the defendant possessed a firearm is sufficient evidence... that the defendant was in possession of a firearm. Akins v. State, 838 So. 2d 637, 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (citing Fletcher v. State, 472 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Crump v. State, 629 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)). Further, [i]t is not fatal to the prosecution if the state does not introduce the weapon into evidence. Id. (citing Fletcher, 472 So. 2d at 539). As to the suppression of the victim s identification of Guzman-Aviles resulting from the show-up procedure used, the identification of a suspect through the show-up process is not invalid unless the police aggravate the suggestiveness of the confrontation or the procedure gives rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification given the totality of the circumstances. See Blanco v. State, 452 So. 2d 520, 524 (Fla. 1984), receded from on other grounds by Puglisi v. State, 112 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 2013); State v. Jackson, 744 So. 2d 545, 548 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). The factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification include: (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime ; (2) the witness degree of attention ; (3) the accuracy of the witness prior description of the criminal ; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at confrontation ; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. Perez v. State, 648 So. 2d 715, 719 (Fla. 1995) (quoting Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 (1972)). Based on the sworn allegations in Guzman-Aviles motion, the crime occurred at night, with the victim standing next to the suspect s driver-side door when the suspect pointed the gun directly at the victim s head, causing him to turn over the cell phone. 9
10 Thus, the victim s opportunity to view the criminal and his degree of attention is apparent. See Jackson, 744 So. 2d at 548 ( [I]t is fair to say that [the victim] would have paid close attention to the robber who had a gun to [the victim s] head when he demanded the wallet. ). 4 Furthermore, the length of time between the robbery and the show-up was brief. See id. ( Consideration must also be given to the fact that an identification made shortly after the crime is more reliable than a later identification in court. (quoting Blanco, 452 So. 2d at 524)). Additionally, although Guzman-Aviles was in handcuffs when identified, keeping a suspect in handcuffs is insufficient, without more, to invalidate a show-up. Jenkins v. State, 96 So. 3d 1110, 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (citing Jackson, 744 So. 2d at 548). Guzman-Aviles ten-year prison sentence is the lowest possible sentence that he could have received if convicted as charged, and his plea avoided a potential life sentence. Guzman-Aviles also raised no challenge to the evidence supporting his conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer that, by itself, exposed him to a five-year prison sentence. We also find sufficient the plea colloquy between Guzman-Aviles and the trial court, in which Guzman-Aviles was specifically advised of the maximum sentences that he faced if convicted as charged and the court scrupulously reviewed with Guzman-Aviles the constitutional rights that he had and waived by tendering his plea. Finally, for the reasons just outlined, the likelihood that the gun or the victim s out-of-court identification of Guzman-Aviles would be suppressed was, at best, questionable. Accordingly, we conclude that Guzman-Aviles motion for postconviction 4 Guzman-Aviles does not suggest or assert that the suspect was wearing a mask or was covering his face. 10
11 relief was appropriately denied. In doing so, we are reminded of the following observation made thirty-eight years ago by the United States Supreme Court regarding the limitation on collateral attack with respect to convictions based on guilty pleas: Every inroad on the concept of finality undermines confidence in the integrity of our procedures; and, by increasing the volume of judicial work, inevitably delays and impairs the orderly administration of justice. The impact is greatest when new grounds for setting aside guilty pleas are approved because the vast majority of criminal convictions result from such pleas. Moreover, the concern that unfair procedures may have resulted in the conviction of an innocent defendant is only rarely raised by a petition to set aside a guilty plea. United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 784 (1979) (quoting United States v. Smith, 440 F.2d 521, (7th Cir. 1971) (Stevens, J., dissenting)). AFFIRMED. PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur. 11
CASE NO. 1D James Carter appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JAMES CARTER, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D16-4541
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED DANIEL SCOTT, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D16-3843
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT ROBERT W. ALVAREZ, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D16-802 [February 14, 2018] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth
Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC11-1571 CLAUDIA VERGARA CASTANO, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [November 21, 2012] In Castano v. State, 65 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), the
v. CASE NO. 1D Michael Ufferman of the Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D10-6695
Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC17-1229 JEFFREY GLENN HUTCHINSON, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [March 15, 2018] Jeffrey Glenn Hutchinson appeals an order of the circuit court summarily
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D12-851
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2012 STATE OF FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2011 LUIS ESTEBAN COLON, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D09-3131 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed January 28, 2011
No. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Mark Borello, Judge. April 18, 2018
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-975 BRENDEN BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Mark Borello, Judge. April 18, 2018
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
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2011
POLEN, J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2011 JUAN GUARDADO, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D07-4422 [May 18, 2011] Appellant, Juan Guardado,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 4D ; 4D ; 4D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA Petitioner, vs. Case No. SC01-1596 LOWER TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 4D99-4339; 4D99-4340; 4D99-4341 GREGORY BYRON ORR, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 27, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D17-1216 Lower Tribunal No. 98-25761 Carlos Jose
Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC06-539 MILFORD WADE BYRD, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [April 2, 2009] This case is before the Court on appeal from an order denying Milford Byrd
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2003 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D01-2416 MAURICE BUSH, Appellee. Opinion filed January 24, 2003 Appeal
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT CHRISTOPHER T. DEAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D14-681 [May 18, 2016] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 29, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D17-1337 Lower Tribunal No. 94-31056B John Jules,
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 3, 2016 v No. 324567 Macomb Circuit Court MILO LEROY JOHNSON, LC No. 13-004736-FC Defendant-Appellant.
File: CRIM JUST.doc Created on: 9/25/2007 3:45:00 PM Last Printed: 9/26/ :53:00 AM CRIMINAL JUSTICE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE Criminal Justice: Battery Statute Munoz-Perez v. State, 942 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 4th Dist. App. 2006) The use of a deadly weapon under Florida s aggravated battery statute requires that the
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON JUNE SESSION, July 23, 1997 DAVID WAYNE BRITT, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C CC )
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON JUNE SESSION, 1997 FILED July 23, 1997 DAVID WAYNE BRITT, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9607-CC-00224 ) Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk Appellant,
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2013
CIKLIN, J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2013 ROBERT ALVAREZ, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D12-616 [November 13, 2013] The defendant, Robert
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2013 JARED BRETHERICK, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant,
No. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Angela C. Dempsey, Judge. February 19, 2017
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D16-1755 CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.
Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida LEWIS, J. No. SC12-1277 JOSUE COTTO, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [May 15, 2014] Josue Cotto seeks review of the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal
Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC09-941 CLARENCE DENNIS, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. CANADY, C.J. [December 16, 2010] CORRECTED OPINION In this case we consider whether a trial court should
CASE NO. 1D Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ROBERT LAMAR GERALD, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D13-1362
CASE NO. 1D Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA ELLIOTT BARNETT, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D13-6137
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Case No.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Case No.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-50085 Document: 00512548304 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 28, 2014 Lyle
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DAVID WEINGRAD, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D16-0446 [September 27, 2017] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth
Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC17-127 KENNETH DARCELL QUINCE, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [January 18, 2018] Kenneth Darcell Quince, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2002
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2002 WILLIAM DOUGLAS FREEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Case No. 5D00-1985 Appellee. / Opinion filed April 5, 2002
STATE OF OHIO ANDRE CONNER
[Cite as State v. Conner, 2010-Ohio-4353.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93953 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ANDRE CONNER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED MICHAEL JUDE CRINER, Appellant, v. Case
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2014
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT January Term 2014 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. ROLAND MARSH, Appellee. No. 4D12-4126 [May 7, 2014] Appeal from the Circuit Court for
Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida Nos. SC11-941 & SC11-1357 GABRIEL A. HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. PER CURIAM. STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. GABRIEL A. HERNANDEZ, Respondent. [November
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 17, 2017 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 17, 2017 Session 11/28/2017 JAMES MCKINLEY CUNNINGHAM v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Grundy County No. 6751 Larry
Follow this and additional works at:
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-27-2008 USA v. Jackson Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-4784 Follow this and additional
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA , -8899, -8902, v , -9669
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA DORIAN RAFAEL ROMERO, Movant/Petitioner, Case Nos. 2008-cf-8896, -8898, -8899, -8902, v. -9655, -9669 THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 09-145 KUNTRELL JACKSON, VS. APPELLANT, LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, APPELLEE, Opinion Delivered February 9, 2011 APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 15, 2008
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 15, 2008 ALMEER K. NANCE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 75969 Kenneth
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE On Brief September 22, 2010
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE On Brief September 22, 2010 MAREY ATEF ABOU-RAHMA, JR. v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2005-D-2779,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2010 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D09-1356 JUNIOR JOSEPH, Appellee. / Opinion filed December 3, 2010 Appeal
ORDER REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division I Opinion by JUDGE ROMÁN Taubman and Fox, JJ., concur
12CA0378 Peo v. Rivas-Landa 07-11-2013 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 12CA0378 Adams County District Court No. 10CR558 Honorable Chris Melonakis, Judge The People of the State of Colorado,
Appealing Plea Cases: Substantive Claims and New Developments
Appealing Plea Cases: Substantive Claims and New Developments Plea Withdrawal Before Sentencing fair and just reason After Sentencing manifest injustice Not Knowing, Intelligent, Voluntary Ineffective
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT JOEY VILLANUEVA, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D15-1422 STATE OF FLORIDA,
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT HARLEME L. LARRY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case Nos. 2D13-4610
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N. In accordance with the parties plea-bargain agreement, the trial court
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS ADRIAN GUARDADO, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant, Appellee. No. 08-14-00083-CR Appeal from the 171st Judicial District Court of El Paso County,
JUL , L2J7," 1)11
.,. RECEIVED BLACKWATER RIVER CF JUL 28 2017., L2J7," 1)11 01srR1crcouRroFAPPEAL IN THE DisTrucT court of APPEAL of FLq~n~~~.'... ------~= AFTH DISTRICT Ftp TH DISTRICT INITIAL ~ V. Case No.: 7016-:5T7tP
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
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2013 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D12-392
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2013 STATE OF FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED T.D., MOTHER OF X.D., A CHILD, Appellant,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF FLORIDA APPEAL NO. 1D AHMAD J. SMITH Appellant-Petitioner,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF FLORIDA APPEAL NO. 1D11-1226 AHMAD J. SMITH Appellant-Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA Appellee-Respondent. A DIRECT APPEAL OF AN ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT BENNY ARZOLA MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D15-551 [April 12, 2017] Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Appellee, No v. N.D. Okla. JIMMY LEE SHARBUTT, ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 12, 2008 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, No. 07-5151 v. N.D.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT MATTHEW FETZNER, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D15-2572 [May 3, 2017] Appeal and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Case No.
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 24, 2018. No. 3D16-1081 Lower Tribunal No. 14-11822 Thomas Garrard Burton, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT EDWARD AUSTIN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D16-1524 [February 28, 2018] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
CASE NO. 1D Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D16-1006
Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC17-931 KENNETH DARCELL QUINCE, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [January 18, 2018] Kenneth Darcell Quince, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs January 18, 2017 at Knoxville
04/06/2017 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs January 18, 2017 at Knoxville DEMOND HUGHES v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County
CASE NO. 1D Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA HECTOR LUIS SANCHEZ- ANDUJAR, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE
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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. DCA: 3D JOSE RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, -vs- THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC08-2047 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. DCA: 3D07-2834 JOSE RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, -vs- THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs October 7, 2008
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs October 7, 2008 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. VIRGIL SAMUELS Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Henry County No. 13988 Donald E.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY APPELLANT, CASE NO O P I N I O N APPELLEE, CASE NOS.
[Cite as State v. Lee, 180 Ohio App.3d 739, 2009-Ohio-299.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, CASE NO. 15-08-06 v. LEE, O P I N I O N APPELLEE.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT MARQUIS SHARKEAR HUDSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D14-4167 [August 3, 2016] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the
Court of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Bradley, 181 Ohio App.3d 40, 2009-Ohio-460.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90281 THE STATE OF OHIO, BRADLEY, APPELLEE,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. V CASE No. SCl ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH DISTRICT
Filing # 18934264 Electronically Filed 10/02/2014 02:09:43 PM RECEIVED, 10/2/2014 14:14:26, John A. Tornasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA TIMOTHY HARRIS. Petitioner, V CASE No.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2003
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2003 RONALD MCKEEHAN, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D02-1823 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed March 14, 2003 Appeal
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT NICHOLAS J. CARRION, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D14-2151 STATE OF
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA. EDDIE CROSS OPINION BY v. Record No JUDGE WILLIAM G. PETTY APRIL 3, 2007 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Frank, Petty and Senior Judge Willis Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia EDDIE CROSS OPINION BY v. Record No. 2781-04-1 JUDGE WILLIAM G. PETTY APRIL 3, 2007 COMMONWEALTH
S16A0255. EDWARDS v. THE STATE. Phirronnius Edwards was tried by a Colquitt County jury and convicted
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: May 9, 2016 S16A0255. EDWARDS v. THE STATE. BLACKWELL, Justice. Phirronnius Edwards was tried by a Colquitt County jury and convicted of murder and the unlawful
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 6, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D14-1259 Lower Tribunal No. 14-1717 A.M., a juvenile,
-. 66 F.3d 999 (1 lth Cir. 1995), cert.,
~ ~ t a JOHN MILLS, JR., Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 89,3 [December, 19961 CORRECTFJ? OPINION PER CURIAM. John Mills Jr, appeals an order entered by the trial court below pursuant to
Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida CANADY, J. No. SC16-785 TYRONE WILLIAMS, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [December 21, 2017] In this case we examine section 794.0115, Florida Statutes (2009) also
MARK SILVER v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 39238)
*********************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or
RULES AND STATUTES ON HABEAS CORPUS with Amendments and Additions in the ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996
RULES AND STATUTES ON HABEAS CORPUS with Amendments and Additions in the ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996 CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEGAL FOUNDATION INTRODUCTION On April 24, 1996, Senate Bill
Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC04-2255 PER CURIAM. IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.172. [September 1, 2005] At the request of the Court, The Florida Bar s Criminal Procedure Rules
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2001 JOHN CHRISTOPHER STABILE, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D00-2427 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed August 10, 2001
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE,
[Cite as State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86, 2008-Ohio-509.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SARKOZY, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86, 2008-Ohio-509.] Criminal law Postrelease
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT CASE NO. 4D JOSE MARTINEZ FLORES, Appellant, -vs- STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT CASE NO. 4D08-3866 JOSE MARTINEZ FLORES, Appellant, -vs- STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 4, 2015. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-925 consolidated with No. 3D15-1572 into No. 3D15-1572
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2004 TROY BERNARD PERRY, JR., Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D04-1791 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. Opinion filed November 19, 2004
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 22, 2007
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 22, 2007 WILLIAM MATNEY PUTMAN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Carter County No. S18111
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT RONALD LEON THOMPSON, JR., Appellant, v. Case No. 2D16-2084 STATE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC ALVIN LEWIS, Petitioner. vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents. PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC05-1605 ALVIN LEWIS, Petitioner vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents. PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Seeking Discretionary Review from the District Court of
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. PETER PERAZA, Appellee. No. 4D16-2675 [August 30, 2017] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2008
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2008 Opinion filed January 16, 2008. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D03-1925 Lower Tribunal No.
Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PER CURIAM. No. SC17-1071 NORMAN MEARLE GRIM, Appellant, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [March 29, 2018] Norman Mearle Grim, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the circuit
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: AUGUST 25, 2017; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2016-CA-000753-MR ROBERT BRYANT APPELLANT APPEAL FROM HENRY CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE KAREN A. CONRAD,
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT LUIS MATTOS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D15-4366 [August 24, 2016] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Rule 900. Scope; Notice In Death Penalty Cases.
POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS 234 Rule 900 CHAPTER 9. POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS 900. Scope; Notice In Death Penalty Cases. 901. Initiation of Post-Conviction Collateral Proceedings.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Joshua R. Heller, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA DONALD JAMES SMITH, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D14-5647
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AKBAR HASSAN-EL, Defendant Below- Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below- Appellee. No. 432, 2008 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 16, 2008
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 16, 2008 JAMES H. CARTER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Grundy County No. 4020 J.
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2010
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2010 Opinion filed June 30, 2010. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D09-1346 Lower Tribunal No.