THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, MICHELLE CHAMBERS, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR Filed April 10, 2014
|
|
- Baldwin Davis
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MICHELLE CHAMBERS, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR Filed April 10, 2014 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. S1100CR The Honorable Boyd T. Johnson, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General Joseph T. Maziarz, Section Chief Counsel, Phoenix By Kathryn A. Damstra, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Eleanor L. Miller, Phoenix Counsel for Appellant
2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Kelly authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eckerstrom concurred. K E L L Y, Presiding Judge: 1 Michelle Chambers appeals her convictions and sentences for possession and transportation of marijuana for sale. She argues the traffic stop that resulted in her convictions was pretextual, and urges this court to depart from Arizona s adherence to Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), to declare such stops constitutionally unreasonable. She further claims the trial court erred by restricting her cross-examination of her former co-defendant. For the following reasons, we affirm. Factual and Procedural Background 2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding Chambers s convictions and sentences. See State v. Becerra, 231 Ariz. 200, 2, 291 P.3d 994, 996 (App. 2013). In April 2012, a Casa Grande police officer assigned to the K-9 Unit in which officers work with highly trained narcotics detection dogs observed a vehicle traveling along Interstate 10 late at night with what appeared to be obstructions hanging from the rearview mirror. After initiating a traffic stop, the officer approached the vehicle and noticed a strong odor of air freshener coming from the vehicle. He saw multiple air fresheners hanging from the rearview mirror, the rear passenger windows, the air vents, and the dashboard. 3 The officer informed the driver, Megan Chang, that she would be receiving a warning for the obstructed windshield, 1 and 1Section (B), A.R.S., prohibits operat[ing] a motor vehicle with an object or material placed, displayed, installed, affixed or applied on the windshield or side or rear windows... or [that otherwise] obstructs or reduces a driver s clear view through the windshield or side or rear windows. 2
3 asked if he could search her vehicle. Chang declined, citing a tight timeframe. The officer then informed Chang he was going to run [his patrol service] dog around the vehicle... to make sure there [were] no illegal drugs in the vehicle. The dog alerted to the vehicle and, following a search, the officer found approximately forty to forty-five pounds of marijuana in the trunk, wrapped inside several layers of packaging and odor-masking materials. 4 Both Chang and Chambers were charged with possession and transportation of marijuana for sale. Before trial, Chang pled guilty to attempted possession of marijuana for sale, admitted involvement in packing and transporting marijuana including the boxes found in the April 2012 traffic stop and agreed to testify for the prosecution in its case against Chambers. Following a jury trial, Chambers was found guilty of possession of more than four pounds of marijuana for sale and transportation of two pounds or more of marijuana for sale. The trial court sentenced her to concurrent, partially mitigated four-year terms of imprisonment. Chambers timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article VI, 9 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S (A)(1) and (A). Pretextual Stops 5 In this appeal, Chambers argues for the first time that the pretextual, initial seizure of the vehicle and its occupants in this case violated the Arizona Constitution. Without alleging the traffic stop was improper under Arizona law, Chambers argues [t]he initial stop in the instant case was a complete ruse a pretext 2 and urges us to interpret article II, 8 of the Arizona Constitution 2Chambers admits the officer stopped Chang s vehicle for a traffic violation but suggests the stop was pretextual because the officer was a trained drug interdiction officer... [whose] assignment was to interdict drugs, not make traffic stops for minor violations. Because she does not allege the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Chang s vehicle, we do not address this issue. See State v. Larson, 222 Ariz. 341, 23, 214 P.3d 429, 434 (App. 2009) (arguments not raised in opening brief on appeal deemed waived). 3
4 broadly so as to afford protection against allegedly pretextual stops, as courts in Washington and New Mexico have done. She argues that allowing such stops is not the appropriate interpretation of article II, 8, and that Arizona and federal cases so holding were wrongly decided. She thus invites us to recognize and prohibit pretextual stops and, ultimately, depart from Whren and its progeny to declare such stops constitutionally unreasonable. We decline her invitation. 6 Although Chambers filed two motions to suppress evidence, alleging various constitutional violations, she failed to raise this particular claim below. She has therefore forfeited the right to seek relief on this ground for all but fundamental error. See State v. Paredes-Solano, 223 Ariz. 284, 6, 222 P.3d 900, 903 (App. 2009); see also State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 19, 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005). 7 Fundamental error is that going to the foundation of the case, error that takes from the defendant a right essential to his defense, and error of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial. State v. Hunter, 142 Ariz. 88, 90, 688 P.2d 980, 982 (1984). To prevail under this standard of review, a defendant must establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error in his case caused him prejudice. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 20, 115 P.3d at 607. Chambers, however, has neither alleged that fundamental, prejudicial error occurred here nor presented this court with any argument or authority in this regard. We will not ignore such error if we see it, but we cannot discern any fundamental, prejudicial error from the record before us. See State v. Fernandez, 216 Ariz. 545, 32, 169 P.3d 641, 650 (App. 2007) ( Although we do not search the record for fundamental error, we will not ignore it when we find it. ). Chambers therefore has waived the issue on appeal and we do not address it. 3 See State v. 3Although we may consider constitutional arguments raised for the first time on appeal, State v. Herrera, 232 Ariz. 536, 42, 307 P.3d 103, 117 (App. 2013), we decline to do so here. It is not for this court to determine whether Whren and its progeny should be 4
5 Moreno-Medrano, 218 Ariz. 349, 17, 185 P.3d 135, 140 (App. 2008); see also State v. Musgrove, 223 Ariz. 164, 4, 221 P.3d 43, 45 (App. 2009). Limitation on Cross-Examination Regarding Financial Resources 8 Chambers next argues the trial court erred by restricting her cross-examination of her former co-defendant, Chang, regarding Chang s financial ability to retain private defense counsel. Trial courts retain wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on crossexamination to prevent confusion of the issues or interrogation that is only marginally relevant. State v. Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz. 324, 8, 312 P.3d 123, 127 (App. 2013). We review restrictions on the scope of cross-examination for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Fleming, 117 Ariz. 122, 126, 571 P.2d 268, 272 (1977). We will not disturb the court s ruling absent a clear showing of prejudice. State v. Perez, 233 Ariz. 38, 22, 308 P.3d 1189, 1195 (App. 2013). 9 At trial, Chambers sought to question Chang about how she was able to retain private defense counsel, claiming the unexplained income or source of income... [was] relevant for the jury to consider. Both Chang s attorney and the state objected to such questioning as irrelevant and the trial court sustained the objections, stating Chang was head[ed] into irrelevant territory. See Fleming, 117 Ariz. at 126, 571 P.2d at 272 (no abuse of discretion in absence of showing cross-examination had direct bearing on the credibility of witness s testimony). 10 Both the United States and Arizona Constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant the right to confront witnesses. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Ariz. Const. art. II, 24. This includes the right to cross-examination. State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 136, 94 P.3d 1119, 1153 (2004); see also Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 404 (1965). A trial judge has discretion to place reasonable limits upon the scope of cross-examination[] without infringing upon the defendant s right of confrontation. State v. Lehr, 201 Ariz. 509, 30, 38 P.3d 1172, 1181 reexamined; rather, we follow our supreme court s precedent. See Lear v. Fields, 226 Ariz. 226, 17, 245 P.3d 911, 917 (App. 2011). 5
6 (2002). These limits include, among other things, concerns about harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant. State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133, 62, 42 P.3d 564, 584 (2002), quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986). We evaluate crossexamination restrictions on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the defendant was denied the opportunity to present evidence relevant to issues in the case or the witness credibility. Id. 11 Chambers implies that Chang s private attorney was retained with the profits of criminal conduct, or with the help of a third party, and she should have been allowed to question Chang about any and all information which would provide the jury the ability to weigh her credibility. We disagree, and conclude Chambers has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding this information, Fleming, 117 Ariz. at 126, 571 P.2d at 272, or that she was prejudiced by its exclusion, see Perez, 233 Ariz. 38, 22, 308 P.3d at The jury had ample evidence regarding Chang s illegal activities. Chang testified she had faced the same drug-related charges as Chambers, and admitted she had prior drug-related convictions and had smoked marijuana. She also admitted she had agreed to transport the marijuana at issue for money and had helped package the marijuana for transport. Additionally, Chang admitted she had lied to the police officer at the time of the traffic stop. 13 Although Chambers suggests that cross-examination regarding Chang s ability to hire private counsel could have led either to information about further criminal activity or to others who may have been involved in the drug trafficking at issue, she has failed to demonstrate how the information would have had a direct bearing on Chang s credibility as a witness. See Fleming, 117 Ariz. at 126, 571 P.2d at 272. She also has failed to demonstrate how she was prejudiced by the exclusion of this information in light of other evidence that impeached Chang s credibility, or that the proposed testimony would not confus[e] the issues, or be repetitive or only marginally relevant to the jury s evaluation of Chang. Cañez, 202 6
7 Ariz. 133, 62, 42 P.3d at 584. The court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination in this regard. Limitation on Cross-Examination Regarding Potential Penalties 14 Finally, Chambers argues the trial court erred by refusing to allow her to cross-examine Chang regarding the full range of penalties Chang would have faced had she not accepted a plea agreement and agreed to testify against Chambers. Before trial, Chambers filed a motion in limine seeking a ruling permitting her to cross-examine Chang regarding the punishment she hope[d] to avoid by agreeing to testify against Chambers. She renewed her argument at trial, asserting she wished to elicit from Chang her belief that she faced between three and twenty-five years in prison if she did not cooperate with the state. The state maintained this was an inaccurate statement of Chang s potential sentences 4 that could mislead the jury about the sentencing ranges for Chambers s as well as Chang s offenses. The court agreed and also expressed its concern that this was a backdoor method for eliciting sympathy for the defendant, commenting that this is why the comments on punishment are prohibited, at least as far as the jury is concerned. Finally, the court noted that Chang had only agreed with counsel that she was facing three to twenty-five years; she had not articulated the sentencing range herself. The court then allowed Chambers to cross-examine Chang about taking the deal to avoid a substantial prison sentence which has a minimum sentence of three years and [could] be substantially more. 15 The trial court has broad discretion in admitting or excluding evidence. Pima Cnty v. Gonzalez, 193 Ariz. 18, 14, 969 4The aggravated maximum sentence Chambers faced for each count was 12.5 years. A.R.S (A), (D) (aggravated maximum sentence for class two felony is 12.5 years). Because in this case the two charges arose from a single act, the sentences were required to be imposed concurrently. See State v. Provenzino, 221 Ariz. 364, 23, 212 P.3d 56, 61 (App. 2009); A.R.S (act punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws may be punished under both, but sentences must be concurrent). 7
8 P.2d 183, 187 (App. 1998). This discretion extends to limiting the scope of cross-examination, so long as it is within reasonable limits. State v. Doody, 187 Ariz. 363, 374, 930 P.2d 440, 451 (App. 1996). We review a trial court s order restricting the scope of crossexamination on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the court unduly inhibited the defendant s ability to present information bearing on issues or on the credibility of witnesses. Id. We will not disturb the court s decision absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion and of prejudice. Thompson v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co., 187 Ariz. 121, 128, 927 P.2d 781, 788 (App. 1996); see also State v. Zuck, 134 Ariz. 509, 513, 658 P.2d 162, 166 (1982). 16 On appeal, Chambers argues the trial court erred by not granting her wide latitude in cross-examining Chang regarding the full potential of sentences she was facing had she not reached a plea agreement which, she claims, the jury would have found highly relevant to the weight to be given to Chang s testimony. We disagree. Not only did the proposed cross-examination suggest a sentencing range that was double the actual sentence for these offenses, but as the court correctly noted, it had great potential to confuse the jury or improperly garner sympathy for Chambers regarding her own sentence. See Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133, 62, 42 P.3d at Chambers also has failed to demonstrate how she was prejudiced by the jury hearing that Chang faced three years and [possibly] substantially more instead of the inaccurate statement that her sentencing range was three to twenty-five years. Either sentence provides motivation to reach a plea agreement, and the difference between the two did not affect Chang s credibility on cross-examination. 5 See Perez, 233 Ariz. 38, 22, 308 P.3d at Chambers has not established the court abused its discretion, nor 5Chambers also suggests the jury should have been permitted to hear testimony that Chang faced a presumptive, five-year sentence. See A.R.S (D). Because she did not raise this argument below, we do not address it. See State v. Kinney, 225 Ariz. 550, 7, 241 P.3d 914, 918 (App. 2010) (defendant must make sufficient argument to allow trial court to rule on issue). 8
9 has she shown how she was prejudiced by these reasonable restrictions on the scope of cross-examination. Id. Disposition 18 For the foregoing reasons, Chambers s convictions and sentences are affirmed. 9
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, AMBER M. CARLSON, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR Filed January 20, 2016
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. AMBER M. CARLSON, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0098 Filed January 20, 2016 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND
More informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, JOHN JOSEPH BERGEN, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR Filed October 24, 2017
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOHN JOSEPH BERGEN, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0066 Filed October 24, 2017 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
More informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, JAVIER SOLIS, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR Filed November 26, 2014
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAVIER SOLIS, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0084 Filed November 26, 2014 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellee, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. IN THE COURT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO FILED BY CLERK OCT 16 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0411 ) DEPARTMENT B v. ) ) O P I N I O
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, FRANCISCO XAVIER VELOZ, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR Filed January 29, 2015
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. FRANCISCO XAVIER VELOZ, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0121 Filed January 29, 2015 Appeal from the Superior Court in Graham
More informationNo. 102,369 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, KENNETH S. GOFF, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 102,369 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. KENNETH S. GOFF, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. If an officer detects the odor of raw marijuana emanating from
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 24, 2014 v No. 314425 Ingham County Circuit Court ALVIN FRANKLIN, JR., LC No. 12-000430-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellee, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
FILED BY CLERK IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO JUL 23 2008 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, v. VINCENT ZARAGOZA, Appellee, Appellant. 2 CA-CR 2007-0117 DEPARTMENT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationCommonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: May 5, 2006; 2:00 P.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2005-CA-000790-MR WARD CARLOS HIGHTOWER APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE PAMELA
More informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, SAMER WAHAB ABDIN, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR PR Filed May 31, 2016
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. SAMER WAHAB ABDIN, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0103-PR Filed May 31, 2016 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 23, 2005 v No. 254529 Genesee Circuit Court JAMES MONTGOMERY, LC No. 03-013202-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-11-00536-CR Tommy Lee Rivers, Jr. Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 10-08165-3,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: E. THOMAS KEMP STEVE CARTER Richmond, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana GEORGE P. SHERMAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs July 21, 2010
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs July 21, 2010 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KEVIN M. FRIERSON Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2007-C-2329
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Lopez, 2010-Ohio-2462.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93197 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ROBERTO LOPEZ DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationThird 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 informationCOURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT DEFIANCE COUNTY. v. O P I N I O N. CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court.
[Cite as State v. Orta, 2006-Ohio-1995.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT DEFIANCE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO CASE NUMBER 4-05-36 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. O P I N I O N ERICA L. ORTA DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 11, 2003 v No. 244518 Wayne Circuit Court KEVIN GRIMES, LC No. 01-008789 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,985 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,985 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. OSCAR C. RODRIGUEZ-MENDEZ, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2017. Affirmed. Appeal from
More informationBefore Judges Accurso, Manahan and Lisa. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, Indictment No
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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MARCUS LADALE DAMPER, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 09-0013 1 CA-CR 09-0014 1 CA-CR 09-0019 DEPARTMENT D OPINION Appeal from
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT WYANDOT COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Stroub, 2011-Ohio-169.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT WYANDOT COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 16-10-02 v. EDWARD D. STROUB, O P I N I O N
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellant, JEREMY ALLEN MATLOCK, Appellee. No. 2 CA-CR Filed May 27, 2015
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellant, v. JEREMY ALLEN MATLOCK, Appellee. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0274 Filed May 27, 2015 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No.
More informationv No Oakland Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 19, 2017 v No. 332310 Oakland Circuit Court MICHAEL DOUGLAS NORTH, LC
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GALLIA COUNTY. Defendant-Appellant. : RELEASED: 12/3/2015 APPEARANCES:
[Cite as State v. Allah, 2015-Ohio-5060.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GALLIA COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Case No. 14CA12 Plaintiff-Appellee, : v. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Geiter, 190 Ohio App.3d 541, 2010-Ohio-6017.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94015 The STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v.
More informationJAN2±2011 JAN CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF HI. CLERK OF COURT I SUPREME COURT OF 9Hlp IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO Appellee, vs. RAYMOND INGRAM Appellant. SUPREME COURT CASE NO. 2010-2259 ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 10CA0022-M MEDINA COUNTY
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 23, 2008 v No. 277901 Oakland Circuit Court JOSEPH JEROME SMITH, LC No. 2007-212716-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
, NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Defendant-Appellant Hickory McCoy appeals from the district court s order
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 23, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
USA v. Obregon Doc. 920100331 Case: 08-41317 Document: 00511067481 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. MARIO JESUS OBREGON,
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A125781
Filed 9/30/10 P. v. Romero CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationNo. 103,472 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, BILLY WHITE, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 103,472 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. BILLY WHITE, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The State has the burden of proving that a search and seizure was
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. No. 34,763. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Stan Whitaker, District Judge
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 1-0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 17, 2018 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 17, 2018 Session 08/27/2018 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. COREY FOREST Appeal from the Circuit Court for Maury County No. 24034 Robert L. Jones,
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, ARMANDO MEDRANO VALENZUELA, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR and 1 CA-CR (Consolidated)
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,900 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JOSEPH E. THAYER, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,900 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JOSEPH E. THAYER, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Reno District Court;
More informationTrial Tactics: Reverse Rule 404(b) Evidence: Parts I and II
GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2006 Trial Tactics: Reverse Rule 404(b) Evidence: Parts I and II Stephen A. Saltzburg George Washington University Law School, SSALTZ@law.gwu.edu
More informationPROSECUTING ATTORNEY Post Office Box 40 BRIAN T. WALTZ West Jefferson, Ohio ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 20 South Second Street Newark, Ohio 43055
[Cite as State v. Molla, 2008-Ohio-5331.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- ACHENAFI T. MOLLA Defendant-Appellant JUDGES: Hon. John W.
More informationTERRON TAYLOR AND OZNIE R. MANHERTZ, Petitioners, Respondent, and. No. 2 CA-SA Filed September 25, 2014
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO TERRON TAYLOR AND OZNIE R. MANHERTZ, Petitioners, v. HON. KAREN J. STILLWELL, JUDGE PRO TEMPORE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, IN AND FOR THE
More informationAppeal from the Superior Court of Yavapai County. Cause No. P-1300-CR The Honorable Thomas B. Lindberg, Judge AFFIRMED
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationUnited States Supreme Court Term: Cases Affecting Criminal Law and Procedure
2004-2005 United States Supreme Court Term: Cases Affecting Criminal Law and Procedure Robert L. Farb Institute of Government Fourth Amendment Issues Walking Drug Dog Around Vehicle While Driver Was Lawfully
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 09-1840 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, BENJAMIN GARCIA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY STATE OF OHIO CASE NUMBER v. O P I N I O N
[Cite as State v. Shoulders, 2005-Ohio-4749.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY STATE OF OHIO CASE NUMBER 5-05-05 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. O P I N I O N EMANUEL L. SHOULDERS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Nos. 114, ,187 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. TERRY F. WALLING, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Nos. 114,186 114,187 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS TERRY F. WALLING, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Johnson District
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 19, 2016 v No. 323727 Branch Circuit Court STEVEN DUANE DENT, a/k/a JAMES LC No. 07-048753-FC
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 20 September 2016
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA16-173 Filed: 20 September 2016 Watauga County, No. 14 CRS 50923 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANTWON LEERANDALL ELDRIDGE Appeal by defendant from judgment
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner,
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationRENDERED: September 22, 2000; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO CA MR COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** **
RENDERED: September 22, 2000; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED C ommonwealth Of K entucky Court Of A ppeals NO. 1999-CA-001621-MR GEORGE H. MYERS IV APPELLANT APPEAL FROM MARSHALL CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, KYLE ANDREW STOLL, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR Filed May 23, 2016
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. KYLE ANDREW STOLL, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0280 Filed May 23, 2016 Appeal from the Superior Court in Cochise County No.
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2-07-243-CR HENRI SHAWN KEETON A/K/A SHAWN H. KIETH THE STATE OF TEXAS V. ------------ APPELLANT STATE FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 1 November 2016
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 informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 27, 2017 v No. 331113 Kalamazoo Circuit Court LESTER JOSEPH DIXON, JR., LC No. 2015-001212-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 4 November Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 9 September 2013
NO. COA14-390 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 4 November 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Buncombe County No. 11 CRS 63608 MATTHEW SMITH SHEPLEY Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 9 September
More informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, GREGORY NIDEZ VALENCIA JR., Petitioner. Respondent, JOEY LEE HEALER, Petitioner.
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. GREGORY NIDEZ VALENCIA JR., Petitioner. THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. JOEY LEE HEALER, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0151-PR
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY. Submitted: November 24, 2014 Decided: February 12, 2015
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE, v. CLIFFORD WRIGHT, Defendant. Cr. ID. No. 0801010328 Submitted: November 24, 2014 Decided: February 12, 2015
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON P 3 15 CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIo'n, rr niirts
Aj 93661456 FILED IN THE COURT OF COMMON P 3 15 CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIo'n, rr niirts CLERn OS' LUUK I o JOHN BALLAS, ET AL. Case No: COUNT Y Plaintiff 93661456 Judge: MICHAEL E JACKSON LORENZO S. LALLI,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Leonard, 2007-Ohio-3312.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TIMOTHY LEONARD, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL
More informationSTATE OF OHIO JAMAR TRIPLETT
[Cite as State v. Triplett, 2009-Ohio-2571.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91807 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JAMAR TRIPLETT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111 ; ARCAP 28 ; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Whitsett, 2014-Ohio-4933.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101182 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ERNEST M. WHITSETT
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE VEHICLE CODE MISDEMEANOR GUILTY PLEA FORM. 1. My true full name is
For Court Use Only 1. My true full name is 2. I understand that I am pleading GUILTY / NOLO CONTENDERE and admitting the following offenses, prior convictions and special punishment allegations, with the
More informationNo. 51,450-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * *
Judgment rendered August 9, 2017. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 992, La. C. Cr. P. No. 51,450-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * STATE
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, ODECE DEMPSEAN HILL, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE
More informationNOS and IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NOS. 29314 and 29315 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES WAYNE SHAMBLIN, aka STEVEN J. SOPER, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE
More informationSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BRYAN KEITH HESS NO. COA Filed: 21 August 2007
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BRYAN KEITH HESS NO. COA06-1413 Filed: 21 August 2007 Search and Seizure investigatory stop vehicle owned by driver with suspended license reasonable suspicion An officer had
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, SAMUEL WAYNE ESTRADA, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Martinez, 2003-Ohio-1821.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE CASE NO. 9-02-57 v. GILBERTO MARTINEZ O P I N I O N DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Huffman, 2010-Ohio-5116.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93000 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. OREON HUFFMAN
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,388 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, ROBERT JENSEN, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,388 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ROBERT JENSEN, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Geary District
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos and 20314
[Cite as State v. Mathews, 2005-Ohio-2011.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos. 20313 and 20314 vs. : T.C. Case No. 2003-CR-02772 & 2003-CR-03215
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 1, 2005 v No. 254122 Wayne Circuit Court PATRICK STROZIER, LC No. 03-011977-01 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA, Appellant, RICHARD BACA, Appellee. No. 1 CA-CR
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationORDER AND JUDGMENT * Defendant-Appellant Benjamin Salas, Jr. was charged in a two-count
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 21, 2007 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. Plaintiff - Appellee,
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Hamilton, 2011-Ohio-3835.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95720 STATE OF OHIO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT vs. CHRISTOPHER
More informationSTATE OF MAINE ROBERT O. SPIEGEL JR. [ 1] Robert O. Spiegel Jr. appeals from a judgment of conviction of
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2013 ME 73 Docket: Han-12-584 Submitted On Briefs: July 17, 2013 Decided: August 1, 2013 Reporter of Decisions Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and LEVY, SILVER, MEAD, GORMAN,
More informationNo. 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.
More information2018COA159. A division of the court of appeals interprets section (2)(a), C.R.S. 2012, to mean that a trial court may only
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO CR 3357
[Cite as State v. Jolly, 2008-Ohio-6547.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 22811 v. : T.C. NO. 2007 CR 3357 DERION JOLLY : (Criminal
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CACR09-1389 Opinion Delivered September 29, 2010 CRAIG DEON THOMAS V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLANT APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued May 20, 2010 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-08-00866-CR JAMES ERSKIN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 262nd District Court Harris
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 529 U. S. (2000) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, HOPE LYNETTE KING, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR PR Filed June 12, 2015
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. HOPE LYNETTE KING, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0140-PR Filed June 12, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Chavers, 2011-Ohio-3248.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) STATE OF OHIO Appellee C.A. No. 10CA0031 v. GREGORY A. CHAVERS Appellant
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO. : O P I N I O N - vs - 11/9/2009 :
[Cite as State v. Moore, 2009-Ohio-5927.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO PREBLE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2009-02-005 : O P I N I O N - vs - 11/9/2009
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No MDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SMITH GABRIEL Appellant No. 1318 MDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 4, 2017 v No. 328577 Wayne Circuit Court MALCOLM ABEL KING, LC No. 15-002226-01-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More information2018COA167. No. 16CA0749 People v. Johnston Constitutional Law Fourth Amendment Searches and Seizures Motor Vehicles
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted July 15, 2009 Decided August
More information