IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff, : Case No. 12 CR 110
|
|
- Roland Mason
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff, : Case No. 12 CR 110 v. : Judge Berens CHARLES W. FURNISS, : ENTRY Overruling in Part and Sustaining in Part Defendant s Motion to Suppress Evidence Defendant. : This matter is before the Court upon the Defendant s Motion to Suppress, filed March 28, An oral hearing on this matter was held on May 14, The parties have filed posthearing briefs in this matter, which the Court has considered. For the following reasons, Defendant s motion is OVERRULED in part and SUSTAINED in part. FINDINGS OF FACT From the evidence adduced at the oral hearing, including the testimony of Lancaster Police Department officers James S. Hall ( Ofc. Hall) and Matt Mullett ( Ofc. Mullett ), and the exhibits admitted into evidence, the Court makes the following findings of fact: 1. On October 8, 2011, Ofc. Hall was working second shift on patrol in Lancaster, Ohio. As he was southbound on Memorial Drive, Ofc. Hall noticed a black vehicle travelling northbound on Memorial Drive at a high rate of speed. After verifying the speed by radar, Ofc. Hall determined the black vehicle was travelling more than 50 mph in a 35 mph zone. 2. Ofc. Hall turned to pursue the black vehicle. Because the vehicle made an unsignalled left turn from a restricted lane and almost collided with another vehicle, Ofc. Hall developed the belief that the driver was attempting to evade. Ofc. Hall radioed for backup. 1
2 3. The black vehicle stopped in a parking lot. After Ofc. Mullett arrived as backup, Ofc. Hall approached the driver s door as Ofc. Mullett approached from the passenger side. 4. Ofc. Hall noticed that the driver s hands were clutching the steering wheel tightly enough to turn the driver s knuckles white and that the driver was shaking. Still believing the driver might attempt to flee, Ofc. Hall ordered the driver to remove the key from the ignition and the driver complied. 5. The driver, who was later identified as Defendant, told Ofc. Hall he was travelling to see his girlfriend on her lunch break. Ofc. Hall requested Defendant s vehicle registration. 6. Defendant opened the glove compartment to retrieve his registration and quickly slammed it shut. Ofc. Hall and Mullett noticed an object fall from the glove compartment onto the floorboards of the vehicle. 7. From his perspective, Ofc. Mullett could see that the object was a padded case approximately 6 inches long. Ofc. Mullett had seen similar cases before in the course of his duties, including during an incident the previous night. In his experience, similar cases always contained a glass pipe used for smoking marijuana. 8. Ofc. Mullett asked Defendant, Can I see that? Defendant handed the padded case to Ofc. Mullett. Ofc. Mullett opened the case and discovered a glass pipe and a small amount of a substance that appeared to be marijuana. 9. At that point, Ofc. Hall ordered Defendant out of his vehicle and took Defendant to the rear of the vehicle and ordered him to place his hands on the vehicle. Ofc. Hall had determined he was going to arrest Defendant on suspicion of possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. Ofc. Hall then asked Defendant for consent to search his person, which Defendant granted. 2
3 10. Ofc. Hall and Mullett conducted a search of Defendant s clothing and discovered a baggie of pills, a baggie of suspected marijuana, a film case containing more pills, and a hard shell glasses case so full of money that bills were holding the case open. 11. Ofc. Mullett stated to Ofc. Hall, It looks like he s been selling this stuff. At that time, Defendant made some incriminating statements, including identification of the pills and admissions to selling the pills. 12. Defendant was arrested, read the Miranda warnings, and placed in a patrol car. Defendant s vehicle was then searched and impounded according to LPD policy. 13. Defendant later gave written and taped statements to law enforcement. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Defendant makes three arguments in support of his motion to suppress. First, Defendant asserts that Ofc. Mullett lacked probable cause to seize and open the object that fell from Defendant s glove compartment. Second, Defendant maintains that Ofc. Hall and Mullett lacked probable cause to search Defendant s person and that Defendant s consent to that search was the result of duress or coercion. Finally, Defendant argues that any oral or written statements obtained from Defendant were in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) or as fruit of statements obtained in violation of those rights. 1. Officer Mullett s Seizure and Search of the Padded Case was Supported by Probable Cause. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution protect the rights of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of their person or property. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 3
4 889 (1968); State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87, 565 N.E.2d 1271 (1991). A traffic stop constitutes seizure of the vehicle and all occupants, but is not unreasonable if the officer initiating the traffic stop has witnessed a traffic violation. State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234, 239, 685 N.E.2d 762 (1997); Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109, 98 S.Ct. 330 (1977). The duration of a traffic stop is limited; such a seizure may last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500, 103 S.Ct (1983). But an officer may expand the scope of a traffic stop when the officer observes articulable facts giving rise to a suspicion of criminal activity. Robinette at 241. The officer may then search the vehicle if he or she develops probable cause, which exists when the officer has reasonable, articulable grounds to believe a crime is being committed or contraband is present. State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47, 734 N.E.2d 804 (2000). Defendant argues that the fact that Ofc. Hall and Mullett could not recall a detailed description of the padded case during the evidentiary hearing and that they gave slightly different descriptions of the object points to a lack of probable cause. Defendant further asserts that, although Defendant handed the object to Ofc. Mullett, he did not give Ofc. Mullett permission to open the case. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that Ofc. Mullett did have probable cause to open and search the padded case. Although the details of the case s appearance were no longer clear to Ofc. Mullett at the time of the evidentiary hearing, Ofc. Mullett clearly referenced the same object as described in the incident report he completed just after the incident and described by Ofc. Hall in his testimony. More importantly, Ofc. Mullett credibly articulated specific grounds that he reasonably believed a crime was being committed or that contraband was present in the case. Specifically, Ofc. Mullett testified that he had encountered similar cases 4
5 in the course of his duties and that such a case had contained a glass marijuana pipe every time that he had encountered one. Although there might be other uses for such a case, it was not unreasonable for Ofc. Mullett to draw the conclusion that possession of such a case indicated that Defendant was in possession of marijuana or drug paraphernalia. Therefore, Defendant s motion to suppress is OVERRULED as it relates to the padded case and its contents. 2. Defendant Voluntarily Consented to the Search of His Person. The Ohio Supreme Court has stated, every search situation is unique unto itself and no set of fixed rules will be sufficient to cover every situation. State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234, 242, 685 N.E.2d 762. When consent to a noncustodial search is at issue, the State must demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied. Voluntariness is a question of fact to be determined from all the circumstances[.] Id. at 243, quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, , 93 S.Ct (1973). The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the State s burden cannot be met by showing mere submission to a claim of lawful authority. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497, 103 S.Ct (1983). Additionally, the Fifth District Court has enunciated six factors that are important to determining the voluntariness of consent: (1) The voluntariness of the defendant's custodial status; (2) The presence of coercive police procedures; (3) The extent and level of the defendant's cooperation with the police; (4) The defendant's awareness of his right to refuse to consent; (5) The defendant's education and intelligence; and (6) The defendant's belief that no incriminating evidence will be found. State v. Damron, 5th Dist. No. 06CV-150, 2007-Ohio-5808, at 17. In Robinette, the Ohio Supreme Court found that Robinette s consent was mere 5
6 submission to a claim of lawful authority. In that case, Robinette was detained in a traffic stop and ordered out of his vehicle. After being told he was going to be released with only a warning, Robinette was faced with further questions, one of which was a request to search his vehicle. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the totality of the circumstances indicated that Robinette had submitted to a claim of lawful authority and had not validly consented. In so holding, the Robinette Court specifically noted a police officer s superior position of authority and the officer s power to issue a ticket rather than a warning if Robinette had become uncooperative. Considering all of the facts and circumstances, the Court finds that Defendant s consent to a search of his person was voluntary and not mere acquiescence to a claim of authority. Even considering Defendant s evident fear during his encounter with officers Hall and Mullett, the Court finds that officer s Hall and Mullett did not take any unusual or coercive actions to cause Defendant to experience that fear. In addition, unlike in Robinette, Defendant did not face the implicit threat that he would be subject to an increased sanction if he did not comply with the request for a search. At the time of the request, Defendant knew that Officer Mullett had discovered his marijuana pipe and a small amount of marijuana. He had every reason to expect that he would be arrested soon and may have reasonably believed that he was in the process of being arrested. There was nothing for Defendant to gain by consenting to a search of his person before that apparently impending arrest. Further, throughout the encounter Defendant had been cooperative with the police, taking the keys out of his ignition, promptly identifying himself, and handing over his pipe case. Considering the encounter as a whole, the Court finds that the State met its burden to establish consent by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, Defendant s motion to suppress is OVERRULED as it relates to the search of Defendant s person. 6
7 3. Defendant s Identification of the Pills Found On His Person and Admissions to Trafficking Activities Must Be Suppressed. Finally, Defendant seeks to suppress any statements he made before his arrest as having been obtained without the warnings required under Miranda v. Arizona and its progeny and any statements made thereafter as the fruit of his previously obtained statements. The Supreme Court of the United States held in Miranda that a person subjected to a custodial interrogation has a number of rights and must be advised as to those rights. The Court went on to explain, By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. Id. at 444. The Court must determine what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112, 116 S.Ct. 457, 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995) (footnote omitted). That inquiry is an objective one; the appropriate standard is whether a reasonable person would have felt free to leave and not whether the specific individual seeking to suppress a statement felt free to leave or stop answering questions. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). Conversely, if a person is not in custody, the rights explained in Miranda do not attach. State v. Fry, 61 Ohio App.3d 689, 692, 573 N.E.2d 1108 (1988). Therefore, the first question the Court must consider is whether the interview of Defendant was custodial. When a defendant files a motion to suppress statements made to police that were products of custodial interrogation, the state has the burden to prove that law enforcement respected the defendant s Miranda rights by a preponderance of the evidence. See Colorado v. Connelly, 479 7
8 U.S. 157, 168, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986). When considering a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact. State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, , 797 N.E.2d 71, 2003-Ohio-5372, at 8, citing State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 366, 582 N.E.2d 972 (1992). Considering all of the facts and circumstances, the Court finds that Defendant was in custody for the purposes of the Miranda analysis from the point Defendant was removed from his vehicle and ordered to place his hands on the back of his vehicle. At that point, Defendant had been ordered to stop, ordered to remove his keys from the ignition, and removed from his vehicle by two armed officers. He had already handed over a glass pipe of the type commonly used for smoking marijuana and a substance that would appear to be marijuana to one of the officers. He was then subjected to a search by both officers, who located what appeared to be controlled substances and a large amount of cash from his person. Even if the pipe was only used for smoking tobacco, the green leafy material was oregano, and Defendant had a prescription for all of the pills, it is a matter of common knowledge that such discoveries will arouse the greatest suspicion of law enforcement officers. Under those circumstances, the Court finds that a reasonable person would not feel at liberty to terminate his encounter with the police and leave. Although he was not yet under formal arrest, a reasonable person in Defendant s position would have known that was almost certainly the next step. Having determined that Defendant was in custody, the Court must determine whether Defendant s statements were the result of interrogation or its functional equivalent. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct Statements and actions by law enforcement other than direct questions may still constitute interrogation when those statements or actions are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. 8
9 Officers Hall and Mullett did not describe the circumstances under which Defendant identified the pills found during the search of his person. However, it strains credibility to assert that Defendant saw that the officers had recovered pills from his pockets and began giving them an inventory without some prompting from the officers. Considering the evidence, the Court finds that the State has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that law enforcement respected Defendant s Miranda rights with respect to his statements identifying the pills. Further, although officers Hall and Mullett differed slightly on exactly what Ofc. Mullett said when he recovered the glasses case of cash from Defendant s pockets it was reported variously as It appears you are selling these pills or It looks like he s been selling this stuff the Court finds that either statement is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant s statements identifying the pills discovered during the search of his person and Defendant s statements admitting to selling drugs were the product of interrogation. Because Defendant s statements identifying the pills discovered during the search of his person and Defendant s statements admitting to selling drugs were the product of custodial interrogation and the State did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that law enforcement respected Defendant s Miranda rights, Defendant s motion to suppress is SUSTAINED as to those statements. 4. The Connection Between Defendant s Suppressed Statements and His Later Statements Was Sufficiently Attenuated As to Dissipate the Taint of His Suppressed Statements. Generally, the exclusionary rule requires the suppression not only of evidence directly obtained through illegal search or seizure, but also of derivative evidence or fruit of the poisonous tree. Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60 S.Ct. 266, 84 L.Ed. 307 (1939); 9
10 State v. Carter, 69 Ohio St. 3d 57, 67, 630 N.E.2d 355 (1994). However, evidence need not be suppressed if the connection with the unlawful search becomes so attenuated as to dissipate the taint of the illegality. Murray v. U.S., 487 U.S. 533, , 108 S. Ct. 2529, 101 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1988), quoting Nardone, 308 U.S. at 341. Defendant argues that but for his prior statements, he would not have made written and taped statements after his arrest. Between the time of his suppressed statements and the later written and taped statements, Defendant was formally arrested, given Miranda warnings, and taken to a different location by police. Defendant was also aware that officers had searched his vehicle and discovered further evidence that would tend to support the theory that Defendant was engaged in the use and trafficking of illegal drugs and controlled substances. According to the evidence adduced at the hearing, Defendant had also had the time to reflect on his situation and offer his assistance to law enforcement in investigating drug offenses. Considering all of that, and considering that modern jurisprudence warns that suppression of evidence should be a last resort 1 the Court finds that the connection between Defendant s suppressed statements and subsequent written or taped statements was sufficiently attenuated as to dissipate the taint of his suppressed statements. Therefore, Defendant s motion to suppress those statements is OVERRULED. For the forgoing reasons, Defendant s motion to suppress is OVERRULED in part and SUSTAINED in part. IT IS SO ORDERED. Judge Richard E. Berens 1 Davis v. U.S., 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2427 (2011). 10
11 Copies to: Fairfield County Prosecuting Attorney, Courthouse mailbox Defense Counsel Aaron Conrad, Courthouse mailbox Filed July 3,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Mobley, 2014-Ohio-4410.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 26044 v. : T.C. NO. 13CR2518/1 13CR2518/2 CAMERON MOBLEY
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No. 772 EDA 2012
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KHYNESHA E. GRANT Appellee No. 772 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Order
More informationNo. 102,369 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, KENNETH S. GOFF, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 102,369 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. KENNETH S. GOFF, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. If an officer detects the odor of raw marijuana emanating from
More informationv. COURT USE ONLY Defendant: ***** Case Number: **** Attorneys for Defendant:
County Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado Lindsey Flanigan Courthouse, Room 160 520 W. Colfax Ave. Denver, CO 80204 Plaintiff: The People of the State of Colorado v. COURT USE ONLY Defendant: *****
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO. : O P I N I O N - vs - 11/9/2009 :
[Cite as State v. Moore, 2009-Ohio-5927.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO PREBLE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2009-02-005 : O P I N I O N - vs - 11/9/2009
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. v. : T.C. NO. 08 CR CURTIS, : (Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court) Appellant.
[Cite as State v. Curtis, 193 Ohio App.3d 121, 2011-Ohio-1277.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO The STATE OF OHIO, : Appellee, : C.A. CASE NO. 23895 v. : T.C. NO. 08 CR 1518 CURTIS,
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Robinson, 2012-Ohio-2428.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) STATE OF OHIO Appellee C.A. No. 10CA0022 v. MAURICE D. ROBINSON Appellant
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO CR 3357
[Cite as State v. Jolly, 2008-Ohio-6547.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 22811 v. : T.C. NO. 2007 CR 3357 DERION JOLLY : (Criminal
More informationSTATE OF OHIO SCOTT WHITE
[Cite as State v. White, 2009-Ohio-5557.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92229 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. SCOTT WHITE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Coston, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) O P I N I O N. Rendered on August 3, 2006
[Cite as State v. Coston, 168 Ohio App.3d 278, 2006-Ohio-3961.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT The State of Ohio, : Appellant, : No. 05AP-905 v. : (C.P.C. No. 05CR02-919) Coston,
More informationIN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff, : Case No. 13CR312. v. : Judge Berens
IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff, : Case No. 13CR312 v. : Judge Berens BRANDI L. HUFFER, : ENTRY Overruling Defendant s Motion to Suppress Defendant. :
More informationJOSELYN S. KELLY Lancaster, Ohio ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS 239 West Main Street, Suite 101 Lancaster, Ohio 43130
[Cite as State v. Hawkins, 2012-Ohio-3137.] COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellant -vs- SEAN HAWKINS Defendant-Appellee JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D12-392
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2013 STATE OF FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant,
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellant : JOURNAL ENTRY. vs.
[Cite as State v. Ely, 2006-Ohio-459.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 86091 STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellant JOURNAL ENTRY vs. AND KEITH ELY, OPINION Defendant-Appellee
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Leonard, 2007-Ohio-3312.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TIMOTHY LEONARD, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL
More informationTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-10-00365-CR Tony Keith Wells, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF BELL COUNTY NO. 2C08-00902, HONORABLE
More informationMICHAEL EUGENE JONES OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. April 15, 2010 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
PRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, 1 Millette, JJ., and Lacy, S.J. Koontz, Lemons, Goodwyn, and MICHAEL EUGENE JONES OPINION BY v. Record No. 091539 JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. April 15, 2010 COMMONWEALTH
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Miller, 2013-Ohio-985.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) STATE OF OHIO Appellant C.A. No. 12CA0070-M v. KYLE MILLER Appellee APPEAL
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,900 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JOSEPH E. THAYER, Appellant.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,900 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JOSEPH E. THAYER, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Reno District Court;
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as State v. Sneed, 166 Ohio App.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1749.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO The STATE OF OHIO, Appellant, v. SNEED, Appellee. : : : : :
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Valenti, 2013-Ohio-5564.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 26807 Appellee v. GINA R. VALENTI Appellant APPEAL
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Geiter, 190 Ohio App.3d 541, 2010-Ohio-6017.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94015 The STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v.
More informationNo. 103,472 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, BILLY WHITE, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 103,472 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. BILLY WHITE, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The State has the burden of proving that a search and seizure was
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Hamilton, 2011-Ohio-3835.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95720 STATE OF OHIO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT vs. CHRISTOPHER
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Houser, 2010-Ohio-4246.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93179 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JOSEPH HOUSER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,451 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,451 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. NORMAN VINSON CLARDY, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Shawnee District
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO vs. : T.C. CASE NO. 06CR4007
[Cite as State v. Watts, 2007-Ohio-2411.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 21982 vs. : T.C. CASE NO. 06CR4007 ASHANTA WATTS : (Criminal
More informationThe State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Robinette, Appellee. [Cite as State v. Robinette (1995), --- Ohio St.3d ----.]
The State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Robinette, Appellee. [Cite as State v. Robinette (1995), --- Ohio St.3d ----.] Criminal law -- Motor vehicles -- Continued detention of a person stopped for a traffic violation
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Case No.
More informationSTATE OF OHIO MARIO COOPER
[Cite as State v. Cooper, 2009-Ohio-2583.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91566 STATE OF OHIO vs. MARIO COOPER PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Hall, 2014-Ohio-1731.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100413 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ROBIN R. HALL DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY STATE OF OHIO CASE NUMBER v. O P I N I O N
[Cite as State v. Shoulders, 2005-Ohio-4749.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY STATE OF OHIO CASE NUMBER 5-05-05 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. O P I N I O N EMANUEL L. SHOULDERS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana JODI KATHRYN STEIN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: STEVEN E. RIPSTRA Ripstra
More informationCourt of Common Pleas
Motion No. 4570624 NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Court of Common Pleas MOTION TO... March 7, 201714:10 By: SEAN KILBANE 0092072 Confirmation Nbr.
More informationCOURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff : CASE NO CR 00091
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff : CASE NO. 2016 CR 00091 vs. : Judge McBride DANIEL N. HARP : DECISION/ENTRY Defendant : Thomas W. Scovanner, assistant prosecuting
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 17, 2005
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 17, 2005 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DARRYL J. LEINART, II Appeal from the Circuit Court for Anderson County No. A3CR0294 James
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2003 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-19-2003 USA v. Mercedes Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 00-2563 Follow this and additional
More informationGENERAL POLICE ORDER CLEVELAND DIVISION OF POLICE
GENERAL POLICE ORDER CLEVELAND DIVISION OF POLICE ORIGINAL EFFECTIVE DATE : ASSOCIATED MANUAL: CHIEF OF POLICE: REVISED DATE: 08/20/2018 RELATED ORDERS: NO. PAGES: 1of 9 NUMBER: Search and Seizure This
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs July 21, 2010
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs July 21, 2010 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KEVIN M. FRIERSON Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2007-C-2329
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Criminal Law/Criminal Procedure And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Deft saw
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 10-00320-14-CR-W-DGK ) RAFAEL ZAMORA, ) ) Defendant. ) GOVERNMENT
More informationCase 2:12-cr RJS Document 51 Filed 02/26/13 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:12-cr-00261-RJS Document 51 Filed 02/26/13 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER vs. RAMON
More informationORDER AND JUDGMENT * Defendant-Appellant Benjamin Salas, Jr. was charged in a two-count
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 21, 2007 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. Plaintiff - Appellee,
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Grayson, 2015-Ohio-3229.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 102057 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. JOHN I. GRAYSON,
More informationOPINION BY CIRILLO, P.J.E.: Filed: January 19, Derrick Guillespie appeals from his judgment of sentence entered in the
2000 PA Super 16 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF Appellee : PENNSYLVANIA : VS : : DERRICK GUILLESPIE, : Appellant : No. 392 MDA 99 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of October
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
[Cite as State v. Haslam, 2009-Ohio-696.] STATE OF OHIO, MONROE COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JEFFREY R. HASLAM, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. CASE NO. 08-MO-4
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 24, 2007 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 24, 2007 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTIAN FERNANDEZ Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County No. 11065-III Richard R.
More informationMOTION TO SUPPRESS. 1. Approximately 78 grams of marijuana seized from the co-defendants vehicle on
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION FILE NO. 08CRSXXXXX STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA vs. SP MOTION TO SUPPRESS COMES NOW, Defendant, SP, by and through
More informationCommonwealth Of Kentucky. Court of Appeals
RENDERED: MAY 21, 2004; 2:00 p.m. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2003-CA-000584-MR EDWARD LAMONT HARDY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE SHEILA R.
More informationNo. 117,992 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, ERIC WAYNE KNIGHT, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 117,992 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. ERIC WAYNE KNIGHT, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. As a general rule, appellate review of a district court's
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY INTRODUCTION
[Cite as State v. Evans, 2012-Ohio-5485.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 26483 Appellant v. KIMBERLY S. EVANS Appellee APPEAL
More informationSTATE OF OHIO, BELMONT COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Dabney, 2003-Ohio-5141.] STATE OF OHIO, BELMONT COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, ) ) CASE NO. 02 BE 31 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, ) ) - VS - ) O P I N I O N ) HARYL
More informationSTATE OF OHIO THOMAS JENKINS
[Cite as State v. Jenkins, 2009-Ohio-235.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91100 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. THOMAS JENKINS
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Figueroa, 2010-Ohio-189.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO C. A. No. 09CA009612 Appellant v. MARILYN FIGUEROA Appellee
More informationNUMBER CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
NUMBER 13-15-00089-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ROBERTO SAVEDRA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. On appeal from the 24th District Court of Jackson
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cr-00225-CKK Document 26 Filed 01/31/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STEPHEN JIN-WOO KIM Defendant. CASE NO. 1:10-CR-225
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,398 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, TYLER REGELMAN, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,398 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. TYLER REGELMAN, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Geary District
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS. Judgment Rendered June
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2007 KA 2009 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS ll n MATTHEW G L CONWAY Judgment Rendered June 6 2008 Appealed from the 18th Judicial District Court In and for
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Lopez, 2010-Ohio-2462.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93197 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ROBERTO LOPEZ DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationIn the Court of Appeals of Georgia
THIRD DIVISION ANDREWS, P. J., DILLARD and MCMILLIAN, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO. 09CR3204
[Cite as State v. Hardy, 2011-Ohio-241.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 24114 v. : T.C. NO. 09CR3204 AUDREY M. HARDY : (Criminal
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
J-A28009-15 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANGEL FELICIANO Appellant No. 752 EDA 2014 Appeal
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 29,423. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUNA COUNTY Daniel Viramontes, District Judge
0 0 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE RECOMMENDED DECISION RE: MOTION TO SUPPRESS (ECF NO. 19)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) 1:13-cr-00021-JAW ) RANDOLPH LEO GAMACHE, ) ) Defendant ) RECOMMENDED DECISION RE: MOTION TO SUPPRESS (ECF NO. 19) Randolph
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 7 November 2017
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA17-108 Filed: 7 November 2017 Guilford County, No. 14 CRS 67272 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BYRON JEROME PARKER Appeal by defendant from order entered 18
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. WD Appellee Trial Court No.
[Cite as State v. Brown, 2013-Ohio-5351.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-12-070 Appellee Trial Court No. 11 CR 163 v. Terrance
More informationCase 1:08-cr SLR Document 24 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:08-cr-00040-SLR Document 24 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Criminal Action No. 08-40-SLR
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed March 13, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Cynthia Moisan,
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 3-025 / 12-0741 Filed March 13, 2013 JON ERIC SCANLON, Defendant-Appellant. Judge. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ELLIOT ROJAS. DUI Traffic Stop -Suppression Reasonable Suspicion
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ELLIOT ROJAS DUI Traffic Stop -Suppression Reasonable Suspicion 1. The Defendant is charged with driving under the influence, possession of marijuana---small amount, and
More informationCommonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: May 5, 2006; 2:00 P.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2005-CA-000790-MR WARD CARLOS HIGHTOWER APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE PAMELA
More informationMINNESOTA V. DICKERSON United States Supreme Court 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993)
MINNESOTA V. DICKERSON United States Supreme Court 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993) In this case, the Supreme Court considers whether the seizure of contraband detected through a police
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PA O P I N I O N. The Defendant is charged in a criminal Information with Possession of
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PA COMMONWEALTH OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : NO: CR-1741-2009 vs. : : : JOEL L. GAINES, : Defendant : O P I N I O N The Defendant is charged in a criminal Information
More informationv No Oakland 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-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 22, 2018 v No. 336268 Oakland Circuit Court JAMES PATRICK KELEL, JR.,
More informationThe STATE of Ohio, Appellee, RAMOS, Appellant. [Cite as State v. Ramos, 155 Ohio App.3d 396, 2003-Ohio-6535.] Court of Appeals of Ohio,
[Cite as State v. Ramos, 155 Ohio App.3d 396, 2003-Ohio-6535.] The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. RAMOS, Appellant. [Cite as State v. Ramos, 155 Ohio App.3d 396, 2003-Ohio-6535.] Court of Appeals of Ohio,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA. Reversed and remanded.
131 Nev., Advance Opinion 2 IN THE THE STATE RALPH TORRES, Appellant, vs. THE STATE, Respondent. No. 61946 MED CLIM JAN 29 2015, 1_,,.4AN Appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a gi -uilty plea,
More informationNo. 11SA231 - People v. Coates Suppression of Evidence. The People brought an interlocutory appeal pursuant to
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcaseannctsindex.ht m Opinions are also posted
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : vs. : No. 717 CR 2016 : JESSE GLENN HARRELL, III, : Defendant : Criminal Law - DUI - Traffic
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 18, 2002 v No. 237738 Wayne Circuit Court LAMAR ROBINSON, LC No. 99-005187 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY
[Cite as State v. Stepp, 2010-Ohio-3540.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Case No. 09CA3328 : Plaintiff-Appellee, : : DECISION AND v. : JUDGMENT
More information2014 PA Super 234 OPINION BY STABILE, J.: FILED OCTOBER 14, The Commonwealth appeals from an order granting a motion to
2014 PA Super 234 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NATHANIEL DAVIS Appellee No. 3549 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Order entered November 15, 2013 In the Court
More informationATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA. Case Summary. schedule III controlled substance (a hydrocodone/acetaminophen pill).
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Heath Y. Johnson Suzy St. John Johnson, Gray & MacAbee Franklin, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana Larry D. Allen Deputy Attorney General
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued May 20, 2010 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-08-00866-CR JAMES ERSKIN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 262nd District Court Harris
More informationSTATE OF OHIO GILBERT HENDERSON
[Cite as State v. Henderson, 2009-Ohio-1795.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91757 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. GILBERT HENDERSON
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO. 09 CR 3580
[Cite as State v. McGuire, 2010-Ohio-6105.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 24106 v. : T.C. NO. 09 CR 3580 OLIVER McGUIRE : (Criminal
More informationCriminal Justice in America CJ Chapter 7 James J. Drylie, Ph.D.
Criminal Justice in America CJ 2600 Chapter 7 James J. Drylie, Ph.D. Police Legal Aspects The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Designed to protect citizens against abuses of police powers.
More informationchapter 3 Name: Class: Date: Multiple Choice Identify the letter of the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question.
Name: Class: Date: chapter 3 Multiple Choice Identify the letter of the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question. 1. The exclusionary rule: a. requires that the state not prosecute
More informationMEMORANDUM FOR BASIC LEGAL RESEARCH & WRITING I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED. A. Will Mr. Smeek prevail on a motion to suppress the 300 grams of hail seized
MEMORANDUM FOR BASIC LEGAL RESEARCH & WRITING TO: MR. CONGIARDO FROM: AMANDA SCOTT SUBJECT: RE: PEOPLE V. JOSHUA SMEEK DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2015 I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED A. Will Mr. Smeek prevail on a motion
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : CP-41-CR-598-2017 v. : : QUODRICE HENDRIX, : MOTION TO SUPPRESS Defendant : OPINION AND ORDER Quodrice Hendrix
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Martinez, 2003-Ohio-1821.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MARION COUNTY STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE CASE NO. 9-02-57 v. GILBERTO MARTINEZ O P I N I O N DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
E-Filed Document Nov 2 2015 07:21:41 2014-KA-01098-COA Pages: 17 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO. 2014-KA-01098-COA SHERMAN BILLIE, SR. APPELLANT VS. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued October 1, 2013. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-11-00975-CR STEVE OLIVARES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 111,282. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, GERALD E. CLEVERLY, JR., Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 111,282 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. GERALD E. CLEVERLY, JR., Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: E. THOMAS KEMP STEVE CARTER Richmond, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana GEORGE P. SHERMAN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
More informationIn this interlocutory appeal, the supreme court considers whether the district court
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) CASE NO: CR A ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL ) vs. ) ) RAFAEL LABOY ) JOURNAL ENTRY ) Defendant.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO CASE NO: CR 12 566158 A Plaintiff, JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL vs. RAFAEL LABOY JOURNAL ENTRY Defendant. John P. O Donnell, J.: STATEMENT OF
More informationEric O. Johnston, United States Attorney's Office, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff.
Slip Copy, 2008 WL 4206325 (N.D.Okla.) Motions, Pleadings and Filings Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 107,324. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, FRANCISCO ESTRADA-VITAL, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 107,324 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. FRANCISCO ESTRADA-VITAL, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Generally, a district court's factual findings on a motion
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 28, 2010 v No. 290094 Ingham Circuit Court KENNETH DEWAYNE ROBERTS, LC No. 08-000838-FH Defendant-Appellee.
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2016-0084, State of New Hampshire v. Andrew Tulley, the court on April 26, 2017, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs and record
More informationKAUPP v. TEXAS. on petition for writ of certiorari to the court of appeals of texas, fourteenth district
626 OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus KAUPP v. TEXAS on petition for writ of certiorari to the court of appeals of texas, fourteenth district No. 02 5636. Decided May 5, 2003 After petitioner Kaupp, then 17,
More information