IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A115488
|
|
- Agnes Bates
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Filed 3/11/08 P. v. Apodaca CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule (a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule (b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AARON L. APODACA, Defendant and Appellant. A (Alameda County Super. Ct. No ) A jury convicted defendant Aaron L. Apodaca of forcible rape and forcible sodomy. (Pen. Code, 261, subd. (a)(2); 286, subd. (c)(2).) 1 The jury found that the sex offenses were committed in the course of the commission of a first degree burglary ( , subd. (e)(2)), and that defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon in the commission of the sex offenses ( , subd. (e)(4)). The trial court sentenced defendant to two consecutive sentences of 25 years to life, one for each sex offense. Defendant raises various challenges to his conviction and sentence. We reject all but one: the contention that the second consecutive sentence of 25 years to life was not authorized by statute. The Attorney General concedes error on this issue. Accordingly, we will remand for resentencing. 1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 1
2 I. FACTS Under applicable standards of appellate review, we must view the facts in the light most favorable to the judgment of conviction, and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact which the jury could reasonably find from the evidence. (People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284, 303; People v. Neufer (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 244, 247.) Defendant committed the sex offenses in He was arrested in 2005 following a DNA match. The victim, Laura Doe, was sitting at her computer in her Alameda apartment at approximately 5:00 p.m. on June 11, Defendant kicked in the front door, held a knife to Doe s throat, threatened to kill her, and tore the telephone cords out of the wall. He demanded money from Doe, and took between $60 to $80. He then ordered Doe to disrobe. She refused. He took out his penis and ordered Doe to suck it. She refused. Defendant reminded Doe that he had a knife. After a struggle, Doe removed her clothes. Defendant took her into the bathroom at knifepoint. He hit her head against the vanity and the toilet, after which Doe stopped resisting him. Defendant placed his knife on the inside of Doe s thigh. He then penetrated Doe s vagina and anus with his finger and his penis. Defendant told Doe, you can thank your neighbor for this, and mentioned a name which sounded like Angelo. (Doe had twice complained to her landlord about noise from a neighbor s apartment.) Defendant then left, after telling Doe he would kill her if she called the police. Doe positively identified defendant at trial as the man who forcibly raped and sodomized her while armed with a knife. The parties stipulated that defendant s fingerprint was found on a telephone in Doe s apartment. In November and December 2001, sperm taken from Doe s body during a sexual assault examination was subjected to a DNA profile analysis and entered in the DNA database for unsolved crimes. On August 19, 2004, the DNA profile of the sperm taken from Doe s body was found to match defendant s DNA profile in the database. 2
3 On April 6, 2005, two police officers, Deutsche and Dwyer, went to Corcoran State Prison where defendant was in custody on an unrelated offense. The officers executed a search warrant to obtain a fresh DNA sample from defendant. The officers Mirandized and then questioned defendant. A tape of that interview was played for the jury. At the outset of the interview, defendant said he could not remember June of He recognized a picture of a man he knew as Angelo, who was one of Doe s neighbors at the time of the sexual assault. Defendant admitted he had visited Angelo daily and sometimes stayed with him for three or four days at a time. Defendant denied ever seeing or talking to any of Angelo s neighbors. Defendant asked the officers why they were talking to him. Officer Deutsche told defendant his DNA and fingerprints had been found in the apartment of Angelo s neighbor, who had been raped in her bathroom. Then defendant began to talk about the sexual assault on Doe. Defendant told the officers he broke into Doe s apartment to steal money and was surprised she was there. He took about $60 from her and demanded she remove her clothes so she could not follow him. He guess[ed] that seeing her undress triggered something ; he was a little deranged,... mixed up on drugs. He guess[ed] he forced myself upon her. He admitted trying to penetrate Doe vaginally, but did not think he succeeded: it didn t really work. He admitted it was possible he had anal sex with Doe. Defendant could not remember whether he had a knife with him at the time of the sexual assault, but admitted he carried a knife frequently and he would have used a knife if he had one: I had been in prison. Stabbed people. And I wasn t afraid to use a knife. So, that was my thing, I used a knife. He didn t think he stabbed Doe, but it s more than likely that I threatened her. Defendant told the officers that Angelo had called him sometime after the sexual assault: I do remember now, Angelo calling me and telling me: What d you do brother? You know what I mean. What d you do? That neighbor said you raped 3
4 her. Defendant told the officers he replied to Angelo: What! Whatever, man. She s tripping. On April 13, 2005, the DNA lab received the fresh DNA sample the two officers took from defendant. On May 9, 2005, the fresh sample was used to confirm the DNA match. Defendant testified. He admitted prior convictions for auto and residential burglary, auto theft, forgery using another person s credit card, and possession of narcotics for sale. He testified he broke into Doe s apartment for money, was surprised to see her there, and only decided to rape her after he forced her to undress. He admitted trying to rape Doe, but claimed he did not achieve penetration of her vagina or anus with his penis. He did not believe he had a knife with him. He denied telling Doe she could thank [her] neighbor for the sexual assault. He was under the influence of drugs at the time of the assault. The People had charged defendant with two counts of forcible rape (counts 1 and 4) and two counts of forcible sodomy (counts 2 and 3). The jury convicted defendant of one count of forcible rape (count 1) and one count of forcible sodomy (count 2). With regard to each count, the jury found that the offense was committed during the course of a burglary of an inhabited dwelling, and that defendant personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon. The jury apparently could not reach a verdict on counts 3 and 4, which were dismissed on motion of the People. The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life on count 1, a consecutive sentence of 25 years to life on count 2, and an additional 1 year for two prior convictions, for a total term of 51 years to life. II. DISCUSSION Defendant contends (1) his prosecution is time-barred; (2) the court erred by giving CALCRIM No. 362; (3) his prison statement was involuntary; (4) the second consecutive sentence violated his right to jury trial; (5) the second consecutive sentence, on count 2, was not authorized by statute; and (6) his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We reject all contentions but (5), in which the People concede 4
5 error. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and the indeterminate sentence on count 1, but remand for resentencing on count Purported Revival of Statute of Limitations. The parties agree that at the time of defendant s offenses, the statute of limitations was six years. Thus, the statute of limitations would have expired on June 10, The parties further agree that in 2000, before the expiration of the limitations period, the Legislature extended the limitations period to 10 years. Defendant contends that the Legislature revived an expired limitations period in violation of the ex post facto clause as interpreted by Stogner v. California (2003) 539 U.S. 607 (Stogner). But the Legislature did not revive an expired limitations period, but extended one prior to expiration. This is constitutionally permissible. (Stogner, supra, at pp ; People v. Terry (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 750, ) An arrest warrant issued for defendant on April 26, 2005, within 10 years from the date of the offenses. There is no ex post facto violation. 2. CALCRIM No This instruction, the successor to former CALJIC No. 2.03, tells the jury that if a defendant makes a knowingly false, or intentionally misleading, statement relating to the crime charged, that statement may show an awareness of guilt. The trial court gave the instruction because of defendant s false statement to Angelo that Doe was tripping when she accused him of raping her. Defendant contends the instruction should not have been given because the statement that Doe was tripping was equivocal. But tripping is clearly slang for telling a story or disregarding fact, and is not equivocal. Defendant also contends the instruction should not have been given because his statement that Doe was tripping about the rape accusation was not inconsistent with his trial testimony that he only attempted to rape Doe, but did not succeed in committing actual rape. He relies on People v. Rubio (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 757 (Rubio), which has been soundly rejected as having been overruled sub silentio by the California Supreme Court on the issue before 5
6 us. 2 (See People v. Williams (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 467, ; People v. Edwards (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1092, ) As these two cases observe, CALJIC No and therefore CALCRIM No. 362 may be given even if a false pretrial statement is consistent with a defendant s self-serving trial testimony. 3. Purported Involuntariness of Defendant s Prison Statement. Defendant contends that his prison statement to Officers Dwyer and Deutsche was involuntary. The trial court conducted an Evidence Code section 402 hearing, at which Officer Deutsche testified, and concluded the statement was voluntary. Defendant disagrees, pointing to the inherently coercive setting of state prison and Officer Dwyer s passing reference to his own belief in God at the outset of the interview, in response to defendant s mentioning that he had become a Jehovah s Witness. But we accept the trial court s factual conclusions and independently conclude that the statement was voluntary after our review of the record. (See People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, ; People v. Whitson (1998) 17 Cal.4th 229, 248.) Defendant relies on cases in which the police used extreme methods of religious-based psychological ploys to provoke a statement. That is not the case here when the religious reference is put in context. Defendant, moreover, conceded at trial that he freely made the statements to the officers. 4. Alleged Cunningham Error in Consecutive Sentencing. Defendant contends his consecutive sentence on count 2 violates his right to jury trial under the rule of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S., [166 L.Ed.2d 856, 127 S.Ct. 856] (Cunningham). But Cunningham does not apply to consecutive sentencing. (People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799, ) 5. Imposition of Two Consecutive Sentences. Defendant contends he should only have been sentenced to one consecutive term of 25 years to life under the applicable statute. The Attorney General agrees. So do we. 2 The court expressly disapproved Rubio, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d 757 on a separate, unrelated ground. (People v. Freeman (1978) 22 Cal.3d 434, ) 6
7 The trial court sentenced defendant as follows: THE COURT: Okay. As to Count 1, Mr. Apodaca, you will be sentenced as follows: That sentence for the forcible rape during a residential burglary, with the... personal use of a knife, is a mandatory 25-years-to-life in prison, and that will be the sentence for Count 1. [ ] As to Count 2, forcible sodomy during a residential burglary, [with the] personal use of a knife, [the sentence] will be 25-to-life and that will be consecutive. For the two priors, under [section] 667.5(b), there will be one year, [an] additional one year, for a total of 51-years-to-life. The parties agree that at the time defendant committed his offense and at the time of sentencing, the commission of the sex offenses during a residential burglary and while armed with a knife placed defendant under the One Strike Law ( ) and subjected him to a sentence of 25 years to life for offenses against a single victim on a single occasion. The People concede that under the reasoning of People v. Jones (2001) 25 Cal.4th 98, (Jones), interpreting former section , subdivision (g), defendant could only be sentenced to one 25 years-to-life term because the rape and the sodomy were committed on a single occasion, i.e., were committed in close temporal and spatial proximity. (Jones, supra, at p. 107.) We therefore hold that the consecutive sentence of 25 years to life on count 2 is invalid as unauthorized by statute. There remains the question of remedy. As the Attorney General observes, former section , subdivision (g) provided that a sentence for a second sex offense committed on a single victim on a single occasion could be imposed under section (See Jones, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 104.) The Attorney General contends that under section 667.6, subdivision (d), the trial court must impose a consecutive determinate term on count 2 because that offense was committed on a separate occasion, a phrase statutorily defined differently than single occasion. ( 667.6, subd. (d); see Jones, supra, at pp ) But that would require the trial court to make certain findings. And, as defendant points out, under the law in effect in 1995 a consecutive sentence would not be mandatory on count 2, but the trial court would have discretion to sentence concurrently. 7
8 We therefore remand for resentencing to a determinate term on count 2, either consecutive or concurrent. 6. Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Defendant contends that section is unconstitutional because a sentence of 25 years to life under the circumstances of this case amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. But such a sentence, for a forcible rape and a forcible sodomy committed during the course of a burglary, is not cruel and unusual punishment for the reasons set forth in People v. Alvarado (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 178, , and People v. Estrada (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1270, ) No circumstances personal to defendant are sufficient to render such a sentence cruel and unusual as to him. III. DISPOSITION The conviction and the indeterminate sentence on count 1 are affirmed. The indeterminate sentence on count 2 is reversed, and the matter is remanded for resentencing on count 2. Marchiano, P.J. We concur: Stein, J. Margulies, J. 8
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A115355
Filed 6/06/08 P. v. Santana CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----
Filed 5/30/18 In re J.V. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A115807
Filed 10/19/07 P. v. Hosington CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A118621
Filed 4/3/08 P. v. Ritch CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS LARRY J. WILLIAMS STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 05-1338 ********** APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 273,837 HONORABLE JOHN
More informationSample argument that Estrada retroactivity applies to SB 180
Parts in blue print are instructions to user, not to be included in filed document unless so noted. Sample argument that Estrada retroactivity applies to SB 180 Note: Substantial parts of this argument
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A121535
Filed 4/13/09 In re E.G. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A114558
Filed 5/2/08 P. v. Jackson CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A105113
Filed 4/22/05 P. v. Roth CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More information2013 IL App (3d) Opinion filed May 30, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013
2013 IL App (3d) 110391 Opinion filed May 30, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ILLINOIS, ) of the 10th Judicial
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 3/20/09 P. v. Turner CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A123432
Filed 4/1/10 P. v. Jeter CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 2/21/14 P. v. Ramirez CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationFOUR EASY STEPS TO UNDERSTANDING DETERMINATE SENTENCING LAW
FOUR EASY STEPS TO UNDERSTANDING DETERMINATE SENTENCING LAW By Jonathan Grossman The courts have recognized the determinate sentencing law (DSL) is a legislative monstrosity which is bewildering in its
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A111525
Filed 8/18/06 P. v. Johnson CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationINTHE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A114344
Filed 11/19/07 P. v. Anderson CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 5/19/11 In re R.L. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 9/28/09 P. v. Taumoeanga CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A106894
Filed 1/9/06 P. v. Carmichael CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A110076
Filed 3/21/06; pub. order & mod. 4/12/06 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HORACE WILLIAM
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A113716
Filed 3/29/07 P. v. Lopez CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION November 15, 2016 9:00 a.m. v No. 329031 Eaton Circuit Court JOE LOUIS DELEON, LC No. 15-020036-FC
More informationCASE NO. 1D Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Tallahassee; Terry P. Roberts of Law Office of Terry P. Roberts, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JOHNNIE J. JACKSON, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D13-2542
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 12/24/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, 2d Crim. No. B222971 (Super. Ct.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 6/15/15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, ) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) S202921 v. ) ) Ct.App. 4/1 D057392 ERIC HUNG LE et al., ) ) San Diego County Defendants and Appellants. )
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 2/13/15 County of Los Angeles v. Ifroze CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Filed 1/24/06 P. v. Mitchell CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A117922
Filed 10/29/08 P. v. Artieres CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 7/25/11 P. v. Hurtado CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A125781
Filed 9/30/10 P. v. Romero CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Filed 10/3/07 P. v. Elliott CA1/5 Opinion following remand by U.S. Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A113296
Filed 4/25/08 P. v. Canada CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A105255
Filed 4/21/05 P. v. Evans CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 9/14/16 P. v. Gaticonde CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2010
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2010 Opinion filed December 15, 2010. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D07-3290 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY. : O P I N I O N - vs - 7/15/2013 :
[Cite as State v. Hobbs, 2013-Ohio-3089.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2012-11-117 : O P I N I O N - vs - 7/15/2013
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (Sacramento)
Filed 7/18/07 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) In re C.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE A112207
Filed 11/6/07 P. v. Hylton CA1/5 Opinion following remand by U.S. Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A122523
Filed 10/30/09 P. v. Bolden CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationFN2. The jury found defendant guilt of petty theft and defendant admitted having committed the specified prior.
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Harrington, 2009-Ohio-5576.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BYRON HARRINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE A106090
Filed 7/29/05 P. v. Ingwell CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 3, 2010 v No. 293142 Saginaw Circuit Court DONALD LEE TOLBERT III, LC No. 07-029363-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) SHAWN RAMON ROGERS, ) ) Defendant and Appellant. )
More informationPacket Two: Criminal Law and Procedure Chapter 1: Background
Packet Two: Criminal Law and Procedure Chapter 1: Background Review from Introduction to Law The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The United States Supreme Court is the final
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 16, 2001 v No. 217950 Wayne Circuit Court DONALD ARTHUR MARTIN, LC No. 98-009401 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSTATE V. TRAEGER, 2000-NMCA-015, 128 N.M. 668, 997 P.2d 142 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSEPH TRAEGER, Defendant-Appellant.
1 STATE V. TRAEGER, 2000-NMCA-015, 128 N.M. 668, 997 P.2d 142 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSEPH TRAEGER, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 19,629 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 2000-NMCA-015,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 2, 2010 V No. 293404 Kent Circuit Court KERRY DALE MILLER, LC No. 08-010052-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A117691
Filed 12/19/08 P. v. Galvan CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Hammond, 2006-Ohio-3639.] COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- ROBERT L. HAMMOND Defendant-Appellant JUDGES: Hon. John
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
09-3389-cr United States v. Folkes UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2010 (Submitted: September 20, 2010; Decided: September 29, 2010) Docket No. 09-3389-cr UNITED STATES
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 15, 2016 v No. 324386 Wayne Circuit Court MICHAEL EVAN RICKMAN, LC No. 13-010678-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC02-1092 PER CURIAM. TRAVIS WELSH, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [June 12, 2003] We have for review the decision in Welsh v. State, 816 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 04-1027 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS WILBERT TOUCHET, JR. ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF VERMILION, NO. 39,800 HONORABLE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN
Filed 5/15/17; pub. order 5/30/17 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B271406 (Los Angeles
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 informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 2, 2004 v No. 247310 Otsego Circuit Court ADAM JOSEPH FINNERTY, LC No. 02-002769-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A126207
Filed 4/15/10 In re Armani T. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 9/24/09 P. v. Laureano CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 8/28/09 In re S.D. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D067962
Filed 3/30/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D067962 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD254615) JAMES MICHAEL
More informationS08A1636. SANFORD v. THE STATE. A jury found Alvin Dexter Sanford guilty of malice murder, felony murder,
Final Copy 284 Ga. 785 S08A1636. SANFORD v. THE STATE. Hines, Justice. A jury found Alvin Dexter Sanford guilty of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault (with a deadly weapon), possession of
More informationv No Ingham Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED July 19, 2018 v No. 338225 Ingham Circuit Court ALFONZO GORDON POLLARD, LC No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed February 4, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Dale B.
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 8-822 / 07-1942 Filed February 4, 2009 MARTIN SINCLAIR DUFFY, Defendant-Appellant. Judge. Appeal from the Iowa District Court
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 10/31/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B270470 Los Angeles County Super.
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,033 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, TERRY L. ANTALEK, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,033 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. TERRY L. ANTALEK, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Sedgwick District
More informationAll Those Propositions. Copyright 2018 First District Appellate Project. All rights reserved
All Those Propositions Copyright 2018 First District Appellate Project. All rights reserved Reduced certain theft & drug possession offenses to misdemeanors PC 490.2: obtaining any property by theft where
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----
Filed 3/28/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ---- THE PEOPLE, C077159 v. Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 12F5851,
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida CANADY, C.J. No. SC17-713 DIEGO TAMBRIZ-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [July 12, 2018] In this case we consider whether convictions for aggravated assault,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 18, 2004 v No. 244553 Shiawassee Circuit Court RICKY ALLEN PARKS, LC No. 02-007574-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationAGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE COURSE OF A FELONY: CONSENT ALLEGED 1 N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2a(3) [READ COUNT OF INDICTMENT]
Revised 6/11/12 AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE COURSE OF A FELONY: CONSENT ALLEGED 1 Count of the indictment charges the defendant with aggravated sexual assault. [READ COUNT OF INDICTMENT] That section
More informationExpert Testimony (April 16, 2008) Expert Testimony Offered to Prove the Primary Activities of the Gang
Expert Testimony (April 16, 2008) Gang Expert Testimony (Pen. Code, 186.22 cases) General Scope of Gang Testimony An expert is permitted to offer an opinion on a subject that is sufficiently beyond common
More informationSTATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS. FILED Plaintiff Below, Respondent June 22, 2012 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK MEMORANDUM DECISION
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS State of West Virginia, FILED Plaintiff Below, Respondent June 22, 2012 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK vs) No. 11-0677 (Ohio County 10-F-62) SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT B233498
Filed 8/27/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT JOHN ME DOE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B233498 (Los Angeles County Super.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Casaviero T. Senu-Oke, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) D E C I S I O N. Rendered on October 9, 2003
[Cite as State v. Senu-Oke, 2003-Ohio-5379.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 02AP-68 v. : (C.P.C. No. 01CR03-1785) Casaviero T. Senu-Oke,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ATHENS COUNTY
[Cite as State v. Smith, 2008-Ohio-2061.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ATHENS COUNTY State of Ohio, : : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 07CA15 : v. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
More informationSuperior Court of Washington For Pierce County
Superior Court of Washington For Pierce County State of Washington, Plaintiff vs.. Defendant No. Statement of Defendant on Plea of Guilty to Sex Offense (STTDFG) 1. My true name is:. 2. My age is:. 3.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR A123145
Filed 1/12/11 P. v. Small-Long CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CvA. No. 43 OF 2001 BETWEEN STEVE WILLIAMS APPELLANT AND THE STATE RESPONDENT CORAM: L. Jones, J.A. M. Warner, J.A. A. Lucky, J.A. APPEARANCES: Mr.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 12/18/09 P. v. Carrigg CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationCERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 10/23/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E062760 v. TIMOTHY WAYNE PAGE, (Super.Ct.No.
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Cooper, 2012-Ohio-355.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96635 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. BRANDON COOPER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 8/16/07 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA LENIN FREUD PEREZ-TORRES, ) ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) S137346 v. ) ) Ct.App. 2/3 B179327 STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., ) ) Los Angeles County Defendants
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 9/24/15 P. v. Simmons CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED RIDGE GABRIEL, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 24, 2009 v No. 282098 Oakland Circuit Court JOHN ALLEN MIHELCICH, LC No. 2007-213588-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Pore, 2012-Ohio-3660.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- CHARLES ROSS PORE Defendant-Appellant JUDGES Hon. Patricia A.
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 1/25/06 P. v. Holzhauser CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More information! CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS.COM
Filed 5/24/12! CASENOTE JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL, ESQ. LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS.COM A C.C.P. SECTION 998 OFFER MUST CONTAIN A STATUTORILY MANDATED ACCEPTANCE PROVISION OR IT IS INVALID CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Manus, 2011-Ohio-603.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94631 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. MARQUES MANUS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 4, 2015 v No. 321381 Bay Circuit Court ABDULAI BANGURAH, LC No. 13-010179-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationRENDERED: September 22, 2000; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO CA MR COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** **
RENDERED: September 22, 2000; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED C ommonwealth Of K entucky Court Of A ppeals NO. 1999-CA-001621-MR GEORGE H. MYERS IV APPELLANT APPEAL FROM MARSHALL CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE
More informationNo. 101,819 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, KENNETH D. BROWN, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 101,819 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. KENNETH D. BROWN, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The analysis of evidence under K.S.A. 60-455 involves several
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DIEGO TAMBRIZ-RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D15-2957 [March 1, 2017] Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A119999
Filed 4/30/09 P. v. Murphy CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 112,631 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, TONY PULLEY, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 112,631 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. TONY PULLEY, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Wyandotte District Court;
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc State of Missouri, ) ) Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SC93851 ) Sylvester Porter, ) ) Appellant. ) APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS The Honorable Timothy
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Filed 8/30/07 P. v. Scott CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
Filed 5/16/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, 2d Crim. No. B283857 (Super. Ct. No.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Filed 5/10/18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, ) ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) S237602 v. ) ) Ct.App. 4/2 E064099 STEVEN ANDREW ADELMANN, ) ) Riverside County Defendant and Respondent. )
More information