Satellite-Based Monitoring Talking Points
|
|
- Angel Hodge
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Satellite-Based Monitoring Talking Points Introduction: (1) As of 12/31/08, there was only one North Carolina case addressing satellite-based monitoring. In State v. Wooten, No. COA (12/16/08), the Court of Appeals held that a trial court has jurisdiction to order an offender serving an active sentence to enroll in satellite-based monitoring upon his release and that a conviction that entered before enactment of the sex offender registry can be used to classify an offender as a recidivist. The Court of Appeals did not rule on the merits of the ex post facto argument raised in the case. The citations which appear for the legal propositions stated below are not satellite-based monitoring cases, with the exception of Doe v. Bredesen, 507 F.3d 998 (6 th Cir. 2007), rehearing denied, rehearing en banc denied, 521 F.3d 680 (6 th Cir. 2008). They are cited to support the general legal propositions. (2) Hannah Rowland of the Probation Department is knowledgeable about the Static- 99 test and other aspects of satellite-based monitoring. She can be reached at (919) (3) Distinct arguments can be made based on both the statutes and constitutions. Be sure to cite to both the North Carolina and United States Constitutions. Some constitutional arguments are as applied, while others are facial attacks. Due Process: Sections A and B are void for vagueness and violate due process of law because neither statute articulates a burden of proof to be met by the State or applied by the trial judge. U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV; N.C. Const. art. I, 19; State v. Green, 348 N.C. 588, 502 S.E.2d 819 (1998). Sections A and B violate due process because the offender does not receive notice of the evidence to be used against him. U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV; N.C. Const. art. I, 19; State v. Battle, 136 N.C. App. 781, 525 S.E.2d 850 (2000). Sections A and B are void for vagueness because they do not give trial judges sufficiently clear guidelines and definitions by which to interpret and administer the statutes. U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV; N.C. Const. art. I, 19; State v. Green, 348 N.C. 588, 502 S.E.2d 819 (1998). Sections A(e) and B(c) are void for vagueness and violate due process because they do not give an offender notice of the factors that may cause the judge to determine that the offender requires the highest level of supervision and monitoring. U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV; N.C. Const. art. I, 19; State v. Green, 348 N.C. 588, 502 S.E.2d 819 (1998).
2 2 Imposition of satellite-based monitoring under A(e) and B(c) on offenders who score low or moderate on the Static-99 risk assessment violates due process as the statutes do not give trial courts sufficiently clear guidelines and definitions by which to interpret and administer the statutes. U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV; N.C. Const. art. I, 19; State v. Green, 348 N.C. 588, 502 S.E.2d 819 (1998). Section B offends due process because it does not give an offender the right to present evidence in his own defense. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI, XIV; Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1019 (1967); N.C. Const. art. I, 19; State v. Pike, 273 N.C. 102, 159 S.E.2d 334 (1968); State v. Battle, 136 N.C. App. 781, 525 S.E.2d 850 (2000); Godwin v. Walls, 118 N.C. App. 341, 455 S.E.2d 473 (1995). Section B violates due process because it does not provide an offender with the right to counsel. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI, XIV; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963); N.C. Const. art. I, 19. The imposition of satellite-based monitoring under A(e) or B(b) for an indeterminate term of years violates due process because an offender does not have a right to seek termination of monitoring. U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV; N.C. Const. art. I, 19; State v. Battle, 136 N.C. App. 781, 525 S.E.2d 850 (2000). Only offenders subjected to lifetime satellite-based monitoring make seek termination under (e). The imposition of satellite-based monitoring deprives an offender of his constitutionally protected liberty and privacy interests without due process of law. U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV; N.C. Const. art. I, 19; Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437, 27 L. Ed. 2d 515, 519 (1971) ( Where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential. Posting under the Wisconsin Act may to some be merely the mark of illness, to others it is a stigma, an official branding of a person ). Due Process: Voluntariness of Plea Imposition of satellite-based monitoring following a guilty or no contest plea violates due process if monitoring was not a condition of a plea agreement. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI, XIV; N.C. Const. art. I, 19, 23, 24; N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1022; Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 30 L. Ed. 2d 427 (1971); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969); State v. Rodriquez, 111 N.C. App. 141, 431 S.E.2d 788 (1993); State v. Harris, 14 N.C. App. 268, 188 S.E.2d 1 (1972). If satellite-based monitoring is imposed in derogation of the terms of a plea agreement, the court must allow the defendant to withdraw the plea. N.C.G.S. 15A-1024; State v. Carriker, 180 N.C. App. 470, 637 S.E.2d 557 (2006). Equal Protection:
3 3 Imposition of satellite-based monitoring for a term of years on male offenders determined to require the highest possible level of supervision and monitoring under A(e) and B(c) violates equal protection because female offenders who commit the same offenses are automatically considered low risk and are therefore not subject to conditional monitoring. U.S. Const. amend. XIV; N.C. Const. art. I, 19; Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976); NC DOC Division of Community Corrections Administrative Memorandum p. 1. Section B violates equal protection because only eligibility determinations held under A grant the offender the right to present evidence. U.S. Const. amend. XIV; N.C. Const. art. I, 19. Section B violates equal protection because only eligibility determinations held under A afford the offenders the right to counsel. U.S. Const. amend. XIV; N.C. Const. art. I, 19. Section B violates equal protection because only eligibility determinations held under A clearly are appealable. U.S. Const. amend. XIV; N.C. Const. art. I, 19; State v. Williams, N.C. App., 660 S.E.2d 200 (2008). Ex Post Facto: A law violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of U.S. Const. art. I, 10, cl.1 and N.C. Const. art. I, 16 when it inflicts a greater punishment than the law provided at the time the offense was committed. Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 699, 146 L.Ed.2d 727, 735 (2000); State v. Mason, 126 N.C. App. 318, 324, 484 S.E.2d 818, 821 (1997), cert. denied, 354 N.C. 72, 553 S.E.2d 208 (2001). To determine if a statute violates the ex post facto guarantees, a court must determine whether the legislation is civil or criminal in nature. If it is criminal, and it inflicts a greater punishment than the law provided at the time the offense was committed, a violation has occurred. If the legislation is civil, but so penal in its operation as to be a criminal statute, a violation has occurred. Factors to consider in determining if a civil statute is punitive in nature include whether the mechanism has historically been considered punishment, whether it imposes an affirmative restraint or disability, whether it serves traditional aims of punishment, whether a rational connection exists to a nonpunitive purpose, whether the mechanism is excessive in relation to its purpose, and the totality of factors. U.S. Const. art. I, 10, cl. 1; N.C. Const. art. I, 16; Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 92, 155 L.Ed.2d 164, 176 (2003); Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 9 L.Ed.2d 644 (1963). Satellite-based monitoring was intended to operate retroactively, because the enacting legislation stated that it applied not only to offenses committed on or after the enactment date (16 August 2006), but to offenders sentenced to intermediate punishment, released from prison by parole or post-release supervision, or who had completed their sentence but were not on post-release supervision or parole on or after the enactment date. Session
4 4 Law (l). As satellite-based monitoring constitutes a punishment, its retroactive character violates the ex post facto guarantees. See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 92, 155 L.Ed.2d 164, 176 (2003). The General Assembly expressly intended that satellite-based monitoring be punitive because the enacting legislation ( (a)) required a trial court ordering an offender to enroll in lifetime monitoring to also place the offender on lifetime probation. Probation is recognized in N.C. Const. art. I, 16 as a form of punishment and has always been judicially construed to constitute punishment. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S., 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d (2007); Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 97 L. Ed. 2d 709 (1987). In repealing (a), the Legislature substituted a requirement that the offender cooperate with the Department of Correction during the term of his enrollment It is clear under and the Department of Correction Memoranda governing satellite-based monitoring that cooperation takes the form of lifetime probation. The amendment did not substantively change the nature of the scheme. Cf. State v. Hearst, 356 N.C. 132, 567 S.E.2d 124 (2002) (amendment of IMPACT legislation to substitute residential treatment for confinement did not change the nature of the program; offenders were entitled to pre-sentence confinement credit). The General Assembly expressly intended that the satellite-based monitoring scheme be punitive because 2006 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 247, House Bill 1896 stated that satellitebased monitoring is an intermediate sanction. As devised, this intermediate sanction operates identically to intermediate punishment under 15A (6). Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 155 L. Ed. 2d 164 (2003). The General Assembly expressly intended that the satellite-based monitoring scheme be punitive because it selected the Department of Correction, rather than a civil regulatory agency, to devise and supervise the program. U.S. Const. art. I, 10, cl. 1; N.C. Const. art. I, 16; N.C.G.S (a); Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 155 L. Ed. 2d 164 (2003). The General Assembly intended that satellite-based monitoring scheme be punitive as it has never expressly stated that it is civil. Senate Bill 2063, which stated that the satellite-based monitoring program is civil and not punitive in nature has not been considered by the full legislature. U.S. Const. art. I, 10, cl. 1; N.C. Const. art. I, 16; Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003); The satellite-based monitoring scheme is punitive in purpose or effect because it is equivalent to imposition of a shame sanction, which has always been considered punishment. U.S. Const. art. I, 10, cl. 1; N.C. Const. art. I, 16; Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 155 L. Ed. 2d 164 (2003); Doe v. Bredesen, 507 F.3d 998 (6th Cir. 2007) (Keith, J., dissenting). The satellite-based monitoring scheme is punitive in purpose or effect because it imposes an affirmative restraint or disability on the offender. U.S. Const. art. I, 10, cl. 1; N.C. Const. art. I, 16; Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 155 L. Ed. 2d 164 (2003),
5 5 The satellite-based monitoring scheme is punitive in purpose or effect because it is intended to have a deterrent effect, which is a traditional aim of punishment. U.S. Const. art. I, 10, cl. 1; N.C. Const. art. I, 16; Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 155 L. Ed. 2d 164 (2003); Doe v. Bredesen, 507 F.3d 998 (6th Cir. 2007) (Keith, J., dissenting). The satellite-based monitoring scheme is punitive in purpose or effect because its scope is excessive in relation to its purpose. U.S. Const. art. I, 10, cl. 1; N.C. Const. art. I, 16; Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 155 L. Ed. 2d 164 (2003); Doe v. Bredesen, 507 F.3d 998 (6th Cir. 2007) (Keith, J., dissenting). Double Jeopardy: For offenders ordered to enroll in satellite-based monitoring under the bring back statute ( B), imposition of satellite-based monitoring constitutes additional punishment for the same offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution and the Law of the Land Clause of the North Carolina Constitution. U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV; N.C. Const. art. I, 19; North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 23 L. Ed. 2d 656 (1969); State v. Crocker, 239 N.C. 446, 80 S.E.2d 243 (1954); State v. Johnson, 95 N.C. App. 757, 383 S.E.2d 692 (1989). Right to Counsel: The bring-back statute ( B) violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I section 23 of the North Carolina Constitution because it does not provide an offender with the right to counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963). Interstate Travel: Satellite-based monitoring violates an offender s fundamental right to interstate travel because those offenders who signed the original DCC-45 are prohibited from leaving North Carolina. Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 143 L. Ed. 2d 689 (1999); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 16 L. Ed. 2d 239 (1966). Satellite-based monitoring violates an offender s fundamental right to interstate travel because the constant transmissions to and from the equipment violate FAA regulations. The Probation Department considers all offenders on satellite-based monitoring as a condition of supervised probation to be high risk and therefore cannot travel out of state except for a medical emergency. Contracts Clause: Imposition of satellite-based monitoring following a guilty or no contest plea that did not contain satellite-based monitoring violates the Contract Clause of the United States
6 6 Constitution and the Law of the Land Clause of the North Carolina Constitution. U.S. Const. art. I, 10, cl. 1; N.C. Const. art. I, 19; United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 52 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1977); State v. Rodriguez, 111 N.C. App. 141, 431 S.E.2d 788 (1993). Separation of Powers: If satellite-based monitoring is imposed in derogation of a plea agreement, the General Assembly will have deprived the judicial department of its power to accept and approve plea agreements in violation of state principles of separation of powers. N.C. Const. Art. V, 1; State v. Zdep, (03CRS69773). Right to Jury Determination: If satellite-based monitoring constitutes a punishment, a jury must determine whether the offender falls within an eligible category, as that constitutes a finding of an element of the offense. U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV; N.C. Const. art. I, 19, 23, 24; Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004); State v. Hurt, 361 N.C. 325, 643 S.E.2d 915 (2007). Eligibility Determination at Time of Sentencing ( A): Under A, the judge must make written findings of fact as to whether the offender falls into one of the categories listed under (a). N.C.G.S A(b); In re L.B., 184 N.C. App. 442, 646 S.E.2d 411 (2007); Sain v. Sain, 134 N.C. App. 460, 517 S.E.2d 921 (1999) (mandating that the "trial court must enter written findings of fact" when the controlling statute only required that "the court shall make findings of fact"). Bring Back Statute ( B): If no judicial determination of eligibility has been made, the Department of Correction must make an initial determination that the offender falls into one of the (a) categories B(a). Proceedings are initiated by the Department of Correction by notice sent by certified mail to the address provided the sex offender registry B(b). If the Department fails to notify the offender of a bring-back hearing by certified mail sent to the address provided by the offender to the registry, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to hold the bringback hearing. See Jamie Markham, Sex Offender Registration and Monitoring p. 9 ( [a]t least two judges have ruled that the failure by the state to provide evidence that the Department complied with these notification requirements deprived the court of jurisdiction to hold the bring-back hearing ). Section B(b) violates due process by failing to require the Department to notify the defendant of the category it contends the defendant falls within to be eligible for
7 7 satellite-based monitoring. Notice is required to enable the defendant to present a defense. U.S. Const. amends. V, IX; N.C. Const. art. I, 19; State v. Battle, 136 N.C. App. 781, 525 S.E.2d 850 (2000). The hearing cannot be held less than 15 days from the date the notification was mailed. See Jamie Markham, Sex Offender Registration and Monitoring p. 9 ( [a]t least two judges have ruled that the failure by the state to provide evidence that the Department complied with these notification requirements deprived the court of jurisdiction to hold the bring-back hearing ); N.C.G.S B(b). Under B(c), the court must make written findings of fact as to whether the offender falls into one of the categories listed under section (a). See In re L.B., 184 N.C. App. 442, 646 S.E.2d 411 (2007); Sain v. Sain, 134 N.C. App. 460, 517 S.E.2d 921 (1999) (mandating that the "trial court must enter written findings of fact" when the controlling statute only required that "the court shall make findings of fact") B is unconstitutional on its face for failing to provide for the appointment of counsel, the right to present evidence, and right to appeal and failing to specify the burden of proof. Aggravated Offense: Only offenses committed on or after 1 October 2001 qualify as aggravated offenses for purposes of sections A and B N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 373, Senate Bill 936. In determining whether an offense was an aggravated offense, the court should look only to the elements of that offense, not to the facts of the crime. Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990); State v. Mastne, 725 N.W.2d 863 (Neb. Ct. App. 2006); N.C.G.S A(b), B(c) ( the conviction offense was an aggravated offense ). Recidivist: Under the bring-back statute ( B), the offense resulting in the second or subsequent conviction must have been committed after 1 December 2007, the effective date of the statute N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 213, 3; 2007 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 484, 42(b); In re McKoy, 08CRS5472 (Judge Ripley E. Rand); In re Coe, 05CRS34629 (Judge Ripley E. Rand); In re Reeves, (Judge R. Allen Baddour). Sexually Violent Predator: An offender must already have been determined to be a sexually violent predator prior to the satellite-based monitoring hearing; the judge in a satellite-based monitoring hearing does not have authority to make that determination in the first instance. N.C.G.S A(b), (c), B(c) ( the offender has been classified as a sexually violent predator pursuant to G.S ).
8 8 The district attorney is to decide whether to seek classification of an offender as a sexually violent predator and file notice of intent by the time of pre-trial motions. Additional time may be granted upon a showing of good cause (a). One could argue that courts have the power to prohibit the State from proceeding as a sanction for late filing. Section (6) defining sexually violent predator is void for vagueness. The term mental abnormality is undefined. The DSM does not provide that persons with a particular personality disorder are more likely to engage in sexually violent offenses directed at strangers. The term strangers is also undefined. Section /21(b) violates due process by failing to provide the accused with the right to present evidence, be represented by counsel, or be present when a board of experts determines that the offender is a sexually violent predator. U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV; N.C. Const. art. I, 19, 23. Offense Involving the Physical, Mental, or Sexual Abuse of a Minor: There is no statutory definition of physical, mental, or sexual abuse of a minor. Because a category of offenses labeled sexual, physical, or mental abuse of a minor became effective on 1 December 1996, an offense had to have been committed on or after 1 December 1996 to be used for satellite-based monitoring. In determining whether an offense involved the physical, mental, or sexual abuse of a minor, the court should look only to the elements of that offense, not to the facts of the crime. Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990); State v. Mastne, 725 N.W.2d 863 (Neb. Ct. App. 2006); N.C.G.S A(b)(iv), (d), B(c). This is a weaker argument than the same argument under aggravated offense because N.C.G.S A(b) uses the phrase conviction offense for purposes of an aggravated offense, but simply uses the phrase offense for purposes of an offense involving the physical, mental, or sexual abuse of a minor. If a court finds that the reportable conviction involves the physical, mental, or sexual abuse of a minor and finds that the offense is not an aggravated offense and the offender is not a recidivist, the court must order a risk assessment of the offender by the Department of Correction. The Department of Correction has only thirty to sixty days from the date of the order to complete the risk assessment and report those results to the court. N.C.G.S (A)(d), B(c). A court has no authority to proceed if the risk assessment and report occurs later than sixty days from the date of the order. The court must determine, based on the risk assessment, that the offender requires the highest possible level of supervision and monitoring. N.C.G.S (a)(2)(iv), A(e), b(c). An offender must score high on the DOC risk assessment to support a finding that the offender requires the highest possible level of
9 9 supervision and monitoring, as otherwise the determination would not have been based on the DOC risk assessment. The Department of Correction utilizes the Static-99 test to assess level of risk. It is being administered and scored by people who are not psychologists or counselors. Only an expert witness can testify regarding the interpretation of a Static-99 form. N.C.G.S 8C- 1, Rule 702; State v. Carmon, 156 N.C. App. 235, 243, 576 S.E.2d 730, (2003); State v. Bowman, 84 N.C. App. 238, , 352 S.E.2d 437, (1987). A court cannot order an offender to be monitored for a period longer than the offender is required to be registered. N.C.G.S (a)(2), (d1). A court cannot order an offender to be monitored for an indeterminate term because the Parole Commission has no authority to terminate monitoring for conditional offenders. N.C.G.S (e). Helpful Rulings: Judge Ripley Rand removed an offender from satellite-based monitoring because offense that triggered a recidivist finding was committed before 1 December N.C. Sess. Laws , s.42(b). Judge Ripley Rand removed an offender from satellite-based monitoring because his conviction for disseminating harmful material to minors was not a reportable conviction under (4) and thus could not make the offender a recidivist. Judge Allen Baddour removed an offender from satellite-based monitoring on the ground that the triggering offense was committed prior to the effective date of the statute. In subsequent cases, however, Judge Baddour has ordered offender to enroll if the plea entered on or after 1 December 2007, regardless of the date of the offense. Judge Allen Baddour found that the monitoring alarm sounding on occasion without justification and the requirement that the offender respond to directions from the monitoring equipment, such as leaving a building in order to reestablish satellite contact, weighed in favor of finding an affirmative disability or restraint. Judge E. Lynn Johnson read the monitoring scheme to be prospective only in operation, so as to avoid the constitutional questions that had been raised. See Anderson v. Assimos, 356 N.C. 415, 416, 572 S.E.2d 101, 102 (2002) (courts will avoid constitutional questions when a case may be resolved on other grounds).
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 informationPOST-CONVICTION PROCEEDINGS RELATED
POST-CONVICTION PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION & MONITORING Jamie Markham Assistant Professor, School of Government 919.843.3914; markham@sog.unc.edu I. Requests to Terminate Sex Offender
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 9/15/08 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIMOTHY ALLEN MILLIGAN, G039546
More informationAppeal 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 informationTERMINATING SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION
TERMINATING SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION James Markham Associate Professor, UNC School of Government 919.843.3914 markham@sog.unc.edu July 2017 A. Length of Registration There are two categories of sex offender
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 11, 2015
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 11, 2015 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ASHLEY MARIE WITWER Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2013-D-3367
More informationIN 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 informationBARNEY BRITT, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant NO. COA Filed: 4 September 2007
BARNEY BRITT, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant NO. COA06-714 Filed: 4 September 2007 1. Firearms and Other Weapons -felony firearm statute--right to bear arms--rational relation--ex post
More informationDetermining the Defendant s Registration Obligations Under the Revised Sex Offender Laws October 2007
Determining the Defendant s Registration Obligations Under the Revised Sex Offender Laws October 2007 John Rubin School of Government rubin@sog.unc.edu 919-962-2498 UNC School of Government Note about
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 531 U. S. (2001) 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 informationCOMMONWEALTH OF PA : : : No. CR : CONARD CARPENTER, : Motion to Vacate Order for a Defendant : Sexually Violent Predator Hearing
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PA : : vs. : No. CR-192-2017 : CONARD CARPENTER, : Motion to Vacate Order for a Defendant : Sexually Violent Predator Hearing
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Thomas E. Huyett, : : Petitioner : : v. : No. 516 M.D. 2015 : Submitted: February 10, 2017 Pennsylvania State Police, : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : : Respondent
More informationPETITIONS TO TERMINATE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION
PETITIONS TO TERMINATE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION James M. Markham, UNC School of Government (August 2013) Contents I. Length of Registration... 1 A. Categories... 1 II. Types of Termination... 2 A. Automatic
More information5/4/2015. Who must register? What does registration mean? Sex Offender Registration and Related Issues: Beating Back Banishment and Big Brother
Sex Offender Registration and Related Issues: Beating Back Banishment and Big Brother PUBLIC DEFENDER CONFERENCE 2015 GLENN GERDING 210 N. COLUMBIA ST. CHAPEL HILL, NC 27514 919-338-0836 Who must register?
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0069-16T1 A-0070-16T1 A-0071-16T1
More informationJEREMY WADE SMITH OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE WILLIAM C. MIMS June 6, 2013 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
PRESENT: All the Justices JEREMY WADE SMITH OPINION BY v. Record No. 121579 JUSTICE WILLIAM C. MIMS June 6, 2013 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND Clarence N. Jenkins,
More informationS08A1159. FRAZIER v. THE STATE. Ronald Jerry Frazier was charged with failure to renew his registration as
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: October 6, 2008 S08A1159. FRAZIER v. THE STATE CARLEY, Justice. Ronald Jerry Frazier was charged with failure to renew his registration as a sex offender. At a
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 76
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 76 Court of Appeals No. 11CA0624 Mesa County District Court No. 08CR1556 Honorable Richard T. Gurley, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
More informationNo In the Supreme Court of the United States. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina
No. 15-57 In the Supreme Court of the United States DAVID PAUL HALL, v. Petitioner, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina BRIEF
More informationATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION 05-11
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION 05-11 The Honorable Brian A. Crain March 31, 2005 State Senator, District 39 State Capitol, Room 513 B Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 Dear Senator Crain: This office has received
More informationPOST CONVICTION PROCEEDINGS: PETITIONS TO TERMINATE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION
POST CONVICTION PROCEEDINGS: PETITIONS TO TERMINATE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION Jamie Markham Assistant Professor, School of Government 919.843.3914 markham@sog.unc.edu March 2013 A. Length of Registration
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA NO KA-0944 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL DAVID NYE FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * *
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DAVID NYE * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2011-KA-0944 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 503-036, SECTION E Honorable
More informationSentencing, Corrections, Prisons, and Jails
26 Sentencing, Corrections, Prisons, and Jails This chapter summarizes legislation enacted by the General Assembly in 2007 affecting the sentencing of persons convicted of crimes, the state Department
More informationSTATE OF MAINE ERIC S. LETALIEN. complaint charging Eric S. Letalien with failure to comply with the Sex Offender
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2009 ME 130 Docket: And-08-358 Argued: February 10, 2009 Decided: December 22, 2009 Reporter of Decisions Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, ALEXANDER, LEVY, SILVER,
More informationSex Offender Registration in North Carolina
Sex Offender Registration in North Carolina Lauren Earnhardt Associate General Counsel North Carolina Sheriffs Association Post Office Box 20049 Raleigh, North Carolina 27619 (919) SHERIFF (743-7433) www.ncsheriffs.org
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 110,520. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, STEVEN MEREDITH, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 110,520 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. STEVEN MEREDITH, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The legislature intended the Kansas Offender Registration Act
More informationIN 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* * * * * * * BELSOME, J., CONCURS FOR REASONS ASSIGNED BY JUDGE LEDET LEDET, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT, STATE OF LOUISIANA
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS WALLACE COLLINS NO. 2013-KA-0411 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 513-516, SECTION D Honorable Frank A.
More informationSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GREGORY REQUINT ARTIS, Defendant NO. COA Filed: 6 February 2007
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GREGORY REQUINT ARTIS, Defendant NO. COA06-443 Filed: 6 February 2007 Constitutional Law--double jeopardy--habitual misdemeanor assault--habitual felon statute--same argument
More informationNo. 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 informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Norman E. Gregory, Petitioner v. No. 245 M.D. 2015 Submitted February 23, 2018 Pennsylvania State Police, Respondent BEFORE HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President
More informationIN 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 information2015 PA Super 89. Appeal from the Order May 7, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-MD
2015 PA Super 89 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMES GIANNANTONIO Appellant No. 1669 EDA 2014 Appeal from the Order May 7, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas
More informationCOURT 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 informationCase 1:18-cv Document 2 Filed 06/18/18 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
Case 1:18-cv-00504 Document 2 Filed 06/18/18 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION JACK DARRELL HEARN; DONNIE LEE MILLER; and, JAMES WARWICK JONES Plaintiffs
More informationNo In the Supreme Court of the United States TORREY DALE GRADY, Petitioner, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent.
No. 14-593 In the Supreme Court of the United States TORREY DALE GRADY, Petitioner, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2001 SESSION LAW SENATE BILL 936
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2001 SESSION LAW 2001-373 SENATE BILL 936 AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAWS REGARDING SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN ELIGIBILITY
More informationSENATE BILL No February 14, 2017
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 7, 2017 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 21, 2017 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 17, 2017 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 29, 2017 AMENDED IN SENATE MAY
More informationO P I N I O N. Rendered on the 30th day of May,
[Cite as State v. King, 2008-Ohio-2594.] STATE OF OHIO v. Plaintiff-Appellee STEFANI KING Defendant-Appellant IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MIAMI COUNTY Appellate Case No. 08-CA-02
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED JOHN DOE I, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D13-3876
More informationIN 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 informationIN 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 informationSUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA ****************************************************
No. 514PA11-2 TWENTY-SIXTH DISTRICT SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA **************************************************** STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) v. ) From Mecklenburg County ) No. COA15-684 HARRY SHAROD
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D. C. Docket No CR-J-33-MCR.
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 08-12642 Non-Argument Calendar D. C. Docket No. 07-00097-CR-J-33-MCR FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. GEORGE C. RILEY, v. Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION September 22, 2011
More informationNo Mn Me Supreme Court of the niteb gotatto JENNIFER RAYANNE DYKES, SOUTH CAROLINA,
No. 13-8037 Mn Me Supreme Court of the niteb gotatto JENNIFER RAYANNE DYKES, v. Petitioner, SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT BRIEF IN
More informationTHE NORTH CAROLINA SEX OFFENDER & PUBLIC PROTECTION REGISTRATION PROGRAMS
THE NORTH CAROLINA SEX OFFENDER & PUBLIC PROTECTION REGISTRATION PROGRAMS This publication is only represented to be current as of the revision date on this cover page. Material in this publication may
More informationCourt 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 informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 11-842 EDDIE RAY JACKSON VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA ********** APPEAL FROM THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISRICT COURT PARISH OF CONCORDIA, DOCKET NO. 45574 HONORABLE
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 10-804 In the Supreme Court of the United States ALFORD JONES, v. Petitioner, ALVIN KELLER, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, AND MICHAEL CALLAHAN, ADMINISTRATOR OF RUTHERFORD CORRECTIONAL
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Peak, 2008-Ohio-3448.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90255 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JAMES PEAK DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationSUMMARY OF COURT DECISIONS OF IMPORTANCE TO ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY FEBRUARY 8, 2011
SUMMARY OF COURT DECISIONS OF IMPORTANCE TO ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Prepared by Nicolas C. Anthony Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau In response to
More informationELEVENTH NORTHERN MARIANAS COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATURE AN ACT. To repeal and reenact Public Law 11-35; and for other purposes.
ELEVENTH NORTHERN MARIANAS COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATURE PUBLIC LAW NO. 11-104 H. B. NO. 11-475, SD1 FOURTH REGULAR SESSION, 1999 AN ACT To repeal and reenact Public Law 11-35; and for other purposes. BE IT
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Nos. 118, , ,675 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Nos. 118,673 118,674 118,675 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. KEVIN COIL COLEMAN, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Saline
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Robert Michael McGarry, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 740 M.D. 2002 : Submitted: February 21, 2003 Pennsylvania Board of Probation : and Parole, et. al., : Respondents
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2017COA102 Court of Appeals No. 16CA0704 Jefferson County District Court No. 09CR3045 Honorable Dennis Hall, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
More informationOPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. March 3, Pursuant to Code (A), the Commonwealth
Present: All the Justices LORENZO TOWNES OPINION BY v. Record No. 040979 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. March 3, 2005 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA * FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAMPBELL COUNTY J. Samuel Johnston,
More informationSYLLABUS. State v. Melvin Hester/Mark Warner/Anthony McKinney/Linwood Roundtree (A-91-16) (079228)
SYLLABUS (This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme
More informationAN ACT. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio:
(131st General Assembly) (Amended Substitute Senate Bill Number 97) AN ACT To amend sections 2152.17, 2901.08, 2923.14, 2929.13, 2929.14, 2929.20, 2929.201, 2941.141, 2941.144, 2941.145, 2941.146, and
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2015COA89 Court of Appeals No. 13CA1305 Arapahoe County District Court No. 02CR2082 Honorable Michael James Spear, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 12-460 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS RANDOLPH MARINONI ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF VERMILION, NO. 32828 HONORABLE
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before LUCERO, BACHARACH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit April 8, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. Plaintiff - Appellee,
More informationOFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA U.S. SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL LAW UPDATE
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA U.S. SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL LAW UPDATE Criminal Cases Decided Between April 1, 2010 and August 31, 2010 and Granted Review for the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 108,885. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, AMI LATRICE SIMMONS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 108,885 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. AMI LATRICE SIMMONS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT Nonsex offenders seeking to avoid retroactive application of
More informationMASSACHUSETTS SEX-OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION
MASSACHUSETTS SEX-OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION CONTACT Commonwealth of Massachusetts Sex-Offender Registry Board INFORMATION PO Box 4547 Salem, MA 01970-0902 Telephone: 978-740-6400 http://www.state.ma.us/sorb/community.htm
More informationREPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER
SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO DATE FILED: April 15, 2016 11:16 AM FILING ID: B06DD3D5363C2 CASE NUMBER: 2015SC261 Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center 2 East 14 th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Certiorari to the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 110,702. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JOSHUA HAROLD WATKINS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 110,702 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JOSHUA HAROLD WATKINS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The legislature intended the Kansas Offender Registration
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION JOHN DOES I-IV, ) on their own behalf and on behalf ) of a class of those similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No.
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2006
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2006 JAMES LESCHER, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent. No. 4D06-2291 [December 20, 2006]
More informationState v. Blankenship
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,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE APPELLEE DOES NOT REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT
E-Filed Document Sep 16 2014 12:20:19 2013-CA-01986 Pages: 9 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RAVEL WILLIAMS APPELLANT VS. NO. 2013-CA-01986 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF FOR THE
More informationMassachusetts Sentencing Commission Current Statutes Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211E 1-4 (2018)
Massachusetts Sentencing Commission Current Statutes Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211E 1-4 (2018) DISCLAIMER: This document is a Robina Institute transcription of statutory contents. It is not an authoritative
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 informationCRIMES CODE (18 PA.C.S.) AND JUDICIAL CODE (42 PA.C.S.) - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS Act of Jul. 5, 2012, P.L. 880, No. 91 Cl. 18 Session of 2012 No.
HB 75 CRIMES CODE (18 PA.C.S.) AND JUDICIAL CODE (42 PA.C.S.) - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS Act of Jul. 5, 2012, P.L. 880, No. 91 Cl. 18 Session of 2012 No. 2012-91 AN ACT Amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses)
More informationNOT 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 informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
0 0 WO United States of America, vs. Plaintiff, Ozzy Carl Watchman, Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CR0-0-PHX-DGC ORDER Defendant Ozzy Watchman asks the
More informationInterstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision. ICAOS Advisory Opinion. Background
1 Background The State of has requested an advisory opinion pursuant to Rule 6.101 concerning the authority of its judges and probation or parole officers to permit certain offenders to travel outside
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 informationNatural Resources Journal
Natural Resources Journal 6 Nat Resources J. 2 (Spring 1966) Spring 1966 Criminal Procedure Habitual Offenders Collateral Attack on Prior Foreign Convictions In a Recidivist Proceeding Herbert M. Campbell
More informationIN 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 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 informationTHE 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 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 informationThe Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Opinions on the Jury s Role in Criminal Sentencing
The Jurisprudence of Justice John Paul Stevens: Selected Opinions on the Jury s Role in Criminal Sentencing Anna C. Henning Legislative Attorney June 7, 2010 Congressional Research Service CRS Report for
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee
Case: 15-40264 Document: 00513225763 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/08/2015 No. 15-40264 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RAYMOND ESTRADA,
More informationCourt of Appeals of New York, People v. David
Touro Law Review Volume 17 Number 1 Supreme Court and Local Government Law: 1999-2000 Term & New York State Constitutional Decisions: 2001 Compilation Article 3 March 2016 Court of Appeals of New York,
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 informationPOLICY AND PROGRAM REPORT
Research Division, Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau POLICY AND PROGRAM REPORT Justice System: Focus on Sex Offenders April 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Federal Sex Offender Laws... 1 Jacob Wetterling Act of
More informationSTATE 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 informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. Case No.
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT AT KANSAS CITY
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT AT KANSAS CITY JOHN DOE I, Jackson County, Missouri, JOHN DOE II, Jackson County, Missouri, JOHN DOE III, Pettis County, Missouri,
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 December 2014
NO. COA14-403 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 16 December 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Mecklenburg County Nos. 11 CRS 246037, 12 CRS 202386, 12 CRS 000961 Darrett Crockett, Defendant. Appeal
More informationJUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE (42 PA.C.S.) AND LAW AND JUSTICE (44 PA.C.S.) - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS 25, 2008, P.L.
JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE (42 PA.C.S.) AND LAW AND JUSTICE (44 PA.C.S.) - OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS Act of Sep. 25, 2008, P.L. 1026, No. 81 Cl. 42 Session of 2008 No. 2008-81 HB 4 AN ACT Amending Titles
More informationNOT 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 informationREVISOR XX/BR
1.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to public safety; eliminating stays of adjudication and stays of imposition 1.3 in criminal sexual conduct cases; requiring sex offenders to serve lifetime 1.4 conditional
More informationSpecial Topic Seminar for District Court Judges February 2012 JUSTICE REINVESTMENT EXERCISES. Answers and Explanations
JUSTICE REINVESTMENT EXERCISES Special Topic Seminar for District Court Judges February 2012 Answers and Explanations COMMUNITY AND INTERMEDIATE PUNISHMENT 1. A prior conviction level I offender is convicted
More informationInformation Memorandum 98-11*
Wisconsin Legislative Council Staff June 24, 1998 Information Memorandum 98-11* NEW LAW RELATING TO TRUTH IN SENTENCING: SENTENCE STRUCTURE FOR FELONY OFFENSES, EXTENDED SUPERVISION, CRIMINAL PENALTIES
More informationNavigating the Adam Walsh Act 42 PA.C.S ET SEC
Navigating the Adam Walsh Act 42 PA.C.S. 9795 ET SEC An Overview of PA Megan s Law The Pennsylvania General Assembly first enacted Megan s Law requiring the registration of sexual offenders on October
More informationStarkey v. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 2013 OK 43, (OKSC)
Starkey v. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 2013 OK 43, 109556 (OKSC) 2013 OK 43 JAMES M. STARKEY, SR., Plaintiff/Appellee, v. THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND JUSTIN JONES AS DIRECTOR,
More information