State v. Blankenship

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "State v. Blankenship"

Transcription

1 State v. Blankenship 145 OHIO ST. 3D 221, 2015-OHIO-4624, 48 N.E.3D 516 DECIDED NOVEMBER 12, 2015 I. INTRODUCTION On November 12, 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a final ruling in State v. Blankenship, 1 a case involving the highly controversial realm of sex offenders and one of the most fundamental rights under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution the right against cruel and unusual punishment. 2 The five-two decision carries significant weight regarding the constitutionality of Ohio s mandatory sex offender classifications. The case also sheds light on how a court is likely to interpret the unique protections afforded to Ohioans under article I, section 9 of the Ohio Constitution, as well as when a court is likely to apply those protections to individuals who have been classified as sex offenders. II. STATEMENT OF FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Factual History In 2011, twenty-one year old Travis Blankenship logged into Phonezoo.com, a social media website where he met and frequently conversed with fifteen year old M.H. 3 Through the course of their conversations, both Blankenship and M.H. informed each other of their true age and acknowledged that there was a six-year age gap between them. 4 Despite this age difference, however, Blankenship and M.H. continued communicating online and eventually met in person. 5 Following their faceto-face meeting, they entered into a consensual sexual relationship, which consisted of having intercourse on two different occasions Ohio St. 3d 221, 2015-Ohio-4624, 48 N.E.3d 516 (2015). 2. Id. at 222, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id., 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 518 (for policy reasons, the Court only provides the victim s initials). 4. Id., 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id., 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Blankenship, 145 Ohio St. 3d at 222, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at

2 978 OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 42 B. Procedural History 1. The Charge and Pre-Sentence Investigation Blankenship was charged with unlawful sexual conduct with a minor in violation of Ohio Revised Code section (A) a felony of the fourth degree. 7 The statute provides, in pertinent part: No person... eighteen years of age or older shall engage in sexual conduct with another, who is not the spouse of the offender, when the offender knows the other person is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age, or the offender is reckless in that regard. 8 Faced with the foregoing charge, Blankenship pled guilty. 9 In accordance with the pre-sentence investigation, the trial court ordered that Blankenship undergo a psychological evaluation. 10 The psychologist tasked with conducting the evaluation concluded that Blankenship did not show any characteristics of what he considers a sex-offender despite his commission of a sex offense, and that Blankenship therefore posed a low-risk of reoffending. 11 The psychologist discouraged sex offender specific treatment, finding such treatment unethical to implement because Blankenship [had] no disorder to treat. 12 Instead, the psychologist recommended psychotherapy as the more appropriate form of treatment. 13 Even after a new evaluation was ordered on account of Blankenship violating his court order by contacting M.H. while the pre-sentence investigation was still pending the psychologist s opinion and recommendation did not change Court Proceedings The trial court convicted Blankenship and sentenced him to five years of community control, consisting of a six-month jail sentence for which he was only required to serve twelve days. 15 In addition, the trial court designated him as a Tier II sex offender/child-victim offender pursuant to 7. Id., 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at OHIO REV. CODE ANN (A) (LexisNexis Supp. 2016). 9. Blankenship, 145 Ohio St. 3d at 222, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id., 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id., 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id. at 243, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id., 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Blankenship, 145 Ohio St. 3d at 222, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id., 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 518.

3 2016] STATE V. BLANKENSHIP 979 Ohio Revised Code section (F)(1)(b). 16 As a Tier II sex offender, Blankenship was required to register in person with the sheriff of the county in which he lives, attends school, and is employed. 17 Furthermore, Blankenship was required to verify in person his residence address, place of employment, and place of education every 180 days for twenty-five years. 18 On appeal, Blankenship contended that by requiring him to register as a Tier II sex offender, the trial court imposed a sentence that violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. 19 Based on the psychologist s opinion that he showed no characteristics of a sex offender, the fact that he had a caring relationship with M.H., and the fact that he was only twenty-one years old, Blankenship argued that the required registration period for a Tier II sex offender twenty-five years served no legitimate penological purpose in his case. 20 Relying on the Court s decision in In re C.P., 21 Blankenship urged the appellate court to follow In re C.P. s holding imposing automatic, lifetime registration and notification requirements on juvenile sex offenders violates the constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment and extend it to his case. 22 Finding that Blankenship s Tier II sex offender registration requirement did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 23 On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court considered whether the registration and address-verification requirements for Tier II sex offenders constituted cruel and unusual punishment under Chapter 2950 of the Ohio Revised Code in violation of either the United States Constitution or the Ohio Constitution Id., 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id., 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 518 (citing OHIO REV. CODE ANN (A)(2) (LexisNexis Supp. 2016)). 18. Id. at , 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 518 (citing OHIO REV. CODE ANN (B)(2) (LexisNexis Supp. 2016); OHIO REV. CODE ANN (B)(2) (LexisNexis Supp. 2016)). 19. State v. Blankenship, 2014-Ohio (2d Dist. 2014) [hereinafter Blankenship II]. 20. Blankenship II, 2014-Ohio Ohio St. 3d 513, 2012-Ohio-1446, 967 N.E.2d 729 (2012). 22. See Blankenship II, 2014-Ohio See id., 2014-Ohio (2-1 decision). 24. See Blankenship, 145 Ohio St. 3d at 225, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 520.

4 980 OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 42 III. THE COURT S DECISION AND RATIONALE A. Majority Opinion by Justice Lanzinger Justice Lanzinger wrote the majority opinion, which Chief Justice O Connor and Justice French joined. 25 When addressing Eighth Amendment challenges to mandatory sex offender classification for adults, the Court conceded that while most states have dismissed such challenges because their registration requirements were found to be remedial not punitive Ohio is not one of those states. 26 The Court has previously held that the reporting and registration requirements for sex offenders are not only punitive in nature, but that they are also unconstitutional when applied to certain juveniles. 27 However, the Court held that, when applied to adults, the registration and address verification requirements for Tier II sex offenders did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment; therefore, there was no violation of either the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution or article I, section 9 of the Ohio Constitution. 28 In Blankenship, the Court first addressed the claim of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and focused on whether the punishment in question was disproportionate to the crime. 29 To make this determination, the Court relied on Graham v. Florida. 30 There, the Supreme Court of the United States engaged in a twostep process: (1) is there a national consensus against the sentencing practice at issue; and (2) based on the court s judgment, does the punishment violate the Constitution? 31 In order to answer the inquiry in step two, the Court considered three factors: (1) the culpability of the offender, (2) the severity of the punishment, and (3) the penological justifications. 32 Applying the Graham process, the Court held that Blankenship s challenge failed both steps. 33 In the first step, the Court stated that Blankenship conceded to the lack of a national consensus against lengthy sex-offender registration for individuals like himself. 34 As for the second 25. See id. at 222, 231, 2015-Ohio , 38, 48 N.E.3d at 517, Id. at , 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at See id., 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 519 (citing State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St. 3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952 N.E.2d 1108 (2011); In re C.P., 131 Ohio St. 3d 513, 2012-Ohio-1446, 967 N.E.2d 729 (2012)). 28. See id. at 231, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Blankenship, 145 Ohio St. 3d at 225, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at U.S. 48 (2010). 31. Blankenship, 145 Ohio St. 3d at 226, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 521 (quoting Graham, 560 U.S. at 61). 32. Id. at , 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 521 (citing Graham, 543 U.S. at 67). 33. See id. at , 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id. at 226, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 521.

5 2016] STATE V. BLANKENSHIP 981 step, the Court found that the three considerations were not in Blankenship s favor: (1) the six-year age difference between Blankenship and M.H. made him more culpable and more deserving of punishment; (2) the Tier II registration requirements, although burdensome, did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment; and (3) the perceived high rate of recidivism and resistance to treatment among sex-offenders, coupled with the economic benefits of avoiding the cost of imprisonment, weigh in favor of the punishment. 35 Next, the Court addressed the claim of cruel and unusual punishment under article I, section 9 of the Ohio Constitution. 36 Like the United States Constitution, the Ohio Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, but provides protection independent of the Eighth Amendment. 37 For that reason, when considering a claim under article I, section 9 of the Ohio Constitution, courts analyze whether the punishment at issue is so greatly disproportionate to the offense as to shock the sense of justice of the community. 38 Addressing Blankenship s reliance on In re C.P., the Court stated that the concerns which led to its conclusion that sex-offender reporting and notification requirements for certain juveniles violated Ohio s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment were largely absent in his case. 39 In addition, the Court found that because similar requirements are imposed throughout the states, Ohio s punishments are not deemed shocking to the sense of justice of the community. 40 Therefore, because the Tier II registration requirements did not meet the burden of being disproportionate to the crime or shocking to a reasonable person, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court s decision and held that the requirements under Chapter 2950 of the Ohio Revised Code did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of either the United States Constitution or the Ohio Constitution. 41 B. Concurring Opinion by Justice O Donnell Justice O Donnell, joined by Justice Kennedy, concurred in the judgment to affirm the court of appeals decision. 42 However, Justice O Donnell disagreed with the majority s analysis, stating that because Ohio s registration and address verification requirements for Tier II sex- 35. Id. at , 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Blankenship, 145 Ohio St. 3d at 229, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id., 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id., 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 523 (quoting State v. Chaffin, 30 Ohio St. 2d 13, 282 N.E.2d 46 (1972)). 39. Id. at 230, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id. at , 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Blankenship, 145 Ohio St. 3d at 231, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id. at , 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 525.

6 982 OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 42 offenders is a civil requirement and not a punitive one, the Eighth Amendment should not apply to the case. 43 After reviewing the history of Ohio s sex offender registration, Justice O Donnell stated that the purpose behind classifying offenders into tiers based on the nature of the conviction was to protect[] the public from the risk of recidivism, not to impose punishment on the offender. 44 Thus, in Justice O Donnell s opinion, the majority s determination that Blankenship s label as a Tier II sex-offender was proportionate to his offense was unnecessary. 45 These concerns, Justice O Donnell noted, are matters of policy that are the province of the General Assembly. 46 Acknowledging the Court s precedent and the decisions of the federal circuit courts, Justice O Donnell concluded by arguing that the Court should overrule its decisions in Williams and C.P., and in doing so, hold that sex offender registration is not punishment for an offense. 47 C. Dissenting Opinions by Justice Pfeifer and Justice O Neill Justice Pfeifer issued the first dissenting opinion, stating that because Blankenship s requirements as a Tier II sex offender lack proportionality and would be considered shocking to any reasonable person, the judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed. 48 Expressing great concern with the current statutory scheme, Justice Pfeifer argued that the sentencing judge is not provided with any discretion when imposing the registration and address verification requirements, which punishes the offender according to a one-size-fits-all standard. 49 In closing, Justice Pfeifer stated that in certain circumstances, such as those in Blankenship, the Court should hold that the twenty-five year reporting requirements are onerous enough to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 50 In the second dissenting opinion, Justice O Neill expanded upon Justice Pfeifer s concerns, stating that Blankenship s case is another example of how Ohio s criminal sentencing is dictated by the one-size-fits-all mentality. 51 Justice O Neill argued that Blankenship s requirements, which he will face until he is forty-six years old, fall directly within the definition of the phrase cruel and unusual. 52 Acknowledging that the trial 43. Id. at 232, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id. at 239, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id. at 240, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Blankenship, 145 Ohio St. 3d at 240, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id., 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id. at , 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id. at 241, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id. at 242, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Blankenship, 145 Ohio St. 3d at 242, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id. at , 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 534.

7 2016] STATE V. BLANKENSHIP 983 court was required to impose the penalty as prescribed by law, Justice O Neill argued that by following the law as it is written and by not permitting any discretion, Blankenship received a punishment that will guarantee an unnecessarily long term of public humiliation only. 53 IV. ANALYSIS A. Introduction The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 54 Although the original prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments may have been directed towards barbarous methods of punishment, today s courts have interpreted the clause as a prohibition against sentences that are disproportionate to the gravity of the crime committed. 55 Although article I, section 9 of the Ohio Constitution contains a similar prohibition, it provides protection independent of what is provided under the Eighth Amendment. 56 For this reason, it was well within the Court s power to hold that the registration and address verification requirements for Tier II sex offenders do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under either federal or state law. 57 An analysis of the Eighth Amendment s proportionality standard, the unique protection provided under the Ohio Constitution, and the problems caused by Ohio s sex offender registration demonstrate that the majority s reasoning in finding no violation of state law was misguided. B. Discussion 1. The Eighth Amendment s Proportionality Standard At the heart of the Eighth Amendment s protection against cruel and unusual punishment is the concern for proportionality that the punishment for a crime should be proportional to the offense committed. 58 The issue is not whether the punishment does in fact constitute torture, but rather, 53. Id. at 243, 2015-Ohio , 87, 48 N.E.3d at Id. at 225, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 520 (quoting U.S. CONST. AMEND. VIII) (emphasis added). 55. See William H. Mulligan, Cruel and Unusual Punishments: The Proportionality Rule, 47 FORDHAM L. REV. 639, 640 (1979). 56. See Blankenship, 145 Ohio St. 3d at 229, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id. at 231, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 525; see (A)(2); (B)(2); (B)(2). 58. Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 367 (1910) ( [P]unishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to offense. ).

8 984 OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 42 the issue is whether the punishment is disproportionate to the crime. 59 Cases addressing this proportionality issue fall within two classifications: those involving challenges to the length of term-of-years sentences, and those dealing with categorical restrictions. 60 Until the United States Supreme Court s decision in Graham, categorical restrictions had applied only in cases involving the death penalty. 61 In Graham, the Court used the categorical approach and applied a two-step model to find that sentencing juveniles to life without parole for non-homicide related crimes was cruel and unusual punishment. 62 Since the goal of the proportionality test is to reduce the input of judicial subjectivity in [E]ighth [A]mendment jurisprudence, 63 a court first determines if there is a national consensus against the sentencing practice contested, and then (in its own independent judgment) determines whether the relevant punishment violates the Eighth Amendment. 64 The majority in Blankenship follows the approach from Graham. By considering Blankenship s culpability, the severity of his punishment, and the penological justifications for sex-offender registration requirements, the majority found that his punishment as a Tier II sex offender was proportionate to his crime. 65 As for Blankenship s culpability as an offender, the majority logically found that his conscious decision (as a twenty-one year old) to engage in a sexual relationship with a fifteen-year old girl made him more culpable and more deserving of punishment. 66 While Blankenship s argument that his young age, lower maturity level, and consensual relationship with M.H. warrant a finding of low culpability and an ultimately less severe punishment is justified, it is unfortunately overshadowed by his overall lack of judgment. At the end of the day, Blankenship was an adult who chose to have sexual relations with a minor. The Court acknowledged this and had no trouble finding that his case was a perfect fit for Ohio s current Tier system. 59. Blankenship, 145 Ohio St. 3d at 225, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id., 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 520 (citing Graham, 560 U.S. at 59). 61. Id. at , 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at (citing Graham, 560 U.S. at 61-62). 62. Id. at 226, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Mulligan, supra note 55, at Blankenship, 145 Ohio St. 3d at 226, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 521 (citing Graham, 560 U.S. at 61). 65. Id. at , 231, 2015-Ohio , 38, 48 N.E.3d at , Id. at 227, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at

9 2016] STATE V. BLANKENSHIP Ohio s Unique Protection: Shocking to the Community s Sense of Justice Like the United States Constitution, the Ohio Constitution affords individuals with the same protection against cruel and unusual punishment; however, Ohioans receive double protection. 67 In addition to a lack of proportionality, Ohio courts examine whether a reasonable person acknowledging the circumstances of the case would consider the punishment to be shocking. 68 Therefore, if the punishment is not so greatly disproportionate to the offense as to shock the sense of justice of the community, it does not violate the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under article I, section 9 of the Ohio Constitution. 69 Despite the Ohio Constitution s unique protection, the Blankenship majority found that Blankenship failed to prove that Tier II sex offender registration requirements constituted cruel and unusual punishment in his circumstance. 70 In making this decision, the majority referenced State v. Bradley, 71 where the Ohio First District Court of Appeals held that Tier II registration requirements associated with a conviction for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment. 72 Bradley involved a non-consensual sexual relationship between a thirty-year old man and a fourteen-year old girl. 73 Not only did the defendant deny having any sexual activity with the victim, but he also argued that the relationship was simply platonic. 74 This point of comparison, although logical, is clearly misguided when applied to Blankenship s case. 67. Id. at 229, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 523. Addressing article I, section 9 of the Ohio Constitution, and its unique protection for Ohioans, the Supreme Court of Ohio stated: The Ohio Constitution is a document of independent force. In the areas of individual rights and civil liberties, the United States Constitution, where applicable to the states, provides a floor below which state court decisions may not fall. As long as state courts provide at least as much protection in its interpretation of the federal Bill of Rights, state courts are unrestricted in according greater civil liberties and protections to individuals and groups. Id., 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 523 (quoting Arnold v. Cleveland, 67 Ohio St. 3d 35, 616 N.E.2d 163 (1993) (paragraph one of the syllabus)). 68. Blankenship, 145 Ohio St. 3d at 299, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 523 (quoting McDougle v. Maxwell, 1 Ohio St. 2d 68, 70, 203 N.E.2d 334, (1964)). 69. Id., 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 523 (quoting Chaffin, 30 Ohio St. 2d at 13, 282 N.E.2d at 46). 70. Id. at 231, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Ohio-6266 (1st Dist. 2011). 72. Blankenship, 145 Ohio St. 3d at 230, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 524 (citing Bradley, 2011-Ohio ). 73. Bradley, 2011-Ohio ( The victim testified that when Bradley tried to put his penis into her vagina, she said, No. ). 74. Id., 2011-Ohio

10 986 OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 42 Blankenship was twenty-one years old and M.H. was fifteen when they began their sexual relationship an age difference of only six years, not sixteen years. 75 It was a relationship that M.H. reported as being consensual, and one that Blankenship described as caring. 76 Second, after evaluating Blankenship s possible threat to society, a psychologist found that he was not a sex offender, that his risk of reoffending was low, and that he did not require sex-offender treatment. 77 Next, facing a possible sentence of eighteen months in prison, he was sentenced to six months, and released after twelve days. 78 These considerations not only demonstrate the majority s questionable holding, but further illustrate the dissent s conclusion that the twenty-five year reporting requirements when applied to Blankenship are onerous enough to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 79 This one-size-fits-all system is a problem, and Blankenship is a clear illustration of what happens to those who don t rightfully fit the label, but are nevertheless branded with it. V. CONCLUSION No reasonable person can condone sexual relations between an adult and a minor. Undoubtedly, Ohio s Tier classification system has successfully warned and protected the public from persons who pose a substantial threat. However, being convicted of a sex offense means becoming defined by the crime. The motivations of those who are convicted remain unacknowledged, and their backstories are overshadowed by the disgraceful nature of the felony. Thus, Ohio courts should exercise more discretion before issuing the label sex offender and acknowledge that instituting a one-size-fits-all mentality 80 is not a just application of the law, but may even constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of a constitutional right. In this case, the Ohio Supreme Court questionably relied on both legislative intent and precedent in holding that the registration and address verification requirements for Tier II sex offenders do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of either the United States Constitution or the Ohio Constitution. 81 This decision did not demonstrate that [j]ustice 75. Blankenship, 145 Ohio St. 3d at 222, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id. at , 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Brief for Appellant at 15, State v. Blankenship, 145 Ohio St. 3d 221, 2015-Ohio-4624, 48 N.E.3d 516 (2015) (No ), 2014 WL at * Blankenship, 145 Ohio St. 3d at 241, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at Id., 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 533 (Pfeifer, J., dissenting). 80. Id. at 242, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 534 (O Neill, J., dissenting). 81. Id. at 231, 2015-Ohio , 48 N.E.3d at 525.

11 2016] STATE V. BLANKENSHIP 987 is blindfolded to reflect neutrality, but rather highlighted that it has the ability to be sightless to the consequences of a Tier II Sex Offender classification on a twenty-one-year-old for half of his adult life. 82 CAMERON MICHAEL LENT RODE 82. Blankenship II, 2014-Ohio (Donovan, J., dissenting).

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 113,051 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, TRAVIS NALL, Appellant.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 113,051 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, TRAVIS NALL, Appellant. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 113,051 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. TRAVIS NALL, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Reno District Court; JOSEPH

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,316 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DEJUAN Y. ALLEN, Appellant.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,316 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DEJUAN Y. ALLEN, Appellant. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,316 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. DEJUAN Y. ALLEN, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Sedgwick District

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,888 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JAY A. MCLAUGHLIN, Appellant.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,888 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JAY A. MCLAUGHLIN, Appellant. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,888 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JAY A. MCLAUGHLIN, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2018. Affirmed. Appeal from Sedgwick

More information

A IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS Plaintiff-Appellee PETERSEN-BEARD. Defendant-Appellant

A IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS Plaintiff-Appellee PETERSEN-BEARD. Defendant-Appellant Z'd!,/:;ll, No. 12-108061-A ;LFR _"OF.aPPFL.I ATE CI3IIRTS FL :1 _. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS r STATE OF KANSAS Plaintiff-Appellee VS. HENRY PETERSEN-BEARD Defendant-Appellant BRIEF

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,517 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DANIEL LEE SEARCY, Appellant.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,517 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, DANIEL LEE SEARCY, Appellant. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,517 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. DANIEL LEE SEARCY, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from McPherson

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,180 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,180 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,180 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ARTHUR ANTHONY SHELTROWN, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2017. Affirmed. Appeal from

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT D E C I S I O N. Rendered on December 20, 2018

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT D E C I S I O N. Rendered on December 20, 2018 [Cite as State v. Watkins, 2018-Ohio-5137.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 13AP-133 and v. : No. 13AP-134 (C.P.C. No. 11CR-4927) Jason

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Page, 2011-Ohio-83.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94369 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. WILLIE PAGE, JR. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 113,151 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, BRANDON D. ALLER, Appellant.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 113,151 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, BRANDON D. ALLER, Appellant. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 113,151 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. BRANDON D. ALLER, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Butler District

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 12, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-289 Lower Tribunal No. 77-471C Adolphus Rooks, Appellant,

More information

No. 110,226 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, ABIGAIL REED, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

No. 110,226 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, ABIGAIL REED, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT No. 110,226 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ABIGAIL REED, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Whether a sentence is illegal is a question of law over which

More information

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

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION [Cite as State v. Battistelli, 2009-Ohio-4796.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO C. A. No. 09CA009536 Appellee v. ALBERT G. BATTISTELLI,

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,893 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, TONY JAY MEYER, Appellant.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,893 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, TONY JAY MEYER, Appellant. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,893 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. TONY JAY MEYER, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Saline District

More information

[Cite as State v. Dunlap, 129 Ohio St.3d 461, 2011-Ohio-4111.]

[Cite as State v. Dunlap, 129 Ohio St.3d 461, 2011-Ohio-4111.] [Cite as State v. Dunlap, 129 Ohio St.3d 461, 2011-Ohio-4111.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. DUNLAP, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Dunlap, 129 Ohio St.3d 461, 2011-Ohio-4111.] Criminal law Gross sexual

More information

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

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as State v. Vitt, 2012-Ohio-4438.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) STATE OF OHIO Appellee C.A. No. 11CA0071-M v. BRIAN R. VITT Appellant APPEAL

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN RE: D.S., A Minor Child, No. 2008-1624 On Appeal from the Allen County Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District, No. CA2007-058 REPLY BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE, THE JUSTICE

More information

COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY IN THE MATTER OF: CASE NUMBER

COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY IN THE MATTER OF: CASE NUMBER [Cite as In re Smith, 2008-Ohio-3234.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY IN THE MATTER OF: CASE NUMBER 1-07-58 DARIAN J. SMITH, ALLEGED DELINQUENT CHILD, O P I N I O N APPELLANT. CHARACTER

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,924 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, SHAWN J. COX, Appellant.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,924 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, SHAWN J. COX, Appellant. Affirmed. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 115,924 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. SHAWN J. COX, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Butler District

More information

State v. Tolliver 140 OHIO ST.3D 420, 2014-OHIO-3744, 19 N.E.3D 870 DECIDED SEPTEMBER 2, 2014

State v. Tolliver 140 OHIO ST.3D 420, 2014-OHIO-3744, 19 N.E.3D 870 DECIDED SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 State v. Tolliver 140 OHIO ST.3D 420, 2014-OHIO-3744, 19 N.E.3D 870 DECIDED SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 I. INTRODUCTION On September 2, 2014, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a final ruling in State v. Tolliver,

More information

THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO

THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as State v. Johnson, 2008-Ohio-4666.] THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N Plaintiff-Appellee, : - vs - : CASE NO. 2008-L-015 ANDRE D.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed July 11, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, J. Hobart Darbyshire,

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed July 11, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, J. Hobart Darbyshire, IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 1-576 / 10-1815 Filed July 11, 2012 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHRISTINE MARIE LOCKHEART, Defendant-Appellant. Judge. Appeal from the Iowa District Court

More information

City of Shamokin Ordinance SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY PROHIBITION

City of Shamokin Ordinance SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY PROHIBITION City of Shamokin Ordinance 06-07 SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY PROHIBITION WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania Legislature enacted legislation requiring the registration of sexual offenders, now referred to as Megan s

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY [Cite as State v. Hawkins, 2014-Ohio-4960.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case No. 2014-CA-6 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial Court Case

More information

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS. ooooo ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS. ooooo ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ooooo State of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Valynne Asay Bowers, Defendant and Appellant. MEMORANDUM DECISION Case No. 20110381 CA F I L E D (December 13, 2012 2012 UT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 105,132. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, PHILIP A. WOODARD, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 105,132. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, PHILIP A. WOODARD, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 105,132 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. PHILIP A. WOODARD, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO. 12CR1370

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO. 12CR1370 [Cite as State v. Collins, 2014-Ohio-2443.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 25874 v. : T.C. NO. 12CR1370 BRYAN J. COLLINS : (Criminal

More information

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 53

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 53 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 53 Court of Appeals No. 11CA2030 City and County of Denver District Court No. 05CR4442 Honorable Christina M. Habas, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Gilbert, 2011-Ohio-1928.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION Nos. 95083 and 95084 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. GABRIEL

More information

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. SAXON, APPELLEE.

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. SAXON, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. SAXON, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245.] Criminal law Sentencing Appellate

More information

No. 51,338-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * * * * * * *

No. 51,338-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * * * * * * * Judgment rendered May 17, 2017. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 992, La. C. Cr. P. No. 51,338-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * STATE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO CR-3024 LAWRENCE DESBIENS :

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO CR-3024 LAWRENCE DESBIENS : [Cite as State v. Desbiens, 2008-Ohio-3375.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 22489 v. : T.C. NO. 2007-CR-3024 LAWRENCE DESBIENS :

More information

2015 CO 71. No. 13SC523, Rutter v. People Sentencing Habitual Criminal Proportionality Review Criminal Law.

2015 CO 71. No. 13SC523, Rutter v. People Sentencing Habitual Criminal Proportionality Review Criminal Law. Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado

More information

STATE OF OHIO DAMAN PATTERSON

STATE OF OHIO DAMAN PATTERSON [Cite as State v. Patterson, 2010-Ohio-3715.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93096 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DAMAN PATTERSON

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: 560 U. S. (2010) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 08 7412 TERRANCE JAMAR GRAHAM, PETITIONER v. FLORIDA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT VINTON COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT VINTON COUNTY [Cite as State v. Carr, 2013-Ohio-605.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT VINTON COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Case No. 12CA686 : Plaintiff-Appellee, : : DECISION AND v. : JUDGMENT ENTRY

More information

COURT OF APPEALS LAKE COUNTY, OHIO J U D G E S

COURT OF APPEALS LAKE COUNTY, OHIO J U D G E S [Cite as State v. Witlicki, 2002-Ohio-3709.] COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO J U D G E S STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs THOMAS WITLICKI, HON. WILLIAM M. O NEILL, P.J., HON.

More information

CASE NO. 1D Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA THOMAS KELSEY, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D14-518

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,163 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, CHASE DALTON SCOTT, Appellant.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,163 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, CHASE DALTON SCOTT, Appellant. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,163 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CHASE DALTON SCOTT, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Butler District

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES (Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2007 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC99-164 KENNETH GRANT, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. LEWIS, J. [November 2, 2000] CORRECTED OPINION We have for review Grant v. State, 745 So. 2d 519 (Fla.

More information

[Cite as State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 107, 2010-Ohio-6301.]

[Cite as State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 107, 2010-Ohio-6301.] [Cite as State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 107, 2010-Ohio-6301.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. JOHNSON, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 107, 2010-Ohio-6301.] Criminal law R.C. 2901.21

More information

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 4, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-10-CR

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 4, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-10-CR 2017 PA Super 344 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOSEPH DEAN BUTLER, Appellant No. 1225 WDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 4, 2016 In

More information

EIGHTH AMENDMENT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES IMPOSED PASSED CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER.

EIGHTH AMENDMENT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES IMPOSED PASSED CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER. State of Maryland v. Kevin Lamont Bolden No. 151, September Term, 1998 EIGHTH AMENDMENT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES IMPOSED PASSED CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

More information

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Joshua R. Heller, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Joshua R. Heller, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. TARRENCE L. SMITH, Appellee. / NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION

More information

Doss v. State 135 OHIO ST. 3D 211, 2012-OHIO-5678, 985 N.E.2D 1229 DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 2012

Doss v. State 135 OHIO ST. 3D 211, 2012-OHIO-5678, 985 N.E.2D 1229 DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 2012 Doss v. State 135 OHIO ST. 3D 211, 2012-OHIO-5678, 985 N.E.2D 1229 DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 2012 I. INTRODUCTION In Doss v. State, 1 the Supreme Court of Ohio decided whether an appellate decision vacating

More information

Juvenile Law in Kansas after SB367: What s Changed, What s next? Melanie DeRousse

Juvenile Law in Kansas after SB367: What s Changed, What s next? Melanie DeRousse Juvenile Law in Kansas after SB367: What s Changed, What s next? Melanie DeRousse May 18-19, 2017 University of Kansas School of Law Recent Developments in Kansas Juvenile Law Melanie DeRousse, Clinical

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Appellant, : No. 09AP-192 v. : (C.P.C. No. 08 MS )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Appellant, : No. 09AP-192 v. : (C.P.C. No. 08 MS ) [Cite as Core v. Ohio, 191 Ohio App.3d 651, 2010-Ohio-6292.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Core, : Appellant, : No. 09AP-192 v. : (C.P.C. No. 08 MS-01-0153) The State of Ohio,

More information

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE,

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, [Cite as State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BEZAK, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 2007-Ohio-3250.] Criminal law Sentencing Failure

More information

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as State v. Pasqua, 2004-Ohio-2992.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. VINCENT PASQUA, APPELLANT. * : : : : : APPEAL NO.

More information

No. 51,840-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * *

No. 51,840-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * * Judgment rendered January 10, 2018. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 992, La. C. Cr. P. No. 51,840-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * *

More information

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as In re Antwon C., 182 Ohio App.3d 237, 2009-Ohio-2567.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO IN RE ANTWON C. : : : APPEAL NO. C-080847 TRIAL NO. 05-14749

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BAILEY P. SERPA. Argued: January 18, 2018 Opinion Issued: May 24, 2018

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BAILEY P. SERPA. Argued: January 18, 2018 Opinion Issued: May 24, 2018 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 31 December Appeal by petitioner from order entered 30 September 2013

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 31 December Appeal by petitioner from order entered 30 September 2013 NO. COA14-435 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 31 December 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: DAVID PAUL HALL Mecklenburg County No. 81 CRS 065575 Appeal by petitioner from order entered 30 September 2013 by

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 11, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-1604 Lower Tribunal No. 79-1174 Jeffrey L. Vennisee,

More information

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DAVID ELKIN, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D17-1750 STATE OF FLORIDA,

More information

JURISDICTION WAIVER RECENT SENTENCING AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES

JURISDICTION WAIVER RECENT SENTENCING AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES JURISDICTION WAIVER RECENT SENTENCING AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES Presentation provided by the Tonya Krause-Phelan and Mike Dunn, Associate Professors, Thomas M. Cooley Law School WAIVER In Michigan, there

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) [Cite as State v. Simmons, 2014-Ohio-582.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. WILLIE OSCAR SIMMONS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. CASE

More information

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE,

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

More information

v No Kent Circuit Court

v No Kent 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 March 13, 2018 v No. 335696 Kent Circuit Court JUAN JOE CANTU, LC No. 95-003319-FC

More information

O.R.C. Section (F)(2). The state has opposed the motion. This entry follows. offenses ranged from June 1 through September 30, 2004.

O.R.C. Section (F)(2). The state has opposed the motion. This entry follows. offenses ranged from June 1 through September 30, 2004. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO CASE NO: CR 05 469654 Plaintiff, JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL vs JAMES KNIGHT JOURNAL ENTRY Defendant, John P. O Donnell, J.: The defendant has

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as In re W.A.S., 188 Ohio App.3d 390, 2009-Ohio-4331.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, OHIO IN RE W.A.S. : Nick A. Selvaggio, for appellant. John C.A. Juergens, for appellee. : C.A.

More information

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE,

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, [Cite as State v. Bates, 118 Ohio St.3d 174, 2008-Ohio-1983.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. BATES, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Bates, 118 Ohio St.3d 174, 2008-Ohio-1983.] Criminal law Consecutive and

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC02-1092 PER CURIAM. TRAVIS WELSH, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [June 12, 2003] We have for review the decision in Welsh v. State, 816 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st

More information

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as Green v. State, 2010-Ohio-4371.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO SAM GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. STATE OF OHIO, Respondent-Appellee. APPEAL

More information

THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO

THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as In re Thrower, 2009-Ohio-1314.] THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO IN THE MATTER OF: : O P I N I O N JAMES L. THROWER, JR., DELINQUENT CHILD. : CASE NO. 2008-G-2813

More information

SOUTH CAROLINA SEX-OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION

SOUTH CAROLINA SEX-OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION SOUTH CAROLINA SEX-OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION CONTACT INFORMATION South Carolina Law Enforcement Division Sex-Offender Registry PO Box 21398 Columbia, SC 29221-1398 Telephone: 803-896-7216

More information

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MERRIMACK, SS. SUPERIOR COURT The State of New Hampshire v. Owen Labrie No. 14-CR-617 ORDER The defendant, Owen Labrie, was tried on one count of certain uses of computer services

More information

[Cite as State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374.]

[Cite as State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374.] [Cite as State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374.] Criminal law Sex-offender

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO. Petitioner-Appellant, : CASE NO. CA : O P I N I O N - vs - 4/20/2009 :

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO. Petitioner-Appellant, : CASE NO. CA : O P I N I O N - vs - 4/20/2009 : [Cite as Moran v. State, 2009-Ohio-1840.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLERMONT COUNTY BARRY C. MORAN, : Petitioner-Appellant, : CASE NO. CA2008-05-057 : O P I N I O N - vs

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Stewart, 2011-Ohio-612.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94863 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ANTHONY STEWART

More information

1/19/2004 8:03 PM HYLLENGRENMACROFINAL.DOC

1/19/2004 8:03 PM HYLLENGRENMACROFINAL.DOC Constitutional Law Capital Punishment of Mentally Retarded Defendants is Cruel and Unusual Under the Eighth Amendment Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution

More information

Selected Ohio Felony Sentencing Statutes Ohio Rev. Code Ann

Selected Ohio Felony Sentencing Statutes Ohio Rev. Code Ann Selected Ohio Felony Sentencing Statutes Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2929.11-2929.14 2929.11 Purposes of felony sentencing. (A) A court that sentences an offender for a felony shall be guided by the overriding

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 7, 2008 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 7, 2008 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 7, 2008 Session STEPHEN STRAIN v. TENNESSEE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 06-2867-III Ellen Hobbs

More information

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. v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT DARRIUS MONTGOMERY, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Case

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CT SCT ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CT SCT ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2009-CT-02033-SCT BRETT JONES v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/19/2009 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. THOMAS J. GARDNER, III COURT FROM WHICH

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida PERRY, J. No. SC12-1223 SHIMEEKA DAQUIEL GRIDINE, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [March 19, 2015] This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Moore, 2011-Ohio-2934.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96122 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. AKRAM MOORE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

PAROLE BOARD HEARINGS FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS

PAROLE BOARD HEARINGS FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS PAROLE BOARD HEARINGS FOR JUVENILE OFFENDERS Juvenile Sentencing Project Quinnipiac University School of Law September 2018 This memo addresses the criteria and procedures that parole boards should use

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC- IAN MANUEL L.T. No. 2D ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. SC- IAN MANUEL L.T. No. 2D ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. Case No. SC- IAN MANUEL L.T. No. 2D08-3494 Respondent. ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Jackson, 2011-Ohio-6069.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92531 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. MICHAEL JACKSON

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 110,277 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. MARCUS D. REED, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 110,277 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. MARCUS D. REED, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 110,277 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. MARCUS D. REED, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT Registration for sex offenders mandated by the Kansas Offender Registration

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN )

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) [Cite as State v. Ortiz, 185 Ohio App.3d 733, 2010-Ohio-38.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) The STATE OF OHIO, Appellee, C.A. No. 08CA009502 ORTIZ,

More information

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2012 DONALD CONNOR, JR. STATE of MARYLAND

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2012 DONALD CONNOR, JR. STATE of MARYLAND REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1561 September Term, 2012 DONALD CONNOR, JR. v. STATE of MARYLAND Krauser, C.J. Woodward, Sharer, J. Frederick (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. St. Martin, 2012-Ohio-1633.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96834 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JEFFREY ST.

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ********** STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 10-1052 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS J. P. F. ********** APPEAL FROM THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 72,643 DIV. C HONORABLE JAMES

More information

Ohio Felony Sentencing Statutes Ohio Rev. Code Ann (2018)

Ohio Felony Sentencing Statutes Ohio Rev. Code Ann (2018) Ohio Felony Sentencing Statutes Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2929.11-2929.14 (2018) DISCLAIMER: This document is a Robina Institute transcription of administrative rules content. It is not an authoritative statement

More information

AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM VOLUME II: RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES Howard Gillman Mark A. Graber Keith E. Whittington. Supplementary Material

AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM VOLUME II: RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES Howard Gillman Mark A. Graber Keith E. Whittington. Supplementary Material AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM VOLUME II: RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES Howard Gillman Mark A. Graber Keith E. Whittington Supplementary Material Chapter 11: The Contemporary Era Criminal Justice/Punishments/Juvenile

More information

THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO. Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No CV 642.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO. Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No CV 642. [Cite as State v. Maggy, 2009-Ohio-3180.] THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellee, : - vs - : CASE NO. 2008-T-0078

More information

[Cite as State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173, 2015-Ohio-2089.]

[Cite as State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173, 2015-Ohio-2089.] [Cite as State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173, 2015-Ohio-2089.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. ANDERSON, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173, 2015-Ohio-2089.] Criminal sentencing

More information

CHAPTER 14 PUNISHMENT AND SENTENCING CHAPTER OUTLINE. I. Introduction. II. Sentencing Rationales. A. Retribution. B. Deterrence. C.

CHAPTER 14 PUNISHMENT AND SENTENCING CHAPTER OUTLINE. I. Introduction. II. Sentencing Rationales. A. Retribution. B. Deterrence. C. CHAPTER 14 PUNISHMENT AND SENTENCING CHAPTER OUTLINE I. Introduction II. Sentencing Rationales A. Retribution B. Deterrence C. Rehabilitation D. Restoration E. Incapacitation III. Imposing Criminal Sanctions

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No

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

More information

[Cite as State v. Hill, 2010-Ohio-1670.] Court of Appeals of Ohio. vs. MILTON HILL JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

[Cite as State v. Hill, 2010-Ohio-1670.] Court of Appeals of Ohio. vs. MILTON HILL JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED [Cite as State v. Hill, 2010-Ohio-1670.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93379 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. MILTON HILL DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DENNIS L. HART, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D17-2468 [May 2, 2018] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial

More information

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT,

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, [Cite as State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214, 2011-Ohio-2669.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. WILSON, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214, 2011-Ohio-2669.] Criminal law When a cause

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ********** STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS TAUREAN JACKSON STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 11-923 ********** APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 302,847 HONORABLE JOHN

More information

District Attorney for the 18th Judicial District, State of Colorado, ORDER AFFIRMED

District Attorney for the 18th Judicial District, State of Colorado, ORDER AFFIRMED COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2017COA33 Court of Appeals No. 16CA0588 Arapahoe County District Court No. 15CV30140 Honorable Elizabeth A. Weishaupl, Judge In the Matter of Douglas Roy Stanley, Petitioner-Appellant,

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC01-42 JOHN HALL Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA Respondent. SHAW, J. [July 3, 2002] CORRECTED OPINION We have for review Hall v. State, 773 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000),

More information

PRESENT: Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico and Russell, S.JJ.

PRESENT: Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico and Russell, S.JJ. PRESENT: Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico and Russell, S.JJ. DWAYNE JAMAR BROWN OPINION BY v. Record No. 090161 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN January 15, 2010 COMMONWEALTH OF

More information

No. 46,696-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * *

No. 46,696-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * * Judgment rendered January 25, 2012. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by art. 922, La. C. Cr. P. No. 46,696-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * *

More information

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: February 15, NO. S-1-SC STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: February 15, NO. S-1-SC STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: February 15, 2018 4 NO. S-1-SC-35995 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v. 8 COREY FRANKLIN, 9 Defendant-Appellant.

More information