ALYSHA PRESTON. iversity School of Law. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 713 (1969). 2. Id. 3. Id. 4. Id. 5. Id. at
|
|
- Scot Willis
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 REEVALUATING JUDICIAL VINDICTIVENESS: SHOULD THE PEARCE PRESUMPTION APPLY TO A HIGHER PRISON SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER A SUCCESSFUL MOTION FOR CORRECTIVE SENTENCE? ALYSHA PRESTON INTRODUCTION Meet Clifton Pearce, a defendant who was found guilty on an assault charge and subsequently sentenced to a twelve-to-fifteen year prison term. 1 Several years after being convicted, Pearce submitted a post-judgment motion, which led to the reversal of his conviction. 2 He was retried, and reconvicted. 3 Instead of continuing his sentence, however, the United States Supreme Court imposed an eight year prison sentence, which, when added to the time already served, amounted to a longer sentence than that originally imposed. 4 Should Pearce have to serve a longer sentence for the same crime just because he successfully exercised his constitutional right to appeal? More than four decades ago, the Supreme Court addressed whether there are any constitutional limits upon the imposition of a more severe sentence following a reconviction on appeal. 5 Known as judicial vindictiveness, the Supreme Court, in North Carolina v. Pearce, 6 found that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids such practice. 7 The Pearce Court created a presumption of judicial vindictiveness, finding that Senior Articles Editor, ; J.D., 2016, National Association iversity School of Law. 1 North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 713 (1969) at U.S. 711 (1969). 7 at
2 2 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW COMMENTARY whenever a judge imposes a more severe sentence upon a defendant after a new trial, there is a presumption that the judge acted with vindictive motives. 8 Following this decision, however, United States Circuit Courts of Appeal lack consensus as to when the presumption applies. On one hand, the Fifth and Ninth Circuits have construed the presumption narrowly, finding that the prodded the sentencing court into a posture of selfvindication... 9 The tribunal was the only The Seventh Circuit applied a more expansive view, finding that the presumption also 11 Recently, in Austin v. Plumley, 12 the Fourth Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit, 13 and, on January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. 14 This Note attempts to fix the confusion that has grown among the circuit courts. At the forefront, this Note agrees with the dissenting opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas in that the Supreme Court erred by failing to solve the split of authority among the circuits. However, this Note argues for an outcome contrary to that proposed by Justice Thomas. Justice Thomas argued that the broad interpretation of the judicial in tension 15 However, after review of the Pearce and subsequent Supreme Court holdings, it is evident that such a broad interpretation is not only in accordance with precedent, but also combats the evil that the Pearce Court sought to prevent. Accordingly, this Note concludes that the Pearce 8 at Presuming Judicial Vindictiveness at Resentencing If Original Sentence Was Not Vacated on Appeal, U.S. SUP. CT. ACTIONS 6, (Thomson Reuters ed., Feb. 2, 2015) per curiam), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 828 (2015). 13 at Plumley v. Austin, 135 S. Ct. 828 (2015). 15 See id. at 830 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
3 2016] REEVALUATING JUDICIAL VINDICTIVENESS 3 judicial vindictiveness presumption calls for a broad interpretation to the extent that it does not distinguish between cases where reversal was by a higher tribunal and cases where a trial court imposed a higher sentence after a motion for corrected sentence. I. BACKGROUND In Pearce, the United States Supreme Court found that, at Jeopardy Clause and forbid the imposition of a more severe sentence upon resentencing. 16 First looking to the Fifth Amendment, the Court found that the Double Jeopardy Clause only protects individuals from being prosecuted a second time for the same offense. 17 This longstanding constitutional doctrine not only imposes no limits against retrying a defendant whose conviction has been set aside but also imposes no limits regarding the length of a sentence imposed upon reconviction. 18 Similarly, the Court found that the restrictions. 19 Although the Equal Protection Clause protects convicts who do not seek new trials from having their sentences increase 20 However, the Court found that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment leads to a different conclusion. 21 hardly be doubted that it would be a flagrant violation of the Fourteenth Amendment... [to] impos[e] a heavier sentence... for the explicit purpose of punishing the defendant 22 for... those who choose to exercise constitutional rights 23 [is]... Therefore, the Court found 16 North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 723 (1969). 17 See id. at 717. The Fifth Amendment states, No] person [shall] be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb... CONST. AMEND V.; see also David S. Rudstein, A Brief History of the Fifth Amendment Guarantee Against Double Jeopardy, 14 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 193, (2005). 18 Pearce, 395 U.S. at at See id. at at at 724 (quoting United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 581 (1968)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
4 4 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW COMMENTARY the following regarding the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Due process of law requires... that vindictiveness against a defendant for having successfully attacked his first conviction... play[s] no part in the sentence [a defendant] receives after a new trial.... [S]ince the fear of such exercise of the right to appeal... due process also requires that a defendant be freed of apprehension of such a retaliatory motivation on the part of the sentencing judge. 24 Therefore, to circumvent such practice by trial judges, the Court created a presumption for judicial vindictiveness whenever a judge imposes a more severe sentence upon a defendant after a new trial. 25 [imposing a more severe sentence]... must affirmatively appear... based upon objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after 26 Following this decision, the Supreme Court narrowed its Pearce holding in several cases. In its subsequent cases, the Court made clear that its presumption of vindic not apply in every case where a convicted defendant receives a 27 Accordingly, the Court has refused to apply the presumption in cases where (1) [an] increased sentence was imposed by the second court in a two-tiered system which gave a defendant... the right to trial de novo 28 (2) a second jury, on retrial following a successful appeal, imposed a 29 and (3) penalty is imposed after trial than was imposed after a prior 30 sentence is the product of actual vindictiveness on the part of the at at Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 799 (1989) (alteration in original) (quoting Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134, 138 (1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (overruling in part Pearce, 395 U.S. 711). 28 at 800 (citing Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972)) at See id. at 799.
5 2016] REEVALUATING JUDICIAL VINDICTIVENESS 5 32 Seeing the Supre at its initial presumption has led the Fifth, Ninth, and Eighth Circuits to do the same. These courts provided a narrower limitation to the scope of the presumption of vindictiveness; in particular, they refused to apply it to a ca increased after a successful motion for corrective sentence. Meanwhile, other courts maintained a broader interpretation and allowed the presumption to apply. II. THE CURRENT STATE: THE APPLICATION OF THE JUDICIAL VINDICTIVENESS PRESUMPTION TO SUCCESSFUL MOTIONS FOR CORRECTIVE SENTENCES A. The Circuit Split The first court to decide whether the Pearce presumption applies to increased sentences after a motion for corrective sentence was the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In United States v. Jefferson, 33 defendant Dorothy Jefferson was sentenced to an aggregate of thirty-years imprisonment for various charges. 34 On her initial appeal, Jefferson successfully challenged two of her sentences. 35 Subsequ sentences for resentencing. 36 On remand, however, the district ten years to thirty years, and Jefferson appealed. 37 When addressing whether the Pearce presumption applied,... the case of resentencing after retrial from the case of resentencing after 38 vacating... The court felt that the Pearce presumption address noted that in cases of resentencing after an illegal sentence, 32 Plumley v. Austin, 135 S. Ct. 828, 831 (2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting) F.2d 821 (7th Cir. 1985). 34 at (finding two of her sentences imposed illegal). 36 at at 825; see United States v. Paul, 783 F.2d 84, 88 (7th Cir. 1986) (reaffirming the Jefferson court, st Pearce's proscription applies not only to resentencing after retrial, but also to resentencing after vacation of an illegal
6 6 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW COMMENTARY safeguards are necessary. 39 Five years later, however, the Fifth Circuit applied the presumption more narrowly. In Kindred v. Spears, 40 Kindred was convicted of conspiracy to transport currency and other charges, and sentenced to thirty years. 41 At his initial parole review, the ex eligible for parole after serving no more than fifty-two months. 42 However, the Regional Patrol Commissioner recommended that ty level be increased and it was, making Kindred serve eighty months. 43 Kindred successfully challenged the upgrade, and the government appealed. 44 The Fifth Circuit presumption] because it was the Commission itself and not any 45 Because the case was not sent back on reversal, but instead sent 46 Later joining the Fifth Circuit were the Eighth and Ninth Circuits. The Eighth Circuit turned the presumption into a twopart test, making it necessary, under the first prong, that a higher tribunal reverses the initial sentence for the presumption to apply. 47 The Ninth Circuit, in Fenner v. United States Parole Commission, 48 found that a higher sentence after a motion for corrected sentence was not a triggering event, since, in that case, the district judge and not the Commission imposed the sentence, and the Commiss Jefferson, 760 F.2d at 825. This judgment was later vacated and remanded by the Supreme Court on other grounds. See Jefferson v. United States, 474 U.S. 806 Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773 (1985), which discusses double jeopardy issues) F.2d 1477 (5th Cir. 1990). 41 at at at at Savina v. Getty, No , 1992 WL , at *2 (8th Cir. Dec. 17, 1992) F.3d 782 (9th Cir. 2001). 49 at 788.
7 2016] REEVALUATING JUDICIAL VINDICTIVENESS 7 B. On April 7, 2014, the Fourth Circuit was the last circuit court to determine when the Pearce presumption applies. In Plumley v. Austin, 50 defendant Timothy Austin was sentenced to one-to-three years imprisonment for an attempted escape from prison. 51 Because Austin was already serving a prison sentence for another crime, the trial judge decided that his sentence for the escape would start on his expected parole date. 52 Austin filed a motion for corrective sentence arguing that the trial court improperly imposed a sentence that was not purely concurrent or consecutive. 53 He also filed a writ of mandamus petition to the trial court to respond to the motion. 54 The trial court entered an amended sentencing order giving Austin a longer sentence. 55 The Austin appealed. 56 After an extensive review of Pearce, 57 the Fourth Circuit held that the policy reasons mentioned in the Pearce opinion permitted the court to apply the presumption in the case of a higher sentence after a motion for corrected sentence. 58 the Fifth Circuit decision in Kindred led them to the same conclusion. 59 There, the Kindred parole commission, which occurred merely by operation of presumption. 60 Here, however, the Fourth Circuit found that per curiam), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 828 (2015). 51 Plumley v. Austin, 135 S. Ct. 828, (2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting). 52 at at (4th Cir. 2014) (per curiam), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 828 (2015). 58 See id. at at See id. 61 at 188, 190 (quoting Kindred v. Spears, 894 F.2d 1477, 1480 (5th Cir. 1990)).
8 8 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW COMMENTARY Following the denial of certiorari, Justice Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Scalia joined, scolding the Fourth Circuit for its holding and reasoning. For one, Justice Thomas argued that to hold under the reasoning that Austin was who exercise[s] his right[] to file and obtain a motion for a new trial should also... [be] entitled to the presumption of Texas v. McCullough. 62 Furthermore, Justice Thomas argued that giving any defendant who exercises his right to have a presumption of proceedings. 63 presumption to successful motions for corrective sentences is misguided. The policy supporting the Pearce presumption McCullough, mandate that the Supreme Court hold otherwise. reasoning, that Austin was exercising his constitutional right, is misused. The Fourth Circuit did not rely on this to come to its conclusion; 64 instead, it simply stated such reasoning to distinguish its case from a case heard in an opposing circuit. 65 III. THE JUDICIAL VINDICTIVENESS PRESUMPTION SHOULD EQUALLY APPLY TO HIGHER SENTENCES IMPOSED AFTER A SUCCESSFUL MOTION FOR CORRECTIVE SENTENCE By denying certiorari, the United States Supreme Court 66 However, if and when the Court decides to address its Pearce presumption, it is imperative that Court of Appeals for the tion to the facts of the United States 62 Plumley v. Austin, 135 S. Ct. 828, 830 (2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting); see Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134, (1986). 63 at The Fourth Circuit focused on Pearce support its conclusion. See Austin v. Plumley, 88 (4th Cir. 2014) (per curiam), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 828 (2015). 65 See id. at Plumley v. Austin, 135 S. Ct. 828, 831 (2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (citing sts, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 12, (2011)).
9 2016] REEVALUATING JUDICIAL VINDICTIVENESS 9 cases, this Note argues that the Pearce vindictiveness presumption calls for a broad interpretation that it does not distinguish between cases where reversal was by a higher tribunal and where a trial court imposed a higher sentence after a motion for corrected sentence. This result is warranted for two reasons. First, the policy behind Pearce supports such a conclusion. Second, the rationale behind any subsequent exceptions does not equally apply to motions for corrective sentences. In developing the judicial vindictiveness presumption, the Pearce Court had one fear. It feared that, if the Court held [the] practice of imposing a heavier sentence upon every reconvicted defendant for the 67 The Court found constitutional rights... be patently u successfully pursued a statutory right of appeal or collateral remedy 68 Although a successful motion for corrective sentence is not a reasoning clearly shows that the Court was trying to combat equivalent evils. A defendant who petitions a court for a corrective sentence is a defendant who is exercising statutory right and remedy. 69 Therefore, the courts should be equally concerned with the possibility of judges penalizing those who pursued statutory rights, and not try to limit the presumption to only reversals. 67 North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 723 (1969). 68 at 724 (quoting United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 581 (1968)). 69 See, e.g., Fed. R. Crim. P. 35; W. Va. R. Crim. P. 35; N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law (McKinney). In some cases, the defendant may not be voluntarily exercising a right. See Kindred v. Spears, 894 F.2d 1477, (5th Cir. 1990). Even still, the same conclusion should stand. It should make no difference as to whether the Contra id. In either circumstance, the defendant is subjected to the chance of the imposition of a higher sentence as a possible result of vindictive motives. Contra id. at For example, in Kindred where the sentencing guideline is forty to fifty-two months, but still imposed an eighty-month sentencing term with no reason for going above the guideline. The Kindred court refused to apply the presumption, stating that the defendant was not exercising a right; his sentence required mandatory review. at Such reasoning contradicts the policy behind Pearce. See Pearce, 395 U.S. at 723.
10 10 ST. JOHN S LAW REVIEW COMMENTARY to which the presumption is applied does not warrant a different result. In McCullough, the Supreme Court restricted the application of Pearce, emphasizing that the presumption cannot apply just because a defendant seeks an acquittal. 70 Subsequently, the Supreme Court in Alabama v. Smith 71 overruled Pearce in part... that the increase in sentence is the product of actual vindictiveness on the part of the sentencing aut 72 where vindictiveness 73 In Smith, the Court found that the reasonable likelihood that a judge exercised vindictiveness after a defendant withdraws his guilty plea and is sentenced to a longer prison term after trial is slim. 74 Because a guilty plea is imposed before trial, relevant sentencing information available to the judge after the plea will usually be considerably less than that available after a 75 The Court used similar reasoning to find other exceptions to the Pearce presumption. 76 Unlike guilty pleas and the other exceptions, however, an imposition of a higher sentence after a successful motion for vindictiveness. During resentencing, there are no other factors that one could immediately turn to in order to reasonably imply that the increased sentence was not an act of vindictiveness. As the Smith Court noted, during a trial after a withdrawn guilty plea, the judge is exposed to much more information than the judge had at the time of the guilty plea that may justify the increase in sentencing. 77 To fix an illegal sentence, however, a 70 Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134, (1986) U.S. 794 (1989). 72 at 799 (citation omitted). 73 McCullough, 475 U.S. at 139 (internal quotation marks omitted). 74 Smith, 490 U.S. at See supra notes and accompanying text. 77 Similarly, the Colten v. Kentucky exception was based off the fact that the defendant is given a trial de novo with a completely new court and jury. 407 U.S. 104, 116 extremely slim. Additionally, the Chaffin v. Stynchcombe exception was based on could not stem from vindictive motives because a jury has no motive to penalize the
11 2016] REEVALUATING JUDICIAL VINDICTIVENESS 11 judge is not considering any new information that was not available during his original sentencing. 78 Furthermore, although a successful motion for resentencing may not be as harsh as a reversal by a higher tribunal, it does not mean that a judge would not be vindictive and consider the fact that a higher tribunal granted a motion telling the judge that his sentence was improper motive that the McCullough called for. Additionally, the harm of applying the presumption is fairly limited. Remember, the presumption is exactly just that, a presumption; 79 information... If the judge really did not abuse his discretion through vindictive motives, there should be no problem with rebutting the presumption. This Note does not stand for the proposition that the presumption should apply in every case where a defendant gets a higher sentence after a successful motion for corrective sentence. As McCullough and Smith announced, there must be a reasonable likelihood of vindictive motives, not just the mere proposition that the defendant successfully exercised his rights. Therefore, the decision of whether the presumption applies should be determined in accordance with the facts of each case. Instead, this Note stands against the proposition that a motion for corrective sentence is not a triggering event that prompts an inquisition into the application of the presumption. To find otherwise would undermine policy and fail to combat the evil that the Pearce Court sought to prevent. defendant for successfully exercising his right to an appeal and a retrial. See 412 U.S. 17, (1973). 78 Although a judge has the option to consider all the evidence during resentencing, whether she should is an unresolved split of authority among the circuit courts. See Tracy Friddle & Jon M. Sands, Remands, Federal Sentencing Guidelines & the Protect Act, 36 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 527, 530 (2004). The split of authority addresses whether, on remand, the judge should resentence de novo or should address only the issues in accordance with the appellate opinion. See id.; see also United States v. Marmolejo, 139 F.3d 528, (5th Cir. 1998) (describing two approaches taken by circuit courts regarding the scope of resentencing). Even if the judge resentences de novo, if the sentence imposed is higher than that originally granted, so long as it is the same judge who imposed both sentences, the presumption should apply. See supra Part IV. 79 Smith, 490 U.S. at 799 (citation omitted).
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT EDWARD AUSTIN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D16-1524 [February 28, 2018] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 14-271 In the Supreme Court of the United States MARVIN PLUMLEY, WARDEN, Petitioner, v. TIMOTHY AUSTIN, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2005 MT 255
No. 05-016 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2005 MT 255 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRANDON KILLAM, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial
More informationLIMITATIONS ON A MORE SEVERE SENTENCE AFTER A SUCCESSFUL APPEAL OR COLLATERAL ATTACK
LIMITATIONS ON A MORE SEVERE SENTENCE AFTER A SUCCESSFUL APPEAL OR COLLATERAL ATTACK Jessica Smith, UNC School of Government (April 2014) Contents I. Generally...1 II. Federal Constitutional Limitation
More informationMisdemeanor Appeal Bonds. By: Dana Graves. Hillsborough, NC
Misdemeanor Appeal Bonds By: Dana Graves Hillsborough, NC I. WHAT IS AN APPEAL BOND??? a. When a judge sets more stringent conditions of pretrial release following appeal from district to superior court
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II
Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two December 19, 2017 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 48384-0-II Petitioner, v. DARCUS DEWAYNE ALLEN,
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : SEAN EUGENE TAPP, : : Appellant : No.
2010 PA Super 111 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : SEAN EUGENE TAPP, : : Appellant : No. 1507 MDA 2009 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered
More informationThe Presumption of Judicial Vindictiveness in Multi-Count Resentencing
The Presumption of Judicial Vindictiveness in Multi-Count Resentencing Jonathan D. Youngwoodt In an effort to safeguard the right to a criminal appeal, the Supreme Court in North Carolina v Pearce 1 crafted
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 113,751. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, WYATT G. BROWN, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 113,751 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. WYATT G. BROWN, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT A criminal defendant's due process rights are violated if he or she
More informationPresent: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Hassell, and Keenan, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Hassell, and Keenan, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice OLAN CONWAY ALLEN OPINION BY v. Record No. 951681 SENIOR JUSTICE RICHARD H. POFF June 7, 1996 COMMONWEALTH
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 556 U. S. (2009) 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 informationCase 1:08-cv JD Document 1 Filed 03/20/08 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Case 1:08-cv-00105-JD Document 1 Filed 03/20/08 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Chad Evans, Petitioner v. No. Richard M. Gerry, Warden, New Hampshire State Prison,
More informationTENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * On October 20, 2006, Jonearl B. Smith was charged by complaint with
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 23, 2011 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff - Appellee,
More informationConstitutional Law/Criminal Procedure
Constitutional Law/Criminal Procedure Double Jeopardy Does Not Bar Death at Retrial if Initial Sentence is Not an Acquittal Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101 (2003) The Fifth Amendment of the United
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 31, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-1051 Lower Tribunal No. 79-2443 Gary Reid, Appellant,
More informationIn the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit
17 70 cr United States v. Hoskins In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 2017 Argued: January 9, 2018 Decided: September 26, 2018 Docket No. 17 70 cr UNITED STATES OF
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 06-877 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS TOMMY CLOUD ********** APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ALLEN, NO. 2003-1773 HONORABLE PATRICIA
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1998) 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 Decisions,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JOHNNY LEWIS WASHINGTON NO CP COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Jul 30 2014 19:56:53 2013-CP-02159-COA Pages: 12 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JOHNNY LEWIS WASHINGTON APPELLANT VS. NO. 2013-CP-02159-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JEFFERSON DUNN, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v. VERNON MADISON ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationUnited States v. Erwin and the Folly of Intertwined Cooperation and Plea Agreements
Washington and Lee Law Review Online Volume 71 Issue 3 Article 2 11-2014 United States v. Erwin and the Folly of Intertwined Cooperation and Plea Agreements Kevin Bennardo Indiana University, McKinney
More informationTheodore Scott v. State of Maryland, No. 91, September Term, 2016
Theodore Scott v. State of Maryland, No. 91, September Term, 2016 PROHIBITION ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY PLEA OF AUTREFOIS ACQUIT DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL FIFTH AMENDMENT COMMON LAW ENHANCED SENTENCES PRIOR
More informationSTATE 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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 2015-CA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI MOTION FOR REHEARING
E-Filed Document May 3 2017 12:58:02 2015-CA-01650-COA Pages: 8 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 2015-CA-01650 DERRICK DORTCH APPELLANT vs. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE MOTION FOR REHEARING
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Rel 03/23/2007 Murray Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CASSANDRA ANNE KASOWSKI, PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No. 16-9649 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CASSANDRA ANNE KASOWSKI, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationNo SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston, and Antuwan Ball Petitioner- Appellants,
No. 13-10026 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston, and Antuwan Ball Petitioner- Appellants, v. United States, Respondent- Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 545 U. S. (2005) 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 informationSTATE V. GONZALES, 1997-NMCA-039, 123 N.M. 337, 940 P.2d 185 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JOE GONZALES, Defendant-Appellee.
1 STATE V. GONZALES, 1997-NMCA-039, 123 N.M. 337, 940 P.2d 185 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JOE GONZALES, Defendant-Appellee. Docket No. 16,677 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 1997-NMCA-039,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS. COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS Plaintiff-Appellee,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TARSON PETER, Defendant-Appellant. SUPREME COURT NO. CR-06-0019-GA
More information696 October 19, 2016 No. 507 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
696 October 19, 2016 No. 507 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RONALD EDWIN BRADLEY, II, Defendant-Appellant. Washington County Circuit Court C081099CR;
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-51238 Document: 00513286141 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/25/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee United States Court of Appeals
More informationMootness--Contingent Collateral Consequences in the Context of Collateral Challenges
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 73 Issue 4 Winter Article 17 Winter 1982 Mootness--Contingent Collateral Consequences in the Context of Collateral Challenges G. Andrew Watson Follow this
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0071n.06 Filed: January 26, No
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0071n.06 Filed: January 26, 2006 No. 04-3431 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,119 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 115,119 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CHARLES EDWARD WILLIAMS, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Sedgwick
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 98-CO-907. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationUSA v. Justin Credico
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-6-2016 USA v. Justin Credico Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
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 informationCircuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. K and Case No. K UNREPORTED
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. K-97-1684 and Case No. K-97-1848 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND Nos. 2438 and 2439 September Term, 2017 LYE ONG v. STATE OF MARYLAND
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BONGANI CHARLES CALHOUN PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT
NO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BONGANI CHARLES CALHOUN PETITIONER VS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationIn the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
16 4321(L) United States v. Serrano In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit AUGUST TERM 2016 Nos. 16 4321(L); 17 461(CON) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. PEDRO SERRANO, a/k/a
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK People v. Williams 1 (decided February 23, 2010) In a consolidated appeal, five defendants challenged the imposition of Post-Release Supervision ( PRS ) after they completed
More informationSUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO. Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center 2 East 14 th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO DATE FILED: December 4, 2015 12:40 PM FILING ID: B0A091ABCB22A CASE NUMBER: 2015SC261 Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center 2 East 14 th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Certiorari
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 557 U. S. (2009) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 08 67 F. SCOTT YEAGER, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT [June
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Joseph Eddy Benoit appeals the district court s amended judgment sentencing
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Plaintiff - Appellee, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 13, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court
More informationIN 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 informationCase 9:02-cr DWM Document 55 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION
Case 9:02-cr-00045-DWM Document 55 Filed 08/03/16 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION FILED AUG 0 3 2016 Clerk, U S District Court District Of
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1468 In the Supreme Court of the United States SCOTT KERNAN, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL DANIEL CUERO, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
More information~in t~e D~rem~ fenrt of t~e i~niteb Dtatee
No. 09-1425 ~in t~e D~rem~ fenrt of t~e i~niteb Dtatee NEW YORK,. PETITIONER, U. DARRELL WILLIAMS, EFRAIN HERNANDEZ, CRAIG LEWIS, AND EDWIN RODRIGUI~Z, RESPONDENTS. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationCase 8:01-cr DKC Document 129 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 8:01-cr-00566-DKC Document 129 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JOSEPHINE VIRGINIA GRAY : : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 09-0532 Criminal Case
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 07a0585n.06 Filed: August 14, Case No
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 07a0585n.06 Filed: August 14, 2007 Case No. 03-5681 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT RONNIE LEE BOWLING, Petitioner-Appellant, v.
More information[Cite as State v. Washington, 137 Ohio St.3d 427, 2013-Ohio-4982.]
[Cite as State v. Washington, 137 Ohio St.3d 427, 2013-Ohio-4982.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. WASHINGTON, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Washington, 137 Ohio St.3d 427, 2013-Ohio-4982.] Criminal law
More informationFAMILY COURT OF NEW YORK NASSAU COUNTY
FAMILY COURT OF NEW YORK NASSAU COUNTY In re S.S. 1 (decided May 25, 2007) S.S., a juvenile, was charged with acts, which, if he were an adult, would constitute criminal mischief and attempted criminal
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 535 U. S. (2002) 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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 09-70030 Document: 00511160264 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D June 30, 2010 Lyle
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PEDRO SERRANO, PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No. 17-5165 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PEDRO SERRANO, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-424 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RODNEY CLASS, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the
More informationAPPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY 120 S. CT (2000)
Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 10 Spring 4-1-2001 APPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY 120 S. CT. 2348 (2000) Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj
More informationVolume 66, Fall-Winter 1993, Number 4 Article 16
St. John's Law Review Volume 66, Fall-Winter 1993, Number 4 Article 16 Penal Law 70.04(1)(v): New York Court of Appeals Holds Incarceration Resulting from Invalid Conviction Does Not Toll Limitation Period
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE APPELLEE DOES NOT REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT
E-Filed Document Dec 16 2014 18:57:22 2014-CP-00558 Pages: 13 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI BARRON BORDEN APPELLANT VS. NO. 2014-CP-00558 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE APPELLEE
More informationNo. 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 informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Opinion on Remand
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Opinion on Remand TERRANCE LAVAR DAVIS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hickman County No. 07-5033C Timothy Easter, Judge
More informationCASE 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 informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION March 22, 2005 9:05 a.m. v No. 250776 Muskegon Circuit Court DONALD JAMES WYRICK, LC No. 02-048013-FH
More informationFifth Amendment--Prosecutor Not Presumed Vindictive in Pretrial Charge Increases after Defendant's Request for Jury Trial
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 73 Issue 4 Winter Article 6 Winter 1982 Fifth Amendment--Prosecutor Not Presumed Vindictive in Pretrial Charge Increases after Defendant's Request for Jury
More informationJanuary 13, Crimes and Punishments -- Kansas Criminal Code; Preliminary -- Effect of Former Prosecution
ROBERT T. STEPHAN ATTORNEY GENERAL January 13, 1986 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 86-4 Douglas Lancaster City Prosecutor City of Fairway Suite 1000, One Glenwood Place 9300 Metcalf Overland Park, Kansas
More informationNO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
Case: 16-30276, 04/12/2017, ID: 10393397, DktEntry: 13, Page 1 of 18 NO. 16-30276 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. TAWNYA BEARCOMESOUT,
More informationSTATE OF OHIO NABIL N. JAFFAL
[Cite as State v. Jaffal, 2010-Ohio-4999.] [Vacated opinion. Please see 2011-Ohio-419.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93142 STATE OF
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 112,500. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, ALFRED VAN LEHMAN JR., Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 112,500 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ALFRED VAN LEHMAN JR., Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Parties cannot agree upon or stipulate to an illegal sentence.
More informationEIGHTH 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 informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff - Appellee, No v. (D. Wyoming) ROBERT JOHN KUEKER, ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit November 3, 2009 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No.
More informationPeople v. Boone. Touro Law Review. Diane Somberg. Volume 18 Number 2 New York State Constitutional Decisions: 2001 Compilation. Article 4.
Touro Law Review Volume 18 Number 2 New York State Constitutional Decisions: 2001 Compilation Article 4 March 2016 People v. Boone Diane Somberg Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview
More informationF I L E D September 16, 2011
Case: 11-50447 Document: 0051160478 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/16/011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D September 16, 011 In
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA SCT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2011-CA-00813-SCT ROBERT ROWLAND a/k/a ROBERT STANLEY ROWLAND a/k/a ROBERT S. ROWLAND v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/26/2011 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W. ASHLEY
More informationJOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. JUDGE
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JOHN ESTEEN, III NO. 18-KA-392 FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF LOUISIANA ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 10-1320 In The Supreme Court of the United States ALEX BLUEFORD, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ARKANSAS, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Arkansas Supreme Court BRIEF OF CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 23, 2008
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 23, 2008 WILLIE JOE FRAZIER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Wayne County No. 14021 Stella
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 22, 2007
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 22, 2007 WILLIAM MATNEY PUTMAN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Carter County No. S18111
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 29, 2006
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 29, 2006 JACKIE WILLIAM CROWE v. JAMES A. BOWLEN, WARDEN Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for McMinn County Nos.
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 17-155 In the Supreme Court of the United States ERIK LINDSEY HUGHES, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 00-CO Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (Hon. Hiram Puig-Lugo, Trial Judge)
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationF I L E D November 28, 2012
Case: 11-40572 Document: 00512066931 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D November 28, 2012
More informationRe: Disqualification of CDL license for 1 year and DWI charge. You have asked me to prepare a memorandum regarding the following questions: Does the
OFFICE RESEARCH MEMORANDUM To: Dr. Warren, Public Defender From: Ryan Jacobs, Intern Re: State v. Barnes Case: 13 1 00056 9 Re: Disqualification of CDL license for 1 year and DWI charge during hit and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr HLM-WEJ-1. versus
Case: 15-15246 Date Filed: 02/27/2017 Page: 1 of 15 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-15246 D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr-00043-HLM-WEJ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
More informationNancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
JAVARRIS LANE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 19, 2006 v No. 257443 Lenawee Circuit Court LC Nos. 04-010932-FH; 04-010933-FH; 04-010934-FH;
More informationRICHARD STALDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF BLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS AND VENETIA MICHAEL WARDEN DAVID WADE CORRECTIONAL CENTER
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA 616111 11toZ1J24 4 FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0957 CGEORGEVERSUS ROLAND JR P RICHARD STALDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF BLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS AND VENETIA
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LAMARIS WESCOTT, No. 202, 2009 Defendant Below- Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and v. for Sussex County STATE OF DELAWARE
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-1054 In the Supreme Court of the United States CURTIS SCOTT, PETITIONER v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationThird 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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 08-41134 Document: 00511319767 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D December 13, 2010
More informationFifth Amendment--Double Jeopardy: Two-Tier Trial Systems and the Continuing Jeopardy Principle
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 75 Issue 3 Fall Article 6 Fall 1984 Fifth Amendment--Double Jeopardy: Two-Tier Trial Systems and the Continuing Jeopardy Principle Adam N. Volkert Follow
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,702 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. HARABIA JABBAR JOHNSON, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,702 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS HARABIA JABBAR JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2017. Affirmed. Appeal from
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 informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2006
GROSS, J. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2006 TARA LEIGH SCOTT, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. No. 4D06-2859 [September 6, 2006] The issue in this
More informationHEADNOTE: Criminal Law & Procedure Jury Verdicts Hearkening the Verdict
HEADNOTE: Criminal Law & Procedure Jury Verdicts Hearkening the Verdict A jury verdict, where the jury was not polled and the verdict was not hearkened, is not properly recorded and is therefore a nullity.
More informationWhen Is A Felony Not A Felony?: A New Approach to Challenging Recidivist-Based Charges and Sentencing Enhancements
When Is A Felony Not A Felony?: A New Approach to Challenging Recidivist-Based Charges and Sentencing Enhancements Alan DuBois Senior Appellate Attorney Federal Public Defender-Eastern District of North
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2814 United States of America, Appellant, Appeals from the United States District Court for the v. Western District of Missouri. Michael Hatcher,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2006 MIGUEL JOSE GALLINAT, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D06-1322 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed November 17, 2006
More information2017 CO 110. No. 15SC714, Isom v. People Sentencing Statutory Interpretation.
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