RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION. Submitted October 7, 2015 Decided
|
|
- Muriel Doyle
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF A.B. RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. Submitted October 7, 2015 Decided February 3, 2016 PER CURIAM Before Judges Alvarez and Ostrer. On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Atlantic County, Docket No. FJ James P. McClain, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney for appellant State of New Jersey (Elliott J. Almanza, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). Joseph E. Krakora, attorney for respondent A.B. (Brian P. Keenan, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). By leave granted, the State appeals from the Family Part's January 8, 2015 order barring the State from filing a juvenile delinquency complaint charging A.B. with what would have been disorderly persons possession of marijuana under fifty grams, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a), had it been committed by an adult. The State had previously filed a complaint charging disorderly persons possession of drug paraphernalia, N.J.S.A. 2C:36-2. The
2 State also appeals from the court's February 25, 2015 order denying the State's motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that the State's proposed prosecution of the possession charge was vindictive. We disagree and reverse. I. The proposed complaint pertains to an incident that occurred on September 11, 2014, at a high school in Atlantic County. The school's security officer executed a complaint charging that A.B., then sixteen years old, possessed drug paraphernalia specifically, a gas mask allegedly used to inhale marijuana. The complaint was filed with the court on October 7, At a conference on December 4, 2014, the prosecutor stated that the gas mask "smelled like burnt marijuana." The State alleged the gas mask contained marijuana residue as well. The defense therefore requested a laboratory test of the gas mask to ascertain the presence of marijuana residue. The State consented. The court adjourned the case to January 6, 2015, for a pretrial conference. Counsel anticipated the lab test would be completed by that time. The court received the lab test in mid-december, and forwarded it to the prosecutor's office, which received it on 2
3 Friday, January 2, The test indicated the mask contained a trace amount of marijuana. A.B. next appeared in court on January 8, 2015, having failed to appear as scheduled on January 6, At the outset, defense counsel informed the court that A.B. intended to plead guilty. In return, the State would recommend probation, to run concurrent to any disposition of any violation of probation. A.B. would also have to submit to a substance abuse evaluation, and comply with any recommendations that followed. Defense counsel was unable to elicit a sufficient factual basis from A.B. to sustain the plea. He contended he was unaware the gas mask was used to smoke marijuana, as opposed to tobacco. Defense counsel then interrupted the allocution to confer with A.B. Counsel thereafter informed the court that the juvenile wanted to go to trial. The court conferenced the case and scheduled trial for February 25, The court adjourned at 10:40 a.m. However, a minute later, at the prosecutor's request, the proceedings resumed. At that point, the prosecutor notified defense counsel that the State intended to file a complaint charging A.B. with 1 A bench warrant was issued. It is unclear whether A.B. voluntarily appeared on January 8, or was arrested. 3
4 possession of marijuana of less than fifty grams. Also, the State intended to call an expert at trial. The court asked the prosecutor why the State did not charge A.B. with possession initially. The prosecutor responded that the State did not have the lab report, and the officer initially lacked probable cause to charge possession. The prosecutor noted that the lab report was dated December 16, but she was unaware when her office actually received it. The court rejected the State's explanation. The judge stated the officer had probable cause from the outset, because a gas mask was found with supposed marijuana residue. The court also assumed the State had received the lab report in December. The judge asserted that A.B.'s request for a trial prompted the possession charge: It's now January 8th and I have an individual here that wants to have his right to a trial and now there's a new charge being filed. I have a real problem with that process. You can call your expert, [and] if you want to [you can] make a formal motion to try to file the new charges, but at this point, in this [c]ourt's opinion, this constitutes piling on charges of offenses that the State was aware of at the time[,] and the only reason that this charge is being brought up is because [A.B.] has rightfully decided to proceed to trial. 4
5 On January 9, 2015, the court entered the order "precluding" the filing of the complaint charging possession. The State filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court heard on February 25, A different prosecutor appeared on behalf of the State. The State contended that the State's broad prosecutorial discretion entitled it to file the new charge. The State was not obliged to bring all potential charges in its initial complaint. Rather, the State was entitled to postpone filing a charge for various reasons, including uncertainty about its proofs. Although the prosecutor conceded the State had probable cause to charge possession at the outset, he contended the State was unable to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt until it received the lab report. The State argued that a presumption of vindictiveness did not arise from the timing of the State's decision to file the possession charge, which was after A.B. decided to go to trial on the drug paraphernalia charge. The State contended the defense had failed to present evidence of actual vindictiveness. Consequently, the State should not be barred from filing the new charge. 2 We presume the State did not submit factual certifications, as none are included in the record before us. 5
6 The defense argued that once the juvenile decided to go to trial, the State's effort to file enhanced charges triggered a presumption of vindictiveness. The defense sought to distinguish United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 102 S. Ct. 2485, 73 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1982), which rejected a presumption of vindictiveness in the pretrial setting, when a prosecutor's assessment of a case "may not have crystallized." Id. at 381, 102 S. Ct. at 2493, 73 L. Ed. 2d at 85. The defense argued the State's assessment had "crystallized" before A.B.'s case was scheduled for trial. The defense also contended that A.B. was not afforded the chance to make an "informed decision" regarding a plea, because he was unaware of the new charge until after he sought a trial. On the other hand, defense counsel conceded that, unlike in adult court, there was no plea cutoff in juvenile delinquency proceedings. The court reviewed the parties' respective arguments. The judge also highlighted that the State did not seek the possession charge during the five business days it possessed the lab report, including the day the prosecutor received it and the day she announced its intention to add a charge until after A.B. sought a trial. The judge stated, "The [c]ourt finds it implausible that if it was so important and of such significance to the State to file a new charge for possession of marijuana 6
7 there was no reason why it couldn't have been filed on Monday, January 5th." The judge noted that no charge was proposed immediately thereafter, nor was one raised as a threat in plea negotiation on January 8, 2015, or before. The court also noted that the Supreme Court, in Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 98 S. Ct. 663, 54 L. Ed. 2d 604 (1978), declined to find that such threats triggered a presumption of vindictiveness. The court reiterated its view that the State could have filed the possession charge simultaneously with the drug paraphernalia charge, noting that the prosecutor who appeared on the reconsideration motion conceded that probable cause existed. The judge ultimately did not find that the State's actions triggered a presumption of vindictiveness. Rather, the judge found that the defense had met its affirmative burden to prove actual vindictiveness: Now that this application has been made and the [c]ourt has had an opportunity to analyze this in greater detail, the... [c]ourt finds that the affirmative burden of the [d]efendant has been established and that the reason for the filing of the charge was, in fact, a vindictive prosecution. And a vindictive prosecution because this [d]efendant rightfully expressed his desire to have a fair trial in this tribunal and that the only reason that the [c]ourt can find on the record that this charge was filed in looking at the totality of the circumstances and looking at the method and 7
8 the manner in which this was done was that, for whatever reason the State felt that they wanted to file this charge after the fact, and only after he exerted his right to a trial. The State had ample opportunity to file the charge within a sufficient time before trial.... At no time during those days was there any give-and-take, was there any discussion of the filing of a new charge.... The crystallization event... occurred at the receipt of the lab report. The only nexus to the new charge in this case or the timing of the filing of the new charge is the nexus between this [d]efendant's lawful right to assert his right to a trial. On appeal, the State presents the following points for our review: II. THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER PREVENTED THE STATE FROM EXERCISING ITS PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION TO BRING CHARGES OF ITS CHOOSING BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE. 3 III. WHETHER THE STATE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO BRING THE NEW CHARGE WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS ORIGINALLY SIGNED IS IRRELEVANT AND DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE STATE FROM CHARGING IT LATER. THE COURT INCORRECTLY PRESUMED PREJUDICE ON THE JUVENILE'S BEHALF, AND THE JUVENILE MADE NO SUCH SHOWING. IV. THE TRIAL COURT INCORRECTLY PRESUMED VINDICTIVENESS IN THE STATE'S DECISION TO FILE THE NEW CHARGE, IMPERMISSIBLY SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF. 3 The State's first numbered point pertained to the need for interlocutory review. 8
9 MOREOVER, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING SUCH A CONCLUSION. II. A. We first address our standard of review. "A trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty v. Manalapan Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). On the other hand, we defer to a trial court's factual findings, if supported by adequate, credible evidence in the record as a whole. State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, (2007); State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, (1964). We do so because "those findings of the trial judge... are substantially influenced by his opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the 'feel' of the case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy." Elders, supra, 192 N.J. at 244 (quoting Johnson, supra, 42 N.J. at 161). Even where a trial court has conducted an evidentiary hearing on the subject of prosecutorial vindictiveness, we have declined to defer to the trial court's assessment, where it does not rely on credibility determinations. State v. Gomez, 341 N.J. Super. 560, 577 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 86 (2001). As we discuss in greater detail below, we held in Gomez that the trial court erred when it applied a presumption of 9
10 vindictiveness at a pretrial stage, and placed the burden on the State to overcome the presumption. Id. at 578. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, at which two prosecutors and an investigator testified, the trial court found that the State did not meet its burden. Id. at 577. We held we were "not bound by the determination of the trial judge that the State presented insufficient proof to overcome a presumption of vindictiveness, assuming the presumption properly applied." Ibid. In this case, the trial court did not conduct a formal evidentiary hearing. Neither the State nor the defense called witnesses, or provided proofs through certifications. See R. 1:6-6. The court briefly questioned the prosecutor on January 8 as to why she did not seek to file the possession charge before A.B. sought a trial. However, that falls far short of an evidentiary hearing at which the parties have called and questioned witnesses. 4 B. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that a state may not retaliate against a defendant for exercising a legal 4 We do not address here the prerequisite showing to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Rather, we focus on the fact that in the absence of such a hearing, the trial court's determination is not entitled to deference. 10
11 right such as filing an appeal by pursuing enhanced charges upon retrial. See Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 28, 94 S. Ct. 2098, 2102, 40 L. Ed. 2d 628, 634 (1974). Such retaliation is a violation of due process. Id. at 28-29, 94 S. Ct. at 2103, 40 L. Ed. 2d at 635. Mindful of the difficulty of proving retaliatory intent, the Court held that the "realistic likelihood of 'vindictiveness'" in such cases placed the burden on the State to overcome a presumption of vindictiveness. Id. at 27, 94 S. Ct. at 2102, 40 L. Ed. 2d at 634. However, the Supreme Court declined to apply this presumption in the pretrial setting. Thus, in Bordenkircher, supra, 434 U.S. at , 98 S. Ct. at , 54 L. Ed. 2d , the Supreme Court held that in the give and take of plea negotiations, a prosecutor may threaten to seek additional charges that would significantly increase the defendant's potential punishment, if the defendant declines to accept a plea offer. In Goodwin, supra, 457 U.S. at 370, 102 S. Ct. at 2487, 73 L. Ed. 2d at 79, a defendant was charged with various misdemeanors. Rather than accept a bench trial before a federal magistrate, the defendant sought a jury trial before a federal district court judge. Id. at 371, 102 S. Ct. at 2487, 73 L. Ed. 2d at 79. The case was transferred to a different prosecutor 11
12 who reviewed the file, which included new evidence reflecting the aggravated nature of the defendant's conduct. Ibid. The prosecutor decided to seek felony charges. Ibid. The Court held that no presumption of vindictiveness was triggered at the pretrial stage, when the prosecutor's assessment of a case has not "crystallized": There is good reason to be cautious before adopting an inflexible presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness in a pretrial setting. In the course of preparing a case for trial, the prosecutor may uncover additional information that suggests a basis for further prosecution or he simply may come to realize that information possessed by the State has a broader significance. At this stage of the proceedings, the prosecutor's assessment of the proper extent of prosecution may not have crystallized. In contrast, once a trial begins -- and certainly by the time a conviction has been obtained -- it is much more likely that the State has discovered and assessed all of the information against an accused and has made a determination, on the basis of that information, of the extent to which he should be prosecuted. Thus, a change in the charging decision made after an initial trial is completed is much more likely to be improperly motivated than is a pretrial decision. [Id. at 381, 102 S. Ct. at , 73 L. Ed. 2d at 85.] The Court also noted that defendants invoke numerous pretrial rights, and it was unrealistic to presume a prosecutor 12
13 is motivated by vindictiveness if enhanced charges are sought following the exercise of one of those rights. In addition, a defendant before trial is expected to invoke procedural rights that inevitably impose some "burden" on the prosecutor. Defense counsel routinely file pretrial motions to suppress evidence; to challenge the sufficiency and form of an indictment; to plead an affirmative defense; to request psychiatric services; to obtain access to government files; to be tried by jury. It is unrealistic to assume that a prosecutor's probable response to such motions is to seek to penalize and to deter. The invocation of procedural rights is an integral part of the adversary process in which our criminal justice system operates. Thus, the timing of the prosecutor's action in this case suggests that a presumption of vindictiveness is not warranted. [Id. at 381, 102 S. Ct. at 2493, 73 L. Ed. 2d at ] The Court concluded, "A prosecutor should remain free before trial to exercise the broad discretion entrusted to him to determine the extent of the societal interest in prosecution. An initial decision should not freeze future conduct." Id. at 382, 102 S. Ct. at 2493, 73 L. Ed. 2d at 86. The Court did not "foreclose the possibility that a defendant in an appropriate case might prove objectively that the prosecutor's decision was motivated by a desire to punish him for doing something that the law plainly allowed him to do." Id. at 384, 102 S. Ct. at 2494, 73 L. Ed. 2d at
14 In Gomez, supra, 341 N.J. Super. at 575, we applied the principles of Bordenkircher and Goodwin, and concluded there was no presumption of vindictiveness in the pretrial setting. The defendant in Gomez was charged with third-degree hindering apprehension arising out of her actions after striking and killing one pedestrian and injuring another. Id. at 564. After she was denied pretrial intervention, in part because of a prior conviction, she successfully petitioned for post-conviction relief from the prior conviction, and renewed her request for PTI, which was denied again. Id. at Thereafter, the State sought a superseding indictment charging the defendant with second-degree death by auto. Id. at 566. Notably, in its initial grand jury presentment, the State sought the second-degree charge, but the grand jury returned a partial no bill on that charge. Id. at In its second try, the State presented new evidence, including expert testimony and a demonstration at the accident scene, which challenged the defendant's claim that she did not see the pedestrians, or even know that she struck pedestrians, before she drove away from the scene. Id. at The trial judge held that the State's actions triggered a presumption of vindictiveness and placed the burden on the State to overcome the presumption. Id. at At the evidentiary 14
15 hearing, a prosecutor testified that the decision to seek second-degree charges was not motivated by vindictiveness. Id. at Rather, it was motivated by a sense that the case in which a man was killed was "underindicted." Id. at 569. The State began its search for additional evidence before the defendant prevailed in her PCR. Id. at 570. The State also consistently desired that defendant be exposed to a term of incarceration. Id. at The third-degree charge no longer posed that threat once the PCR was granted, because the defendant then enjoyed the presumption of non-incarceration of someone without a prior conviction. Id. at 566. After the evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the presumption of vindictiveness had not been overcome. Id. at We reversed the application of the presumption, and the court's finding that the presumption was not rebutted, even assuming the presumption applied. Id. at We held that a prosecutor's action violates a defendant's due process rights only when it is motivated solely by retaliation. Id. at 575. In reviewing the trial court's finding, we concluded that the trial court drew inappropriate inferences from the prosecution's actions. Id. at We held there was a sufficient showing of non-vindictive action based on the additional investigation and proofs, the prosecutor's testimony 15
16 that the case was undercharged, and the fact that the defendant did not face appropriate penal consequences. Ibid. C. The State contends that the trial court erred by applying the presumption of vindictiveness to its pretrial charging decision. We recognize that the defense argued that the presumption of vindictiveness should apply, notwithstanding Bordenkircher, Goodwin, and Gomez. However, we need not address the argument because the trial court ultimately did not apply the presumption. Rather, the court placed the burden on the juvenile to establish actual vindictiveness. We part company with the trial court in its determination that the defense met its affirmative burden to prove actual vindictiveness. As in Gomez, we are not bound by the trial court's decision, particularly inasmuch as it did not rely on credibility determinations reached after an evidentiary hearing. We conclude that the trial court placed undue emphasis on the timing of the State's decision, and the point at which the prosecution acquired probable cause to charge possession at the outset. We also conclude that the court placed inadequate weight on the non-vindictive reasons for the State's pursuit of the possession charge. See State v. Aguirre, 287 N.J. Super. 128, 132 (App. Div.) ("[T]he prosecution often has perfectly 16
17 legitimate reasons for delaying an indictment, such as to gather additional evidence against the accused or to broaden the investigation."), certif. denied, 144 N.J. 585 (1996). The State argues persuasively that it should not be rushed to file charges it cannot prove, simply because probable cause may exist. "Prosecutors are under no duty to file charges as soon as probable cause exists but before they are satisfied they will be able to establish the suspect's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 791, 97 S. Ct. 2044, 2049, 53 L. Ed. 2d 752, 760 (1977). Absent the lab report, the State would have been hardpressed to satisfy its burden of proof. The fact that the prosecutor did not swiftly file the possession charge in the brief period between receipt of the lab report, and A.B.'s plea hearing, is also not compelling evidence of vindictiveness. Only five business days passed. It is reasonable to conclude that the State was not yet prepared to move toward trial. The State had reason to believe the case could be resolved by a plea, with a conviction of a disorderly persons offense and a term of probation and substance abuse evaluation and treatment. Moreover, A.B.'s failure to provide a sufficient factual basis presumably came as a surprise to the State as well as 17
18 defense counsel. The juvenile's unanticipated decision to go to trial forced the prosecution to reevaluate its strategy and review its proofs for the impending trial. The lab report would surely be used to establish the drug paraphernalia charge. However, it was also compelling evidence, which the State lacked previously, of possession of marijuana. The juvenile's abrupt plea rejection and the delay in receiving the lab report present a sufficiently objective change in pretrial circumstances to preclude a finding of actual vindictiveness by the State. Furthermore, the timing of the State's decision did not preclude A.B. from participating in the give-and-take of plea negotiation. Although the charge was not included in the mix before the juvenile entered the plea agreement that ultimately faltered, nothing prevented a resumption of plea discussions, assuming the juvenile reconsidered his factual assertions. In sum, we are not persuaded that the record supports the court's conclusion that the defense established that prosecutorial vindictiveness was the sole motivation for the State's decision to seek a possession charge. Reversed. 18
Maricopa County Attorney s Office Adult Criminal Case Process
The following is a brief description of the process to prosecute an adult accused of committing a felony offense. Most misdemeanor offenses are handled by municipal prosecutors; cases involving minors
More informationRECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION. Submitted October 7, 2015 Decided
STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF T.J. RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. Submitted October
More informationStages in a Capital Case from http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/
Stages in a Capital Case from http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/ Note that not every case goes through all of the steps outlined here. Some states have different procedures. I. Pre-Trial Crimes that would
More informationA Victim s Guide to the Capital Case Process
A Victim s Guide to the Capital Case Process Office of Victims Services California Attorney General s Office A Victim s Guide to the Capital Case Process Office of Victims Services California Attorney
More informationA Federal Criminal Case Timeline
A Federal Criminal Case Timeline The following timeline is a very broad overview of the progress of a federal felony case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement
More informationTitle 15 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE -Chapter 23 ALABAMA CRIME VICTIMS Article 3 Crime Victims' Rights
Section 15-23-60 Definitions. As used in this article, the following words shall have the following meanings: (1) ACCUSED. A person who has been arrested for committing a criminal offense and who is held
More informationA Citizen s Guide to the Criminal Justice System: From Arraignment to Appeal
A Citizen s Guide to the Criminal Justice System: From Arraignment to Appeal Presented by the Office of the Richmond County District Attorney Acting District Attorney Daniel L. Master, Jr. 130 Stuyvesant
More informationInformation for Crime Victims and Witnesses
Office of the Attorney General Information for Crime Victims and Witnesses MARCH 2009 LAWRENCE WASDEN Attorney General Criminal Law Division Special Prosecutions Unit Telephone: (208) 332-3096 Fax: (208)
More informationNo. 108,809 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, SHANE RAIKES, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. No. 108,809 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. SHANE RAIKES, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT Generally, issues not raised before the district court, even constitutional
More informationAPPEARANCE, PLEA AND WAIVER
Guide to Municipal Court What Types of Cases Are Heard in Municipal Court? Cases heard in municipal court are divided into four general categories: Violations of motor vehicle and traffic laws Violations
More informationDESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DEFENDANTS
DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DEFENDANTS DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DEFENDANTS This pamphlet has been provided to help you better understand the federal
More informationHOW A TYPICAL CRIMINAL CASE IS PROSECUTED IN ALASKA
HOW A TYPICAL CRIMINAL CASE IS PROSECUTED IN ALASKA The Office of Victims Rights receives many inquiries from victims about how a criminal case in Alaska is investigated by police and then prosecuted by
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY. Date Submitted: February 6, 2009 Date Decided: December 16, 2009
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY ANN M. BAKER, ) ) Defendant-Below, ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) I.D. No. 0803038600 ) STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) Plaintiff-Below, ) Appellee.
More informationBASIC CRIMINAL LAW. Joe Bodiford. Overview of a criminal case Presented by: Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer
BASIC CRIMINAL LAW Overview of a criminal case Presented by: Joe Bodiford Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer www.floridacriminaldefense.com www.blawgger.com THE FLORIDA CRIMINAL PROCESS Source: http://www.fsu.edu/~crimdo/cj-flowchart.html
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 41952 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 41952 MICHAEL T. HAYES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 634 Filed: September 16, 2015 Stephen
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE EDWIN SCARBOROUGH, Defendant Below- Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below- Appellee. No. 38, 2014 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware,
More informationBRYCE A. FETTER ORLANDO JUVENILE CHARGES ATTORNEY
BRYCE A. FETTER ORLANDO JUVENILE CHARGES ATTORNEY People make mistakes, especially young people. Juvenile lawyer Bryce Fetter believes children should get a second chance through rehabilitation rather
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-IA-02028-SCT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-IA-02028-SCT RENE C. LEVARIO v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/23/2010 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT P. KREBS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JACKSON COUNTY
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, ROY MATTHEW SOVINE, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0094
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KEVIN D. TALLEY, Defendant-Below No. 172, 2003 Appellant, v. Cr. ID No. 0108005719 STATE OF DELAWARE, Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware,
More informationNo. 1-12-0762 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2014 IL App (1st) 120762-U No. 1-12-0762 FIFTH DIVISION February 28, 2014 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationC RIMINAL LAW O V E RVIEW OF T H E T E XAS C RIMINAL J USTICE P ROCESS
T E X A S Y O U N G L A W Y E R S A S S O C I A T I O N A N D S T A T E B A R O F T E X A S C RIMINAL LAW 1 0 1 : O V E RVIEW OF T H E T E XAS C RIMINAL J USTICE P ROCESS A C RIMINAL LAW 1 0 1 Prepared
More informationGlossary of Terms Acquittal Affidavit Allegation Appeal Arraignment Arrest Warrant Assistant District Attorney General Attachment Bail Bailiff Bench
Glossary of Terms The Glossary of Terms defines some of the most common legal terms in easy-tounderstand language. Terms are listed in alphabetical order. A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W
More informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, AARON REGINALD CHAMBERS, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0392-PR Filed March 4, 2015
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. AARON REGINALD CHAMBERS, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0392-PR Filed March 4, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
More informationSUPERIOR COURT KENT COUNTY CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN
SUPERIOR COURT KENT COUNTY CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN The following Plan is adopted by the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in order to ensure the orderly and prompt disposition of criminal cases
More informationSubchapter 6.600 Criminal Procedure in District Court
Subchapter 6.600 Criminal Procedure in District Court Rule 6.610 Criminal Procedure Generally (A) Precedence. Criminal cases have precedence over civil actions. (B) Pretrial. The court, on its own initiative
More informationOffering Defense Witnesses to New York Grand Juries. Your client has just been held for the action of the Grand Jury. Although you
Offering Defense Witnesses to New York Grand Juries By: Mark M. Baker 1 Your client has just been held for the action of the Grand Jury. Although you have a valid defense, you do not want your client to
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2002-KA-01124-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2002-KA-01124-COA JIMMY FORD APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: 5/10/2002 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MARCUS D. GORDON
More informationGLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS
GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS Sources: US Courts : http://www.uscourts.gov/library/glossary.html New York State Unified Court System: http://www.nycourts.gov/lawlibraries/glossary.shtml Acquittal A
More informationA petty offense is either a violation or a traffic infraction. Such offenses are not crimes.
F REQUENTLY A SKED Q UESTIONS A BOUT T HE C RIMINAL J USTICE S YSTEM WHO IS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY? The New York State Constitution provides that the District Attorney is a public official elected by the
More informationCriminal Justice System Commonly Used Terms & Definitions
Criminal Justice System Commonly Used Terms & Definitions A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Accused: Acquittal: Adjudication: Admissible Evidence: Affidavit: Alford Doctrine: Appeal:
More informationIN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WOODBURY COUNTY. WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS (OWI First Offense)
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR WOODBURY COUNTY THE STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff, vs. Defendant. CRIMINAL NO. WRITTEN PLEA OF GUILTY AND WAIVER OF RIGHTS (OWI First Offense) COMES NOW the above-named Defendant
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, v. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Plaintiff-Respondent, LINDA M. SINUK, Defendant-Appellant. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET
More informationGUIDE TO WHAT TO EXPECT
D e l Si g n o r e L a w GUIDE TO WHAT TO EXPECT AT A CLERK MAGISTRATE HEARING What you need to know about your Massachusetts clerk magistrate hearing. Authored by Attorneys Michael DelSignore And Julie
More informationGETTING TO KNOW THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Patricia A. DeAngelis District Attorney GETTING TO KNOW THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AN OFFENSE IS COMMITTED There are three types of offenses that can be committed in New York State: VIOLATION MISDEMEANOR
More informationCase 1:07-cv-00039-PGC Document 12 Filed 07/20/07 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 1:07-cv-00039-PGC Document 12 Filed 07/20/07 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION JOE R. ALVARADO, Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
More informationCHAPTER 6: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MICHIGAN COURT RULES OF 1985
CHAPTER 6: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MICHIGAN COURT RULES OF 1985 Subchapter 6.000 General Provisions Rule 6.001 Scope; Applicability of Civil Rules; Superseded Rules and Statutes (A) Felony Cases. The rules
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY LC2014-000424-001 DT 01/22/2015 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN HIGHER COURT RULING / REMAND
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court *** Filed *** 01/26/2015 8:00 AM THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN STATE OF ARIZONA CLERK OF THE COURT J. Eaton Deputy GARY L SHUPE v. MONICA RENEE JONES (001) JEAN JACQUES CABOU
More informationFairfax County Circuit Court Preferred Criminal Law Practices
Page 1 Fairfax County Circuit Court Preferred Criminal Law Practices I. Objectives 1. To expedite the efficient resolution of criminal cases. 2. To reduce the number of unnecessary continuances while providing
More informationAn Introduction to the Federal Public Defender=s Office and the Federal Court System
Some Things You Should Know An Introduction to the Federal Public Defender=s Office and the Federal Court System Office of the Federal Public Defender Southern District of West Virginia 300 Virginia Street
More informationAPPEAL from judgments and an order of the circuit court for Green Lake County: WILLIAM M. McMONIGAL, Judge. Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED May 16, 2007 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the
More informationDecades of Successful Sex Crimes Defense Contact the Innocence Legal Team Now
Criminal Court Felonies The U.S. has the highest rate of felony conviction and imprisonment of any industrialized nation. A felony crime is more serious than a misdemeanor, but the same offense can be
More informationCHAPTER SIX: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER SIX: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE By Gino L. DiVito, Retired Justice, Illinois Appellate Court, Partner, Quinlan & Crisham, Ltd.; Chicago Commencement of Prosecution In Illinois, the prosecution of a criminal
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
CAVEAT: This sample is provided to demonstrate style and format. It is not intended as a model for the substantive argument, and therefore counsel should not rely on its legal content which may include
More informationRULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART THREE A CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE APPENDIX
RULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART THREE A CRIMINAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE APPENDIX Form 6. Suggested Questions to Be Put by the Court to an Accused Who Has Pleaded Guilty (Rule 3A:8). Before accepting
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE. STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel. ) No. 1 CA-SA 12-0201 WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel. No. 1 CA-SA 12-0201 WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, DEPARTMENT A Petitioner, Maricopa County Superior Court
More informationGUILTY PLEA and PLEA AGREEMENT United States Attorney Northern District of Georgia
Case 1:11-cr-00326-SCJ-JFK Document 119-1 Filed 01/20/12 Page 1 of 16 GUILTY PLEA and PLEA AGREEMENT United States Attorney Northern District of Georgia UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION 1
Filed 11/24/15 P. v. Faccone 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 THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
More informationCRIMINAL LAW AND VICTIMS RIGHTS
Chapter Five CRIMINAL LAW AND VICTIMS RIGHTS In a criminal case, a prosecuting attorney (working for the city, state, or federal government) decides if charges should be brought against the perpetrator.
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-0553 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Darrell
More informationLEGAL MALPRACTICE AND THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY By Peter L. Ostermiller
LEGAL MALPRACTICE AND THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY By Peter L. Ostermiller Occasionally, a defendant, while incarcerated and apparently having nothing better to do, will file a Motion under RCr. 11.42,
More informationPeople v Bakntiyar 2014 NY Slip Op 32137(U) June 27, 2014 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 10521/2012 Judge: Danny K.
People v Bakntiyar 2014 NY Slip Op 32137(U) June 27, 2014 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 10521/2012 Judge: Danny K. Chun Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U),
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A12-1170 Igbanugo Partners Int l Law Firm, PLLC,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MICHAEL N. LOPEZ, No. 606, 2013 Defendant Below- Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court v. of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County STATE OF DELAWARE,
More informationThe Federal Criminal Process
Federal Public Defender W.D. Michigan The Federal Criminal Process INTRODUCTION The following summary of the federal criminal process is intended to provide you with a general overview of how your case
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) CASE NO. CR 12 566449 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL ) vs. ) ) LONNIE CAGE ) JOURNAL ENTRY ) Defendant )
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO ) CASE NO. CR 12 566449 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL ) vs. ) ) LONNIE CAGE ) JOURNAL ENTRY ) Defendant ) John P. O Donnell, J.:
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-14-01390-CR. LUIS ANTONIO RIQUIAC QUEUNAY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed June 23, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-01390-CR LUIS ANTONIO RIQUIAC QUEUNAY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal
More informationThe Court Process. Understanding the criminal justice process
Understanding the criminal justice process Introduction Missouri law establishes certain guarantees to crime victims, including participation in the criminal justice system. Victims can empower themselves
More informationSENATE BILL 1486 AN ACT
Senate Engrossed State of Arizona Senate Forty-fifth Legislature First Regular Session 0 SENATE BILL AN ACT AMENDING SECTION -, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED BY LAWS 00, CHAPTER, SECTION ; AMENDING
More informationINTRODUCTION DO YOU NEED A LAWYER?
INTRODUCTION The purpose of this handbook is to provide answers to some very basic questions that inmates or inmates families might have regarding the processes of the criminal justice system. In no way
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 6/21/16 P. v. Archuleta CA2/3 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
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 40822 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 40822 DAMON MARCELINO LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 722 Filed: September 15, 2014 Stephen
More informationYour Criminal Justice System
Your Criminal Justice System Helpful Information for the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Provided by Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt Victims Services Division 120 SW 10th Ave, 2nd Floor Topeka, KS
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, v. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Plaintiff-Respondent, JOHN J. JENSEN, Defendant-Appellant. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET
More informationFILED December 8, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL
NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 130903-U NO. 4-13-0903
More informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, TOAN NGOC TRAN, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0487 Filed September 24, 2014
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. TOAN NGOC TRAN, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0487 Filed September 24, 2014 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND
More informationI am the attorney who has been appointed by the Sixth District Court of Appeal to represent you on your appeal.
[Date] [client name and address] Re: Your appeal Dear Mr./Ms. : I am the attorney who has been appointed by the Sixth District Court of Appeal to represent you on your appeal. An appeal is limited to matters
More informationNO. COA12-641 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 15 January 2013. v. Forsyth County No. 10 CRS 057199 KELVIN DEON WILSON
NO. COA12-641 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 January 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Forsyth County No. 10 CRS 057199 KELVIN DEON WILSON 1. Appeal and Error notice of appeal timeliness between
More informationcopy IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----
Filed 12/5/96 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION copy IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ---- THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, C021913 (Super. Ct. No. SCR1771)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE DIVISION. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) No. ) (Judge ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) No. ) (Judge ) ) ) PETITION TO ENTER A PLEA OF GUILTY (Misdemeanor) I,, respectfully represent
More informationGeneral District Courts
General District Courts To Understand Your Visit to Court You Should Know: It is the courts wish that you know your rights and duties. We want every person who comes here to receive fair treatment in accordance
More informationMorgan County Prosecuting Attorney Debra MH McLaughlin
Morgan County Prosecuting Attorney Debra MH McLaughlin Directions: From Fairfax Street Entrance, Enter Main Door, turn Right through door, up the narrow staircase. Office is at top of steps. (Old Circuit
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: JANUARY 15, 2010; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2008-CA-000763-MR COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE
More informationIN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT STATE OF MISSOURI, v. ROBERT E. WHEELER, Respondent, Appellant. WD76448 OPINION FILED: August 19, 2014 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Caldwell County,
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 16, 2001 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 16, 2001 Session STEVE EDWARD HOUSTON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Giles County No. 9082 Robert L. Jones,
More informationCase 1:05-cr-10037-GAO Document 459 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL NO.
Case 1:05-cr-10037-GAO Document 459 Filed 09/24/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL NO. 05-10037-GAO-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GRANT BOYD, Defendant. O TOOLE,
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 48 1
SUBCHAPTER IX. PRETRIAL PROCEDURE. Article 48. Discovery in the Superior Court. 15A-901. Application of Article. This Article applies to cases within the original jurisdiction of the superior court. (1973,
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 17 1
SUBCHAPTER III. CRIMINAL PROCESS. Article 17. Criminal Process. 15A-301. Criminal process generally. (a) Formal Requirements. (1) A record of each criminal process issued in the trial division of the General
More informationAPPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Dane County: STEVEN D. EBERT, Judge. Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 28, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 13-CT-226. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CTF-18039-12)
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationThe Right to a Speedy Trial
The Right to a Speedy Trial You have a constitutional right to a speedy trial in the United States and in New Jersey. You also have a right to see ALL of the evidence against you prior your date in court.
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Richard Thomas, : Petitioner : : No. 1334 C.D. 2011 v. : : Submitted: March 2, 2012 Pennsylvania Board of Probation : and Parole, : Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE
More informationSUBJECT: Department Policy Concerning Charging Criminal Offenses, Disposition of Charges, and Sentencing
TO: FROM: All Federal Prosecutors John Ashcroft Attorney General SUBJECT: Department Policy Concerning Charging Criminal Offenses, Disposition of Charges, and Sentencing INTRODUCTION The passage of the
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CP-00221-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CP-00221-COA FREDDIE LEE MARTIN A/K/A FREDDIE L. MARTIN APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/08/2013 TRIAL JUDGE:
More informationAn appeal from the Circuit Court for Lafayette County. Harlow H. Land, Jr., Judge.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA QUENTIN SULLIVAN, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D06-4634
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket Nos. 39169/39170 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket Nos. 39169/39170 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TESHA JOWANE SUNDAY, Defendant-Appellant. 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 679 Filed: September
More informationJUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Division IV Opinion by JUDGE CONNELLY Webb and Terry, JJ., concur. NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(f) Announced April 22, 2010
09CA0678 Peo v. Vallejos 04-22-2010 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 09CA0678 Adams County District Court No. 08CR838 Honorable Thomas R. Ensor, Judge Honorable C. Vincent Phelps, Judge The
More informationDecided: May 11, 2015. S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: May 11, 2015 S15A0308. McLEAN v. THE STATE. BLACKWELL, Justice. Peter McLean was tried by a DeKalb County jury and convicted of the murder of LaTonya Jones, an
More informationOLMSTED COUNTY ATTORNEY DOMESTIC ABUSE PROSECUTION POLICY POLICY STATEMENT:
OLMSTED COUNTY ATTORNEY DOMESTIC ABUSE PROSECUTION POLICY POLICY STATEMENT: It is the policy of the Olmsted County Attorney to pursue all domestic abuse allegations with zealous, yet discretionary prosecution
More informationInformation about the Criminal Justice System**
1 Victim s Guide to the Nebraska Criminal Justice System Information about the Criminal Justice System** ** Please note that the information contained in this booklet is only in relationship to felony
More informationCase 1:13-cr-20850-UU Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/14 11:43:07 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:13-cr-20850-UU Document 43 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/14 11:43:07 Page 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. RAFAEL COMAS, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA KRISTINA R. DOBSON, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE CRANE MCCLENNEN, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA, Respondent
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No. 14-0420 Filed May 20, 2015. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey A.
CHARLES EDWARD DAVIS, Applicant-Appellant, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 14-0420 Filed May 20, 2015 STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County,
More informationLR2-400. Case management pilot program for criminal cases. A. Scope; application. This is a special pilot rule governing time limits for criminal
LR2-400. Case management pilot program for criminal cases. A. Scope; application. This is a special pilot rule governing time limits for criminal proceedings in the Second Judicial District Court. This
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationOrientation for Contract Court Interpreters PRETRIAL HEARINGS
There are several different types of pretrial hearings. Some are incident to the early stages of a case, such as detention hearings, bail hearings, Rule 20 or Rule 40 hearings, identity hearings, arrival
More informationIf/ehJ~ TO PENNSYLVANIA'S COURTS
If/ehJ~ TO PENNSYLVANIA'S COURTS ThiS guide is intended to acquaint you with Pennsylvania's judicial system. It provides an overview of how our courts are organized and the kinds of work they do. We hope
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 6/29/16 In re A.S. 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 informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
J. S41027/16 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : HASAN COLLIER, JR. : Appellant : : No. 3230 EDA
More information