NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 May v. Johnston County Nos. 10 CRS 57277, CRS 5365
|
|
- Winifred Henry
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 May 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Johnston County Nos. 10 CRS 57277, CRS 5365 STEVEN DALE NARRON Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 14 March 2012 by Judge Thomas H. Lock in Johnston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 February Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Michael E. Butler, for the State. Unti & Lumsden LLP, by Sharon L. Smith, for defendantappellant. HUNTER, Robert C., Judge. Defendant appeals from judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of one count of obtaining property by false pretense, two counts of misdemeanor larceny, and two counts of injuring wires or fixtures. After careful review, we find no error.
2 -2- Background The State s evidence tended to establish the following facts: Between 20 September 2010 and 18 November 2010, Progress Energy suffered copper wire thefts at multiple locations in Johnston County. Progress Energy Field Supervisors, David Southerland and Kevin Fulcher, discovered the thefts when responding to reports of power outages or low-hanging wires. During these service calls, Southerland and Fulcher determined the length of copper wire missing and reported the information to Progress Energy s Security Specialist, Kevin Kennedy, as well as to local law enforcement. Kennedy investigated the thefts for Progress Energy and prepared a report in which he determined the value of the copper wire stolen in the incidents underlying defendant s charges. Kennedy s report was admitted into evidence. Kennedy also visited scrap yards and discovered that the same type of copper wire stolen from Progress Energy had been sold to a recycling facility, Wise Recycling. Kennedy reported his findings to the Johnston County Sheriff s Department which began investigating Bradley Eason as a suspect in the thefts. Detective Gerald Coley of the Johnston County Sheriff s Department discovered a truck at Eason s home containing scraps
3 -3- of copper wire, pruners, and a box of muriatic acid. The copper wire was the same type stolen from Progress Energy and it matched a sample discovered by Kennedy at Wise Recycling. Eason was arrested for stealing copper wire and admitted he had stolen the wire with defendant and several other individuals. Explaining his involvement with defendant in the thefts, Eason testified that defendant approached him about his plan to steal copper wire to make some money. Eason agreed to help defendant, and he stole copper wire with defendant at several times during September, October, and November 2010 at multiple locations in Johnston County including locations on Zelma Road and N.C. Highway 39. Eason testified that on each occasion that he stole copper wire with defendant, defendant would climb a ladder with a pair of bolt cutters and cut a section of wire strung between utility poles. When the wire fell to the ground, Eason and the other individuals involved would roll the wire into bundles and place it in their vehicle. Eason testified that after the first night of stealing copper wire with defendant, Eason took the wire to Wise Recycling and sold it under his own name for approximately $800. Eason gave the money to defendant, and defendant divided the money between all the individuals involved, giving 20 percent of
4 -4- the proceeds to Eason and keeping 30 percent for himself. As Eason and defendant continued to steal copper wire, defendant suggested that they should treat the wire with muriatic acid to alter the color of the wire in an attempt to prevent the police from identifying it. Eason testified that he accompanied defendant to the recycling yard to sell the stolen copper approximately eight times. As their conspiracy progressed, Eason and defendant evenly divided the proceeds from selling the copper wire. Defendant was arrested for felony larceny, misdemeanor larceny, injuring wires or fixtures, and obtaining property by false pretense. The next day, defendant was in the Wilson County Sheriff s Office to be served with warrants on separate charges. While there, Officer Josh Bissett served defendant with outstanding warrants related to wire thefts in Wilson County. As defendant and Officer Bissett waited for the magistrate, defendant made a voluntary confession to the wire thefts in Johnston County. Officer Bissett testified that defendant stated that he was not responsible for the copper thefts from cell phone towers or power lines in Wilson County but that he was responsible for the thefts in Johnston County: He advised me... that my charges would never hold up in
5 -5- Wilson County. He said now if you were talking about Johnston County, that would be one thing because I did those, but I did not do the ones in Wilson County. Defendant was indicted on twenty felonies related to the theft of copper wire owned by Progress Energy in Johnston County: thirteen counts of injuring wires or fixtures, six counts of felony larceny, and one count of obtaining property by false pretense. Defendant was also indicted for six counts of misdemeanor larceny and attaining habitual felon status. Defendant pled not guilty to all charges and moved to dismiss the charges at the close of all of the evidence. The trial court immediately denied defendant s motion to dismiss the charge of obtaining property by false pretense, but took an overnight recess to consider the motion to dismiss as to the remaining charges. The next day, the State suggested the Court dismiss the felony larceny charges and to proceed with two counts of misdemeanor larceny. The trial court granted defendant s motion to dismiss all charges except the following five charges that were submitted to the jury: one count of felonious obtaining property by false pretense and two counts of misdemeanor larceny in case number 10 CRS 57277; and two counts of injuring wires or fixtures pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-
6 in case number 10 CRS The locations of the thefts associated with the charges were 790 Zelma Road, Kenly, North Carolina, and N.C. Highway 39, Middlesex, North Carolina. The jury returned guilty verdicts on all five charges. Defendant pled guilty to attaining habitual felon status and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 96 to 125 months. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court. 1 Discussion I. Admission of Evidence under Rule 803(5) Defendant first argues that the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of two of the State s witnesses whose testimony was based upon a report that was produced by the Johnston County Sheriff s Department. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in concluding the sheriff s report was a recorded recollection under Rule 803(5) of the North Carolina 1 Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the event this Court concluded his oral notice of appeal was ineffective. In his petition, defendant asks this Court to review the judgment entered on the charges of which he was convicted and his guilty plea to the habitual felon charge. We conclude defendant s oral notice of appeal was properly given from the convictions for the charges of obtaining property by false pretense, misdemeanor larceny, and injuring wires or fixtures. Because defendant advances no error for the entry of his guilty plea other than the errors alleged for the underlying convictions, with which we find no error, we deny his petition for writ of certiorari.
7 -7- Rules of Evidence. We conclude that defendant has not preserved this issue for our review. At trial, Progress Energy employee Southerland testified as to the amount of wire stolen from Progress Energy and the locations from which it was stolen based on a report provided by the Johnston County Sheriff s Department ( the sheriff s report ). Southerland testified that when he investigated reports of copper wire thefts, he calculated the amount of wire that was stolen and reported it to the sheriff s department. Because Progress Energy was the victim of numerous thefts of its copper wire, Southerland could not testify as to the specific incidents underlying defendant s indictments without referring to the sheriff s report. Defendant s counsel objected to Southerland s testimony and the trial court asked for the basis of the objection. Defendant s counsel argued that when the State provided the sheriff s report to Southerland the State essentially guided the witness to the information that they wanted him to regurgitate. The trial court asked the State for the rule under which Southerland s testimony should be admitted, and the State replied that it was a refreshed recollection. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 8C-1, Rule 612 (2011) (permitting the use of a
8 -8- writing to refresh a witness s memory for the purpose of testifying). However, during voir dire, Southerland testified that the sheriff s report did not refresh his memory. Noting the witness s inability to refresh his memory by reading the sheriff s report, the trial court then suggested that the State could seek to admit his testimony as a recorded recollection under Rule 803(5). See N.C. Gen. Stat. 8C-1, Rule 803(5) (2011) (providing that [a] memorandum or record concerning a matter about which a witness once had knowledge but now has insufficient recollection to enable him to testify fully and accurately, shown to have been made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in his memory and to reflect that knowledge correctly is not excluded from evidence by the hearsay rule). The State immediately moved to admit Southerland s testimony pursuant to Rule 803(5). When the trial court asked defendant if he wanted to be heard on the State s motion, defendant s counsel replied that defendant did not care to be heard. The trial court then ruled that Southerland s testimony would be admitted under Rule 803(5) and that defendant s objection was overruled. The trial court allowed the sheriff s report to serve as a basis of Southerland s testimony but did
9 -9- not allow the report to be received as an exhibit. As the jury returned to the courtroom, the trial court again announced that defendant s objection was overruled and that the testimony would be admitted under Rule 803(5), at which point defendant s counsel stated: Your Honor, I would ask are we not well, I noted my objection for the record. Defendant s counsel did not make a new objection. When Southerland resumed his testimony, he testified that 1,002 feet of copper wire was missing from 790 Zelma Road on 20 October The State then called as a witness Progress Energy employee Fulcher who relied upon the same sheriff s report to provide his testimony about the wire thefts. Fulcher testified that 1,790 feet of copper wire was missing from two locations when he responded to N.C. Highway 39 on 12 November Defendant did not object to Fulcher s reliance on the sheriff s report. We conclude the record establishes that although defendant objected to Southerland s testimony on the basis that the State was leading the witness to recite certain parts of the sheriff s report, defendant failed to object to Southerland s testimony on the basis that the report did not qualify as a recorded recollection under Rule 803(5). Defendant s counsel was asked
10 -10- by the trial court if she wanted to be heard on its ruling, and she declined the opportunity. Thus, defendant has not preserved for review the issue of whether the trial court erred in admitting the evidence under Rule 803(5). See N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1) (2012) ( In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make if the specific grounds were not apparent from the context. ); see State v. Battle, 172 N.C. App. 335, 338, 615 S.E.2d 733, 735 (2005) (concluding that where the defendant s objection at trial was based on a theory different from that advanced on appeal, the defendant had not preserved the issue for review), writ denied, 361 N.C. 168, 641 S.E.2d 7, vacated and remanded on other grounds, 361 N.C. 148, 696 S.E.2d 521 (2006). Assuming, without deciding, that defendant properly preserved the issue for review and that it was error to admit that part of Southerland s testimony that was based on the sheriff s report, we conclude the error was harmless. In order to establish prejudice, defendant must establish that there was a reasonable possibility that the jury would have reached a
11 -11- different verdict had the error not occurred. N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1443(a) (2011). Defendant has not met this burden in light of the other evidence of his guilt. Defendant did not object to Fulcher s testimony as to the theft of copper wire from N.C. Highway 39. As for the charges relating to thefts on Zelma Road, the State introduced the testimony of Eason who testified that he and defendant stole copper wire from utility poles on multiple occasions during the relevant time period including at locations on Zelma Road and N.C. Highway 39 in Johnston County. The State also introduced evidence that after he was arrested, defendant confessed to Officer Bissett that he was responsible for the thefts of copper wire in Johnston County. In light of this evidence, defendant has failed to establish that there is a reasonable possibility that had Southerland not been permitted to testify based on the sheriff s report the jury would have reached a different verdict. See State v. Hairston, 190 N.C. App. 620, , 661 S.E.2d 39, 42 (2008) (concluding that if the Court assumed the error alleged had occurred the defendant could still not establish prejudice in light of the other evidence of his guilt, including his confession to the crime).
12 -12- II. Motion to Dismiss Next, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying defendant s motion to dismiss all of the charges for insufficient evidence. We disagree. We review the trial court s denial of a motion to dismiss de novo. State v. Smith, 186 N.C. App. 57, 62, 650 S.E.2d 29, 33 (2007). In doing so, we must determine whether there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, and (2) of defendant s being the perpetrator of such offense. State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373, 378, 526 S.E.2d 451, 455 (quoting State v. Barnes, 334 N.C. 67, 75, 430 S.E.2d 914, 918 (1993)), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 890, 148 L. Ed. 2d 150 (2000). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78-79, 265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980). When considering defendant s motion to dismiss, the trial court must consider all evidence admitted, whether competent or incompetent, in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving any contradictions in its favor. State v. Rose, 339
13 -13- N.C. 172, 192, 451 S.E.2d 211, 223 (1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1135, 132 L. Ed. 2d 818 (1995). A. Obtaining Property by False Pretense Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge of obtaining property by false pretense because the State failed to present any evidence that defendant used deception in the sale of the stolen copper wire. The elements of the crime of obtaining property by false pretense are: (1) [A] false representation of a past or subsisting fact or a future fulfillment or event, (2) which is calculated and intended to deceive, (3) which does in fact deceive, and (4) by which the defendant obtains or attempts to obtain anything of value from another person. State v. Wright, 200 N.C. App. 578, 586, 685 S.E.2d 109, 115 (2009). The trial court submitted the charge to the jury on the theory of aiding and abetting, which required the jury to find that (i) the crime was committed by some other person; (ii) the defendant knowingly advised, instigated, encouraged, procured, or aided the other person to commit that crime; and (iii) the defendant s actions or statements caused or contributed to the commission of the crime by that other person. State v. Goode, 350 N.C. 247, 260, 512 S.E.2d 414, 422 (1999).
14 -14- Defendant contends that although Eason testified that he sold the stolen copper wire to Wise Recycling, Eason did not testify that he told Wise Recycling who owned the wire that he was selling. Contrary to defendant s argument, Eason testified that he sold the stolen copper in his name at least once in Johnston County and divided the money with defendant and his other co-conspirators. Moreover, it was not necessary for the State to produce evidence that defendant or his co-conspirators verbally deceived Wise Recycling when selling the stolen copper. For the crime of obtaining property by false pretense, the false pretense need not come through spoken words, but instead may be by act or conduct. State v. Parker, 354 N.C. 268, 284, 553 S.E.2d 885, 897 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1114, 153 L. Ed. 2d 162 (2002). Eason testified that he and defendant would wash the stolen copper in muriatic acid in order to alter the appearance of the copper and throw off the police as [t]hey wouldn t recognize it if it was oxidized. Eason stated that it was defendant s idea to use the muriatic acid. While the stated intent of using the acid was to deceive the police, the evidence permits a reasonable inference that altering the appearance of the copper also deceived Wise Recycling into believing that the copper was not stolen. Thus, there is substantial evidence in
15 -15- the record that defendant used deception in selling the copper wire, and defendant s motion was properly denied. B. Misdemeanor Larceny & Injuring Wires or Fixtures Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the two charges of misdemeanor larceny and the two charges of injuring wires or fixtures because the trial court relied upon testimony based upon the sheriff s report, which defendant contends the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence under Rule 803(5). We disagree. Larceny is the taking by trespass and carrying away of the goods or personal property of another, without the owner s consent and with the intent permanently to deprive the owner of the property and to convert it to the taker s own use. The elements of proof are the same for misdemeanor and felony larceny, the only difference being the value or nature of the property stolen. State v. Fluker, 139 N.C. App. 768, 777, 535 S.E.2d 68, 74 (2000) (internal citation omitted). For the crime of injuring wires or fixtures, N.C. Gen. Stat (2011) provides that [i]f any person shall willfully injure, destroy or pull down any... electric power line... or other apparatus, equipment or fixture used in the transmission of telegraph, telephone, cable telecommunications, or electrical power service... that person shall be guilty of a Class I Felony.
16 -16- As discussed above, we conclude that defendant did not object to the admission of the sheriff s report on the basis that it did not qualify as a recorded recollection under Rule 803(5). Therefore, we do not consider defendant s argument that the testimony based on the report was admitted in error. Referring to the sheriff s report, Southerland testified that copper wire was stolen from Progress Energy s utility poles at 790 Zelma Road in Johnston County in October of Fulcher also relied on the sheriff s report to testify that copper wire was stolen from Progress Energy at N.C. Highway 39 on 12 November Additionally, the State introduced the testimony of Eason who testified that he and defendant stole copper wire from utility poles on multiple occasions during the relevant time period, including at locations on Zelma Road and N.C. Highway 39 in Johnston County. Eason testified that defendant knew that taking the copper wire was illegal and that they sold the stolen wire to recycling facilities. Although Eason did not testify as to the exact location of the thefts he committed with defendant on Zelma Road and N.C. Highway 39, this is not an essential element of the crimes charged. Finally, the State introduced evidence that defendant admitted that he committed thefts of copper wire in
17 -17- Johnston County. We conclude there was substantial evidence of each essential element of misdemeanor larceny and injuring wires or fixtures and of defendant being the perpetrator of each offense, and defendant s motion was properly denied. Lastly, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charges because the denial was based on evidence not readily available to the jury. Defendant contends that it was unreasonable to assume any juror could have recalled the numerous locations of stolen wire and the corresponding footages of wire missing and then connect this information to the other witnesses testimony. It seems that defendant contends the evidence was too complicated for the jury to resolve, and therefore, the trial court should have dismissed the charges. Defendant provides no legal authority for this argument, and we conclude that it is without merit. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we find no error. NO ERROR. Judges McCULLOUGH and DAVIS concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
NO. 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 informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 November On writ of certiorari to review order entered 29 May 2012
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 7 July Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 7 May 2014 by Judge W.
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 5 April Appeal by Defendant from judgments entered 3 February 2015 by Judge
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 5 July 2016
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 June v. Caldwell County Nos. 07 CRS CRS TERRY ALLEN HALL, Defendant.
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA15-4. Filed: 15 September 2015
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 1 November 2016
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, v. GEORGE ERVIN ALLEN, JR., Defendant NO. COA03-406
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, v. GEORGE ERVIN ALLEN, JR., Defendant NO. COA03-406 Filed: 1 June 2004 1. Motor Vehicles--driving while impaired--sufficiency of evidence There was sufficient evidence of driving
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 August v. Rowan County Nos. 06 CRS CRS NICHOLAS JERMAINE STEELE
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 3 May On writ of certiorari permitting review of judgment entered 15
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 17 March 2015
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. 405PA14 FILED 25 SEPTEMBER 2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 405PA14 FILED 25 SEPTEMBER 2015 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DWAYNE ANTHONY ELLIS On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of
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 STEVEN B. PARKER v. Record No. 961582 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN June 6, 1997 COMMONWEALTH
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 15 August 2017
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 8 February by Judge Wayland J. Sermons, Jr., in Nash County Superior Court.
NO. COA12-876 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 5 March 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Nash County No. 10 CRS 50741 PHILLIP DALTON BRASWELL Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 8 February 2012
More informationNORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 June STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Guilford County v. No. 04 CRS 83182
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CRYSTAL STROBEL NO. COA Filed: 18 May 2004
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CRYSTAL STROBEL NO. COA03-566 Filed: 18 May 2004 1. Confessions and Incriminating Statements--motion to suppress--miranda warnings- -voluntariness The trial court did not err
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 April v. Guilford County Nos. 09 CRS 80644, EDEM KWAME KALEY
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 19 April Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 25 February 2010
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 91 1
Article 91. Appeal to Appellate Division. 15A-1441. Correction of errors by appellate division. Errors of law may be corrected upon appellate review as provided in this Article, except that review of capital
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. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 4 August v. Onslow County No. 06 CRS CLINT RYAN VLAHAKIS
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 1 May Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 16 March 2017 by Judge W.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA17-968 Filed: 1 May 2018 Johnston County, Nos. 16CRS052218 19 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID HINES, JR. Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 16
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 4 November Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 9 September 2013
NO. COA14-390 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 4 November 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Buncombe County No. 11 CRS 63608 MATTHEW SMITH SHEPLEY Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 9 September
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 August v. Onslow County Nos. 10 CRS CRS JAMES ERIC MARSLENDER
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 4 April 2017
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KIMBERLY A. JACKSON Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana MATTHEW D. FISHER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 17 January 2017
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS JUNE 4, 2009 * COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: All the Justices CHARLENE MARIE WHITEHEAD v. Record No. 080775 OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS JUNE 4, 2009 * COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA In this appeal,
More informationChapter 10 The Criminal Law and Business. Below is a table that highlights the differences between civil law and criminal law:
Chapter 10 The Criminal Law and Business Below is a table that highlights the differences between civil law and criminal law: Crime a wrong against society proclaimed in a statute and, if committed, punishable
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Nos. 118, ,440 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Nos. 118,438 118,440 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JACOB L. COX, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Sedgwick District
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,547 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. RAYMOND CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,547 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS RAYMOND CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2018. Affirmed. Appeal from
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 October 2012
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DARRYL RINGLER Appellant No. 797 WDA 2012 Appeal from the Judgment
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos CA-101 And 2002-CA-102
[Cite as State v. Kemper, 2004-Ohio-6055.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos. 2002-CA-101 And 2002-CA-102 v. : T.C. Case Nos. 01-CR-495 And
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 2 December Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 17 August 2007 by Court of Appeals
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 17 February Appeal by defendant from judgment and orders entered 1
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 20 September 2016
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA16-173 Filed: 20 September 2016 Watauga County, No. 14 CRS 50923 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANTWON LEERANDALL ELDRIDGE Appeal by defendant from judgment
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
Rel: 12/16/2016 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 Appellate
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 February Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 23 January 2009 by
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationINSTRUCTIONS AFTER JURY IS SWORN
Revised 10/15/12 INSTRUCTIONS AFTER JURY IS SWORN Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, you have been selected as the jury in this case. As you know this is a criminal case, and to assist you in better understanding
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. Nos & September Term, 2014 ANTHONY NYREKI EDWARDS STATE OF MARYLAND
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND Nos. 2561 & 2562 September Term, 2014 ANTHONY NYREKI EDWARDS v. STATE OF MARYLAND Eyler, Deborah S., Wright, Friedman, JJ. CONSOLIDATED CASES Opinion
More informationI N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MEMORANDUM DECISION 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
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 21 May 2013
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitu te controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNOS and IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NOS. 29314 and 29315 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES WAYNE SHAMBLIN, aka STEVEN J. SOPER, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE
More informationv. ) File No. 08CRS50156 et al. ORDER
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) v. ) File No. 08CRS50156 et al. ) SEAN A. LITTLE, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 17 February Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 12 September 2002 by
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 18, 2003 v No. 242305 Genesee Circuit Court TRAMEL PORTER SIMPSON, LC No. 02-009232-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 November Appeal by plaintiff from judgment filed 29 August 2001 by
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO KA COA JORDAN DAVIS A/K/A JORDAN D. DAVIS STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2012-KA-00863-COA JORDAN DAVIS A/K/A JORDAN D. DAVIS APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/18/2012 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LAMAR
More informationPITFALLS IN CRIMINAL JUDGMENTS: MULTIPLE CONVICTIONS Special Superior Court Judge Shannon R. Joseph (prepared for June 2011 conference)
PITFALLS IN CRIMINAL JUDGMENTS: MULTIPLE CONVICTIONS Special Superior Court Judge Shannon R. Joseph (prepared for June 2011 conference) I. OVERVIEW A. Although it may be proper to submit for jury consideration
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 18 December v. Catawba County No. 10 CRS 1038 MATTHEW LEE ELMORE
NO. COA12-459 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 18 December 2012 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Catawba County No. 10 CRS 1038 MATTHEW LEE ELMORE Motor Vehicles death by motor vehicle and manslaughter
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,181 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 115,181 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. WILLIAM PORTER SWOPES, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Shawnee
More informationHicks v. State of Alabama. Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals Alex Thrasher*
Hicks v. State of Alabama Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals Alex Thrasher* The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals will primarily consider three issues in Hicks v. State of Alabama. First, the court will
More informationCOMMON ISSUES IN PROBATION REVOCATION APPEALS
COMMON ISSUES IN PROBATION REVOCATION APPEALS North Carolina Appellate Boot Camp August 21 22, 2014 David Andrews, Assistant Appellate Defender Disclaimer: This document is not intended to be an exhaustive
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 89 1
Article 89. Motion for Appropriate Relief and Other Post-Trial Relief. 15A-1411. Motion for appropriate relief. (a) Relief from errors committed in the trial division, or other post-trial relief, may be
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED September 22, 2016 v No. 327938 Ingham Circuit Court WILLIAM LATRAIL CROSKEY, LC No. 15-000098-FH Defendant-Appellee.
More informationState of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: October 25, 2018 108812 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DEMMCA
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs October 7, 2014
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs October 7, 2014 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. EDWARD CARTER Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. 13-616 Roy B. Morgan,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. JERMALE PITTMAN : T.C. Case No. 01-CR-740
[Cite as State v. Pittman, 2002-Ohio-2626.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : vs. : C.A. Case No. 18944 JERMALE PITTMAN : T.C. Case No. 01-CR-740
More informationNo. 105,917 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, ROBERT E. SNOVER, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 105,917 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. ROBERT E. SNOVER, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Because the aiding and abetting statute, K.S.A. 21-3205(1),
More informationJARRIT M. RAWLS OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. September 15, 2006 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Present: All the Justices JARRIT M. RAWLS OPINION BY v. Record No. 052128 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. September 15, 2006 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Jarrit M. Rawls
More informationLegal Definitions: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z A
Legal Definitions: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z A Acquittal a decision of not guilty. Advisement a court hearing held before a judge to inform the defendant about the charges against
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : v. : : BRADLEY KOMPA, : : Appellee : No. 1912 WDA 2013 Appeal
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Ramsey, 2008-Ohio-1052.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) STATE OF OHIO C. A. No. 23885 Appellee v. DWAYNE CHRISTOPHER RAMSEY Appellant
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Harrison, 2011-Ohio-3258.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95666 STATE OF OHIO vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE LORENZO HARRISON
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two October 16, 2018 STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 49322-5-II Respondent, v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2010
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2010 BILLY HARRIS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 01-02675 Carolyn Wade
More informationMISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS HAND DOWN DATE: 9/20/2016
MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS HAND DOWN DATE: 9/20/2016 SIMS v. STATE, NO. 2015-KA-01311-COA http://courts.ms.gov/images/opinions/co115582.pdf Topics: Armed robbery - Ineffective assistance of
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 August v. Catawba County No. 09 CRS CLYDE GARY WHISENANT
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Nos. 114, ,187 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. TERRY F. WALLING, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Nos. 114,186 114,187 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS TERRY F. WALLING, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Johnson District
More informationv. No. 29,690 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Kenneth H. Martinez, District Judge
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 1-0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No MDA 2013
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANDREW JIMMY AYALA Appellant No. 1348 MDA 2013 Appeal from the
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Laughlin, 2014-Ohio-5417.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 27185 Appellee v. THOMAS H. LAUGHLIN Appellant
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 10, 2012 v No. 301668 Wayne Circuit Court KARON CORTEZ CRENSHAW, LC No. 09-023757-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,659 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JAY A. CONTELLO, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,659 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JAY A. CONTELLO, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Johnson District
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 2 January 2007
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Carey, 2011-Ohio-1998.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 14-10-25 v. SHONTA CAREY, O P I N I O N DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
More informationRECENT THIRD CIRCUIT AND SUPREME COURT CASES
RECENT THIRD CIRCUIT AND SUPREME COURT CASES March 6, 2013 Christofer Bates, EDPA SUPREME COURT I. Aiding and Abetting / Accomplice Liability / 924(c) Rosemond v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 2014 WL 839184
More informationPUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit July 7, 2015 PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff S Appellee,
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 19 January v. Forsyth County No. 07-CRS PAUL JOSEPH SALVETTI
NO. COA09-504 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 19 January 2010 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Forsyth County No. 07-CRS-55600 PAUL JOSEPH SALVETTI Appeal by defendant from an order denying a motion to
More informationBUSINESS LAW. Chapter 8 Criminal Law and Cyber Crimes
BUSINESS LAW Chapter 8 Criminal Law and Cyber Crimes Learning Objectives List and describe the essential elements of a crime. Describe criminal procedure, including arrest, indictment, arraignment, and
More information*Zarnoch, Graeff, Friedman,
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 169 September Term, 2014 (ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION) DARRYL NICHOLS v. STATE OF MARYLAND *Zarnoch, Graeff, Friedman, JJ. Opinion by Friedman,
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 16, 2014
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs December 16, 2014 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAMES ALLEN BALLEW Appeal from the Criminal Court for White County No. CR5363 Leon
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO. : O P I N I O N - vs - 4/26/2010 :
[Cite as State v. Childs, 2010-Ohio-1814.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2009-03-076 : O P I N I O N - vs -
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FEBRUARY 1999 SESSION
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FILED June 4, 1999 FEBRUARY 1999 SESSION Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk GARY WAYNE LOWE, ) ) C.C.A. No. 03C01-9806-CR-00222 Appellant,
More informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, SAMER WAHAB ABDIN, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR PR Filed May 31, 2016
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. SAMER WAHAB ABDIN, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0103-PR Filed May 31, 2016 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:16cv302-FDW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:16cv302-FDW DAVID KENNETH FOWLER, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) FRANK L. PERRY, ) ) Respondent. ) ) THIS MATTER
More informationVirgin Islands v. Moolenaar
1998 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-8-1998 Virgin Islands v. Moolenaar Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 96-7766 Follow this and additional works
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE
E-Filed Document Apr 20 2016 15:53:20 2015-CP-00893-COA Pages: 30 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ERNIE WHITE APPELLANT VS. NO. 2015-CP-00893-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
REL: 10/03/2014 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 Appellate
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2004 FED App. 0319P (6th Cir.) File Name: 04a0319p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 August Appeal by defendant from order entered 15 July 2010 by
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO CR 01662
[Cite as State v. Hess, 2007-Ohio-4099.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 21646 v. : T.C. NO. 2005 CR 01662 GLENN A. HESS : (Criminal
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI V. CAUSE NO CA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
E-Filed Document Aug 5 2014 01:08:18 2014-CA-00054-COA Pages: 17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DENNIS TERRY HUTCHINS APPELLANT V. CAUSE NO. 2014-CA-00054-COA
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 18 August 2009
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationLONNIE LORENZO BOONE OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE WILLIAM C. MIMS April 18, 2013 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
PRESENT: All the Justices LONNIE LORENZO BOONE OPINION BY v. Record No. 121144 JUSTICE WILLIAM C. MIMS April 18, 2013 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA In this appeal, we consider
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-15-00129-CR JAMES CUNNINGHAM, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 85th District Court Brazos County,
More informationI N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MEMORANDUM DECISION 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
More information