THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT NO STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DANIEL C. THOMPSON BRIEF FOR THE DEFENDANT

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT NO. 2011-0912 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DANIEL C. THOMPSON BRIEF FOR THE DEFENDANT"

Transcription

1 THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT NO STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE V. DANIEL C. THOMPSON BRIEF FOR THE DEFENDANT Rule 7 Mandatory Appeal 2 nd Circuit District Division - Lebanon Bruce E. Kenna, Esquire Bar No KENNA & SHARKEY, PA 69 Bay Street Manchester, NH (603)

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS.. -i- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.. -ii- QUESTIONS PRESENTED.. 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND MATERIAL FACTS.. 2 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.. 4 ARGUMENT.. 5 A. PURSUANT TO RSA 265-A:18, IV, IN A CASE ALLEGING ANY CHARGE OF DRIVING OR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS OR LIQUOR (DWI) (SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE), THE STATE IS REQUIRED TO ALLEGE IN THE COMPLAINT AND PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT ANY PRIOR OFFENSE.. 5 B. WHERE THE STATE FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE IN ITS CASE-IN-CHIEF TO PROVE THE ALLEGATIONS OF TWO PRIOR CONVICTIONS FOR DWI CONTAINED WITHIN THE COMPLAINT PENDING AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, THE COURT S SENTENCE ON A DWI (THIRD OFFENSE) PURSUANT TO RSA 265-A-18, IV (b) WAS ILLEGAL 9 CONCLUSION REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT 11 ADDENDUM 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 22

3 TABLE OF AUTHORITY CASES Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466 (2000) 4, 6, State v. LeBaron, 148 NH 226 (2002)...4, 6, 7, 8, 10 State v. Gallagher, 157 NH 421, 424 (2008)..5, 6 State v. Doucet, 106 NH 225 (1965)..6, 10 Cedren v. Clarke, 99 NH 421, 423 (1955).6 State v. Lantaigne, 117 NH 266, (1977)..6 State v. Lougee, 137 NH 635, (1993)..6, 10 State v. Marcoux, 154 NH 118, 124 (2006) 6 State v. Cardin, 129 NH 137(1987)...6, 7 Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 US 224 (1998)..6 State v. Dixon, 144 NH 273, 283 (1999) 8 State v. Blais, 104 NH 214 (1962)..9 State v. Cogliano, 146 NH 603 (2001)...9 State v. Knapp, 150 NH 36 (2003). 9 STATUTES RSA 265-A:18, IV 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 RSA 265-A:18, IV(b).1, 3, 10 RSA 265-A:2..2, 5 RSA 265-A:2, I..6, 7

4 RSA 265-A:3..6 TABLE OF AUTHORITY (Continued) STATUTES RSA 630:3, II..6 RSA 262:23 6 RSA 265:82-b. 8 RSA b, II 8 RSA 265-A:18, I(a) 11

5 I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. At trial of a complaint alleging Driving Under The Influence Of Drugs Or Alcohol Subsequent Offense, i.e. after two (2) prior convictions within the preceding ten (10) years, is the State of New Hampshire required by RSA 265-A:18, IV to submit evidence sufficient to prove those prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt during its case-in-chief? Is proof of the prior convictions alleged in the complaint simply a matter of sentencing which need not be proven until after a verdict of guilt has been rendered on the issue of whether the defendant was operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol? (Transcript, Vol. II, pp ; Sentencing Transcript, pp. 3-18) In this case, where the State alleged in the complaint filed against the defendant two prior convictions for DWI offenses within the prior ten years, but failed to submit any evidence of either prior conviction in its case-in-chief, was the sentence imposed by the trial court pursuant to RSA 265-A:18, IV (b) for a third offense DWI improper and based upon insufficient evidence? (Sen. Tr., pp. 3-18). 1 The trial in State v. Daniel C. Thompson, #2010-CR-2015, was conducted in the Lebanon District Court on January 11, 2011 and February 7, The transcripts of these two trial dates will be referred to hereafter as Tr., Vol. I and/or Tr., Vol. II with appropriate page numbers thereafter. The Sentencing Hearing, held on April 27, 2011, after memorandums on the issue raised herein were submitted by counsel, will be referred to hereafter as Sent. Tr. with appropriate page numbers thereafter.

6 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On October 8, 2010, the Defendant, Daniel C. Thompson, was arrested while seated in his automobile in a Hanover, NH parking lot, and charged with Driving Under The Influence Of Drugs Or Liquor, pursuant to R.S.A. 265-A:2.(Addendum, p. 13) The complaint filed against the Defendant in the Lebanon District Court 2 initially contained only an allegation that the Defendant had been.previously convicted of Driving While Intoxicated on 7/16/2003 in the Lebanon District Court. (Addendum, p. 17 ). Prior to the commencement of the trial on January 11, 2011, the State amended the complaint by adding an allegation of a second prior conviction in Chittendon Co. Sup. Ct. in Vt. On 3/10/08. (Addendum, pg. 17). The trial and a hearing on the Defendant s Motion To Suppress were held together by agreement of counsel and the trial court (Tr., Vol. I, p.8). The trial encompassed two hearing dates January 11, 2011 and the continuation on February 7, During its case-in-chief and, in fact, during the course of the entire trial, the State failed to introduce any evidence whatsoever to establish and prove either of the prior convictions alleged in the complaint. At no time during the course of the trial did the State request the trial court to take judicial notice of the prior conviction allegedly entered against the defendant in the Lebanon District Court. Nor did the Court do so on its own. The State even failed to elicit any admissions or testimony regarding the allegations of prior convictions from the Defendant, himself, during his lengthy testimony and crossexamination. (Tr., Vol. II, pp ).). At the conclusion of all trial testimony and evidence on February 7, 2011, the trial court (Cirone, J.) found the defendant guilty of DWI. (Tr., Vol. II, p. 182). Only then did the State present the trial court with certified copies of the two prior convictions which had been 2 The Lebanon District Court has since been designated as the 2 nd Circuit-District Division-Lebanon according to the district court restructuring plan.

7 alleged in the complaint (Tr., Vol. II, p. 183). Defendant s counsel objected to the late introduction of the certified copies of the prior convictions for purposes of proving the subsequent offenses and sentencing the defendant as a multiple offender (Tr., Vol. II, pp ). Defendant s counsel argued that, based upon the evidence submitted at the trial, the trial court could only find the defendant guilty of a simple Class B Misdemeanor DWI and sentence him within the minimum and maximum sentencing options available by statute for that offense (Tr., Vol. II, pp ). The State argued that the prior convictions were not elements of the offense which had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt during the trial and could be submitted for sentencing only (Tr., Vol. II, pp ). The trial court ordered counsel to submit memoranda of law for his consideration prior to a final sentencing hearing (Tr., Vol. II, pp ). A Sentencing Hearing was held on the case in the Lebanon District Court on April 27, 2011 (Sent. Tr., p. 3). After consideration of the Memoranda filed by the parties and argument in court, the trial court rejected the defendant s argument regarding the sufficiency of the proof offered at trial by the State, took judicial notice of the prior conviction in Lebanon District Court, accepted certified copies of the prior convictions alleged in the complaint, and sentenced the defendant for a conviction on a third offense DWI pursuant to RSA 265-A:18, IV (b)(sent. Tr., p. 10, 16-17)(Addendum, pp ) It is from this ruling of the court and the sentence imposed as a result thereof that the defendant appeals.

8 III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 1. New Hampshire RSA 265-A:18, IV (Addendum, p. 15) imposes a statutory basis for requiring the State to allege prior convictions in any complaint pursuant to the DWI (subsequent offense) statutes and to submit evidence in their case-in-chief to prove the alleged prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. RSA 265-A:18, IV specifically requires that any conviction for a DWI (subsequent offense) be based on a complaint which alleged that the person has had one or more prior convictions for [DWI] within 10 years preceding the date of the second or subsequent offense. The statutory language is plain and unambiguous and clearly expresses the legislature s intent to require notice to the defendant that the State intends to rely upon one or more prior DWI offenses during the course of his or her trial and to submit proof of any alleged prior offense beyond a reasonable doubt. That statutory requirement, which has survived intact over several revisions of the New Hampshire DWI laws by the state legislature, was not affected by the United States Supreme Court s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466 (2000) or this Court s decision in State v. LeBaron, 148 NH 226 (2002). 2. As required by RSA 265-A:18, IV, the State did properly allege in the complaint filed against the defendant that he had been previously convicted for DWI offenses in the Lebanon District Court in 2003 and in a Vermont court in However, despite the existence of several available methods of proving those prior convictions, the State failed to submit any proof of those alleged prior convictions. Therefore, based upon the evidence presented at the trial, the trial court had no basis upon which to convict or sentence the defendant upon any violation of the law except upon a simple DWI Class B misdemeanor.

9 IV. ARGUMENT A. PURSUANT TO R.S.A. 265-A:18, IV, IN A CASE ALLEGING ANY CHARGE OF DRIVING OR OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS OR LIQUOR (DWI) (SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE), THE STATE IS REQUIRED TO ALLEGE IN THE COMPLAINT AND PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT ANY PRIOR OFFENSE In the prosecutions for subsequent violations of this State s DWI statutes, the New Hampshire legislature has long required the State s prosecutors to allege in its charging documents and prove beyond a reasonable doubt in its case in chief any prior offense upon which it intends to rely to apply the enhanced penalties authorized by statute. New Hampshire RSA 265-A:2 and 265-A:18, IV, the present re-codification of our DWI statutes, continues the State s burden to the present day. 3 RSA 265-A:2 (Addendum, p. 13) provides, in relevant part: I. No person shall drive or attempt to drive a vehicle upon any way or or operate or attempt to operate an OHRV: (a) While such person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any controlled drug or any combination of intoxicating liquor or controlled drugs; or (b) While such person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more or in the case of a person under the age of 21, 0.02 or more. RSA 265-A:18, IV (Addendum, p. 15), the present statute relating to subsequent offenses of DWI, provides, in relevant part, that: 3 The legislature has engaged in continuing review, revision, and amendment of the laws relating to DWI cases over the years. The present statute, RSA Chapter 265-A, became effective on January 1, 2007 and repealed the previous DWI statutes. This most recent version of the DWI statutes was intended to consolidate the former DWI statutes and make them more easily accessible. This Court has recognized that the definition of a DWI violation and the penalties therefore including those relevant to this case are virtually identical to the prior ones. State v. Gallagher, 157 NH 421, 424 (2008).

10 IV. Upon conviction of any offense under RSA 265-A:2, I or RSA 265- A:3, based on a complaint which alleged that the person has had one or more prior convictions under RSA 265-A:2, I or RSA 265-A:3, or RSA 630:3, II, or under reasonably equivalent offenses in an out-of-state jurisdiction, within 10 years preceding the date of the second or subsequent offense 4 the person would be subject to enhanced offense levels and additional penalties. In a long line of decisions regarding the pleading requirements and burden of proof imposed upon the State in cases alleging DWI subsequent offenses, this Court has consistently upheld and enforced the legislature s intent as manifested by its statutes. In State v. Doucet, 106 NH 225 (1965), the Court maintained that the State had to both allege and prove two convictions if the defendant was to be convicted of a DWI, second offense, and that, if there was no evidence of a prior offense, then a conviction could only be found for a first offense. See also Cedergren v. Clarke, 99 NH 421, 423 (1955); State v. Lantaigne, 117 NH 266, (1977) (Habitual Offender proceeding; validity of convictions); State v. Lougee, 137 NH 635, (1993); State v. Marcoux, 154 NH 118, 124 (2006) (State bears burden of proving existence of prior conviction, but declining to rule on applicable standard). In State v. Cardin, 129 NH 137(1987), an appeal to the Hillsborough Superior Court from a district court conviction for driving under the influence, second offense, this Court approved a 4 State v. Gallagher, 157 NH at 423, recognized that the legislature also intended that prior convictions under RSA 265:82, the prior statute, although not specifically referenced in RSA 265-A:18, IV, would also be proper predicate offenses under the current statute. 5 In State v. LeBaron, 148 NH 226, 232 (2002), this Court applied the ruling of the United States Supreme Court decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 US 466 (2000) and Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 US 224 (1998) to RSA 262:23, New Hampshire s Habitual Offender statute and ruled that the statute did not require the State to allege in an indictment or prove beyond a reasonable doubt in its case-in-chief the existence or validity of the individual convictions upon which the original habitual offender certification relied. The Court s interpretation of the specific statute only required proof that the defendant was operating a vehicle on a public way while he was certified as a habitual offender and that he knew of that certification. The Court considered its prior rulings in Doucet and the other cases cited above and, to the extent these cases may be inconsistent with its holding, overruled those decisions. However, as argued above, the prior rulings were not inconsistent since they involved a different statute in which the legislature s intent and requirements were clearly different. 5

11 procedure now widely used on such appeals allowing a defendant to stipulate to a prior conviction for DWI and, therefore, take that issue away from the jury s consideration. The trial court was clearly instructed in such instances..not to remove the issue (of the existence and validity of the prior offense) from the jury unless the defendant also clearly waives his right to require that the jury find it beyond a reasonable doubt and clearly accepts that, should the jury return a verdict of guilty, the trial judge will use the stipulation to enhance the sentence. Cardin, 129 NH at 139. The statute in effect at the time of the Court s decision in Cardin also specifically required that the complaint allege the prior convictions. Although the Court ruled that proof of the prior conviction was not an element of the charge, Cardin, 129 NH at 138, it did confirm that the statute required proof of the prior conviction alleged.as a predicate condition for enhancement of the sentence. However, the Court did recognize that the statute required the proof of the prior conviction. If the defendant did wish to contest the validity of the prior conviction and refused to stipulate to its existence and validity, then he or she could: submit the issue of the record of the prior conviction to the jury, where it becomes part of the State s case-in-chief. Id. As argued above, in DWI subsequent offense cases the State legislature and this Court have consistently required the State to allege and prove the existence of the prior offenses relied upon to enhance the offense classification and available penalties. The Court is the final arbiter of legislative intent as expressed in the words of a statute as a whole. State v. LeBaron, 148 NH 226, 228 (2002). In its prior rulings, the Court has interpreted RSA 265-A:2, I and 265-A:18, IV and their predecessor statutes based upon the statutory language in accordance with its common

12 usage. Id. The language contained therein is plain and unambiguous, State v. Dixon, 144 NH 273, 283 (1999). Allegation of prior convictions must be contained in the complaint. RSA 265-A:18, IV. If no such allegations are present, then the complaint alleges only a simple DWI pursuant to RSA 265-A:18, I. Each section of the statute defines a new offense with different, defined offense levels and different, defined penalty options for the Court. The very structure of the statutory language makes it obvious that the State is required to provide notice to the defendant of those prior convictions, if any, the State intends to prove. This statutory requirement alone tells the defendant which statute he allegedly violated, whether he has a right to court-appointed counsel, whether he has a right to trial by jury, and what possible penalties he might face if convicted. And once alleged, the statute clearly expects the State to bear the burden of proving the very allegations it is required to include in the complaint. The differences between the New Hampshire statutes governing DWI offenses pursuant to RSA Chapter 265-A and the Habitual Offender statute interpreted by this Court in State v. LeBaron, 148 NH 226 (2002) were obvious to the Court. In recognizing the difference in the statutes, the Court stated: We note that the statute prescribing the penalties for driving while intoxicated now explicitly requires a complaint to allege specified prior convictions for certain enhanced penalties to be imposed. See RSA 265:82-b, II (Supp. 2001). That statute is not affected by this decision. Id. at 232. RSA 265:82-b, II, the DWI statute effective at the time of the LeBaron decision, is essentially identical to RSA 265-A:18, IV, the statutory provision in question here. That statute requires the State to allege and prove the prior convictions necessary for any conviction on a DWI subsequent case.

13 B. WHERE THE STATE FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE IN ITS CASE-IN-CHIEF TO PROVE THE ALLEGATIONS OF TWO PRIOR CONVICTIONS FOR DWI CONTAINED WITHIN THE COMPLAINT PENDING AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, THE COURT S SENTENCE ON A DWI (THIRD OFFENSE) PURSUANT TO RSA 265-a:18, IV (b) WAS ILLEGAL. On January 11, 2011 and February 7, 2011, the defendant was tried in the Lebanon District Court based upon a complaint alleging that, on October 8, 2010 he did:.drive a vehicle upon a way, LOT 1 in Hanover, New Hampshire while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and/or controlled drugs, having been previously convicted of Driving While Intoxicate on 07/16/2003 in the Lebanon District Court and a conviction in Chittendon Co. Sup. Ct. in Vt. On 3/10/08. The trial in this case consumed portions of two days. The defendant did testify in his own defense. It is undisputed that the State did not submit any evidence to establish the existence or the validity of either of the prior offenses alleged in the complaint. The State could have but did not submitted certified copies of the convictions alleged in the complaint. The State could have but did not question the defendant on cross-examination regarding the existence and validity of prior convictions suffered by him. At least with regard to the alleged prior conviction from the Lebanon District Court, the State could have but did not request the trial court to take judicial notice of its own case. The methods available to the State to prove the prior convictions alleged are several, none of which is particularly burdensome. State v. Blais, 104 NH 214 (1962). Even the alleged out-of-state conviction from Vermont could have been easily proven. State v. Cogliano, 146 NH 603 (2001); State v. Knapp, 150 NH 36 (2003). After the close of all evidence on February 7, 2011, the trial court found the defendant guilty of DWI and asked the parties for their recommendations on the sentence to be imposed. Only then did the State seek to submit any evidence of the prior convictions alleged in the complaint (Tr., Vol. II, p. 183). The defendant s counsel objected and argued that the trial evidence could only sustain a conviction for a simple DWI since no evidence was offered to prove either of the alleged priors at trail. Even then the State failed to request to reopen its case

14 to present the evidence. Instead, the Court deferred sentencing, requested memoranda on the issue presented, and continued the Sentencing Hearing (Tr., Vol. II, pp ). On April 27, 2011, the trial court reconvened the Sentencing Hearing. Based upon this Court s ruling in State v. LeBaron, 148 NH 226, 232 (2002) the trial court ruled that the State was not required to prove the alleged prior convictions in its case-in-chief and could introduce its evidence of the prior convictions at the Sentencing Hearing (Sent. Trl, p. 10). The trial court then sentenced the defendant for a third offense DWI pursuant to RSA 265-A:18, IV (b) (Sent. Tr., pp ). In relying on the LeBaron decision, the trial Court failed to recognize that this Court clearly differentiated between the statute prescribing the penalties for driving while intoxicated which explicitly required the complaint to allege specified prior convictions for enhanced penalties and the Habitual Offender statute which only required that a valid habitual offender certification be proven. Id. at 232. The trial court simply ignored this Court s clear notation that the DWI statutes were not affected by [the LeBaron] decision. Id. Because of the statutory requirement contained in RSA 265-A:18, IV, the State must still allege and prove the existence and validity of prior DWI offenses upon which it intends to rely to request a court to impose enhanced penalties. As applied to the specific statutory requirements of the DWI statutes, this Court s decisions in State v. Doucet, 106 NH 225 (1965), and State v. Lougee, 137 NH 635 (1993) should still control. Therefore, since no evidence of any prior conviction was submitted during the trial of this matter, the trial court could not convict and sentence the defendant on any conviction except for the simple DWI proven at trial. Doucet, 106 NH at 226; Lougee, 137 NH at

15 V. CONCLUSION RSA 265-A:18, IV requires the State to allege in the charging complaint and prove at trial any prior convictions upon which it intends to rely to sustain a conviction for DWI subsequent offenses. Although the State in this case properly alleged two prior offenses, it failed at trial to submit any evidence to prove those allegations. Therefore, the trial court could not have found sufficient evidence to convict and sentence the defendant for a third offense DWI pursuant to RSA 265-A:18, IV (b). This case should be remanded back to the Lebanon District Court for resentencing pursuant to RSA 265-A:18, I (a), a simple DWI, the only conviction sustainable based upon the evidence at trial. VI. REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Daniel Thompson, Appellant, hereby requests oral argument to be presented by Bruce E. Kenna, Esquire. Appellant s counsel estimates no more than 15 minutes for said Oral Argument. Respectfully submitted, DANIEL C. THOMPSON, APPELLANT By his attorney, Dated: June 28, 2012 Bruce E. Kenna, Esq. NH Bar No KENNA & SHARKEY, P.A. 69 Bay Street Manchester, NH (603)

16 Certification Pursuant To Rules 16(10) and 26(2) I, Bruce E. Kenna, Esq., attorney for the Defendant Daniel C. Thompson, hereby certify, as required by new Hampshire Supreme Court Rules 16(10) and 26(2) that I have on this same date sent by first class mail, two (2) copies of the Brief For The Defendant to the Attorney General s Office at 33 Capitol Street, Concord, New Hampshire Date: June 28, 2012 Bruce E. Kenna, Esquire NH Bar No.1348 Attorney for the Defendant, Daniel C. Thompson

17 ADDENDUM TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Applicable Statutes RSA 265-A: Applicable Statutes RSA 265-A: District court Complaint District Court Sentencing Sheet 19-21

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JONATHAN M. POLK. Argued: February 22, 2007 Opinion Issued: June 22, 2007

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JONATHAN M. POLK. Argued: February 22, 2007 Opinion Issued: June 22, 2007 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN 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 information

1 VERGERONT, J. 1 Daniel Stormer was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, third offense, contrary to WIS. STAT.

1 VERGERONT, J. 1 Daniel Stormer was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, third offense, contrary to WIS. STAT. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED May 31, 2001 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will

More information

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT

IN 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 information

Subchapter 6.600 Criminal Procedure in District Court

Subchapter 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, No. 169, 2014 Plaintiff-Below, Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court v. of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County ANDY LABOY,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 104,651. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, SEAN AARON KEY, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 104,651. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, SEAN AARON KEY, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 104,651 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. SEAN AARON KEY, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT A defendant charged with felony driving under the influence (DUI)

More information

RULES 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 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 information

June 5, 2014. Re: State v. Mark E. Dean Def. I.D. No. 01303009234. I am called upon here to rule on a dispute between the defendant Mark E.

June 5, 2014. Re: State v. Mark E. Dean Def. I.D. No. 01303009234. I am called upon here to rule on a dispute between the defendant Mark E. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CHARLES E. BUTLER JUDGE NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE 500 NORTH KING STREET Suite 10400 WILMINGTON, DE 19801 PHONE: (302) 255-0656 FAX: (302) 255-2274 Zachary Rosen,

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: MARCH 14, 2008; 2:00 P.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2007-CA-001304-MR DONALD T. CHRISTY APPELLANT v. APPEAL FROM MASON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE STOCKTON

More information

A Federal Criminal Case Timeline

A 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 information

Chapter 153. Violations and Fines 2013 EDITION. Related Laws Page 571 (2013 Edition)

Chapter 153. Violations and Fines 2013 EDITION. Related Laws Page 571 (2013 Edition) Chapter 153 2013 EDITION Violations and Fines VIOLATIONS (Generally) 153.005 Definitions 153.008 Violations described 153.012 Violation categories 153.015 Unclassified and specific fine violations 153.018

More information

I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res

More information

IN 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. 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 information

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, ROY MATTHEW SOVINE, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0094

STATE 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 information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-425

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-425 STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-425 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS RITA SENSAT ********** APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 18,062-06 HONORABLE

More information

CAUSE NO. THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE 49th DISTRICT COURT ZAPATA COUNTY, TEXAS

CAUSE NO. THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE 49th DISTRICT COURT ZAPATA COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. STATE S EXHIBIT #1 THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE 49th DISTRICT COURT VS. OF ZAPATA COUNTY, TEXAS PLEA OF GUILTY, ADMONISHMENTS, VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS, WAIVERS, STIPULATION & JUDICIAL CONFESSION (Defendant

More information

**************************************** I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.

**************************************** I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. STATE OF IDAHO County of KOOTENAI ss FILED AT O clock M CLERK, DISTRICT COURT Deputy IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, vs. STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY

More information

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS O P I N I O N COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPUNCTION OF A.G. O P I N I O N No. 08-12-00174-CV Appeal from 171st District Court of El Paso County, Texas (TC # 2012-DVC02875)

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 40135 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 40135 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 40135 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JUAN L. JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant. 2013 Opinion No. 60 Filed: November 12, 2013 Stephen W. Kenyon,

More information

Criminal Justice System Commonly Used Terms & Definitions

Criminal 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 information

INFORMATION / FACT SHEET CRIME TO TRIAL PROCESS CRIMINAL COURT HEARINGS EXPLAINED

INFORMATION / FACT SHEET CRIME TO TRIAL PROCESS CRIMINAL COURT HEARINGS EXPLAINED INFORMATION / FACT SHEET CRIME TO TRIAL PROCESS CRIMINAL COURT HEARINGS EXPLAINED *(Please be advised that this is a general guide only and is by no means an exhaustive summary of all criminal court hearings.

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: JULY 8, 2011; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-000873-DG COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLANT ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT

More information

apply the enhanced statutory penalty. 9 chic 57109(b). ~~~~~~~ALT~ OF THE EodQRTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS Mathew %ROICHI

apply the enhanced statutory penalty. 9 chic 57109(b). ~~~~~~~ALT~ OF THE EodQRTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS Mathew %ROICHI ~~~~~~~ALT~ OF THE EodQRTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS Mathew %ROICHI Traffic Case No. 87-242 Commonwealth Trial Court Decided April 9, 1987 1. Criminal Law - Indictment & Information Even if an information fails

More information

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR. The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under

OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR. The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under Page 1 Instruction 5.310 The defendant is charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (in the same complaint which charges the defendant with operating a motor

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO Case 1:12-cv-00547-CWD Document 38 Filed 12/30/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ALBERT MOORE, v. Petitioner, Case No. 1:12-cv-00547-CWD MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

More information

AN ACT. The goals of the alcohol and drug treatment divisions created under this Chapter include the following:

AN ACT. The goals of the alcohol and drug treatment divisions created under this Chapter include the following: ENROLLED Regular Session, 1997 HOUSE BILL NO. 2412 BY REPRESENTATIVE JACK SMITH AN ACT To enact Chapter 33 of Title 13 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, comprised of R.S. 13:5301 through 5304,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA ) ) Appellee, ) 1 CA-CR 13-0096 ) ) V. ) MOHAVE COUNTY ) David Chad Mahone, ) Superior Court ) No. CR 2012-00345 Appellant. ) ) )

More information

A petty offense is either a violation or a traffic infraction. Such offenses are not crimes.

A 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 information

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 86-172. Timothy J. Chambers Reno County Attorney Law Enforcement Center 210 West First Street Hutchinson, Kansas 67501

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 86-172. Timothy J. Chambers Reno County Attorney Law Enforcement Center 210 West First Street Hutchinson, Kansas 67501 ROBERT T. STEPHAN ATTORNEY GENERAL December 15, 1986 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 86-172 Timothy J. Chambers Reno County Attorney Law Enforcement Center 210 West First Street Hutchinson, Kansas 67501 Re:

More information

Maricopa County Attorney s Office Adult Criminal Case Process

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 information

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO. State of Ohio, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) CASE NO.: vs. ) ) DRUG COURT PLEA, ) ) Defendant )

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO. State of Ohio, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) CASE NO.: vs. ) ) DRUG COURT PLEA, ) ) Defendant ) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, BELMONT COUNTY, OHIO State of Ohio, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) CASE NO.: vs. ) ) DRUG COURT PLEA, ) ) Defendant ) I,, being before the Court this day and with my counsel, Attorney, represent

More information

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A10-1884. State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jolene Kay Coleman, Appellant.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A10-1884. State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jolene Kay Coleman, Appellant. STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A10-1884 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jolene Kay Coleman, Appellant. Filed January 3, 2012 Affirmed Kalitowski, Judge Hennepin County District Court File No.

More information

2015 IL App (3d) 121065-U. Order filed February 26, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015

2015 IL App (3d) 121065-U. Order filed February 26, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015 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 (3d 121065-U Order filed

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA, IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. CF-2008-1601 Judge William Kellough RODNEY EUGENE DORSEY, Defendant. BRIEF CONCERNING REQUEST FOR

More information

Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE

Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE Chapter 2: CRIMINAL LIABILITY; ELEMENTS OF CRIMES Table of Contents Part 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES... Section 31. VOLUNTARY CONDUCT (REPEALED)... 3 Section 32. ELEMENTS OF CRIMES

More information

No. 102,751 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, KRISTINA I. BISHOP, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

No. 102,751 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, KRISTINA I. BISHOP, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT No. 102,751 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. KRISTINA I. BISHOP, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. the State. A criminal diversion agreement is essentially

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. GARY LEE ROSE, Appellant No. 1335 MDA 2013 Appeal from the PCRA

More information

DESCRIPTION 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 DESCRIPTION OF THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR DEFENDANTS This pamphlet has been provided to help you better understand the federal

More information

2013 PA Super 281. Appellant No. 1967 WDA 2012

2013 PA Super 281. Appellant No. 1967 WDA 2012 2013 PA Super 281 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JASON C. BARR Appellant No. 1967 WDA 2012 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 14, 2012 In the

More information

Senate Bill No. 86 Committee on Transportation and Homeland Security

Senate Bill No. 86 Committee on Transportation and Homeland Security Senate Bill No. 86 Committee on Transportation and Homeland Security CHAPTER... AN ACT relating to offenses; providing that counseling and evaluations required for certain offenses may be conducted in

More information

A Victim s Guide to the Capital Case Process

A 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-IA-02028-SCT

IN 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 information

Chapter 813. Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants 2013 EDITION. Title 59 Page 307 (2013 Edition)

Chapter 813. Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants 2013 EDITION. Title 59 Page 307 (2013 Edition) Chapter 813 2013 EDITION Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants GENERAL PROVISIONS 813.010 Driving under the influence of intoxicants; penalty 813.011 Felony driving under the influence of intoxicants;

More information

2014 IL App (2d) 130390-U No. 2-13-0390 Order filed December 29, 20140 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT

2014 IL App (2d) 130390-U No. 2-13-0390 Order filed December 29, 20140 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT No. 2-13-0390 Order filed December 29, 20140 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

More information

NO. 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. 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 information

UNITED 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 ) ) ) 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 information

This 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). 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 A15-0415 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Shannon

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as State v. Mobarak, 2015-Ohio-3007.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 14AP-517 (C.P.C. No. 12CR-5582) v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Soleiman

More information

N.W.2d. Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals,

N.W.2d. Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals, 88 285 NEBRASKA REPORTS Neb. Ct. R. 3-310(P) and 3-323(B) of the disciplinary rules within 60 days after an order imposing costs and expenses, if any, is entered by this court. Judgment of suspension.

More information

Magistrate Court. Traffic and Criminal Misdemeanor Cases A GUIDE FOR WORKING WITH YOUR LOCAL COURT. Fourth Judicial District of Kansas

Magistrate Court. Traffic and Criminal Misdemeanor Cases A GUIDE FOR WORKING WITH YOUR LOCAL COURT. Fourth Judicial District of Kansas 4 th Judicial District Court of Kansas Magistrate Court Traffic and Criminal Misdemeanor Cases A GUIDE FOR WORKING WITH YOUR LOCAL COURT Fourth Judicial District of Kansas Anderson County Coffey County

More information

FILED December 8, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL

FILED 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 information

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY EDWARD A. JEREJIAN BERGEN COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER JUDGE HACKENSACK, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 527-2610 Fax Number: (201) 371-1109 Joseph M. Mark Counsellor at Law 200 John Street

More information

APPEARANCE, PLEA AND WAIVER

APPEARANCE, 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 information

GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS

GLOSSARY 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 information

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT NO. 2011-01'534 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE EMPIRE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL PURSUANT TO RULE 8 FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE ROCKINGHAM COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

More information

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 G UIDE T O C O URT

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 G UIDE T O C O URT 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 G UIDE T O T RAFFIC C O URT A G UIDE T O T RAFFIC C O URT Prepared and distributed as a Public Service by the

More information

General District Courts

General 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 information

Chapter 13 Procedure (Last Updated: May 13, 2013) Chapter 13.A Speedy Trial Chapter 13.B Recorded Interrogations

Chapter 13 Procedure (Last Updated: May 13, 2013) Chapter 13.A Speedy Trial Chapter 13.B Recorded Interrogations Chapter 13 Procedure (Last Updated: May 13, 2013) Chapter 13.A Speedy Trial Chapter 13.B Recorded Interrogations Chapter 13.A Procedure Speedy Trial (Last Updated: May 13, 2013) 29-1207. Trial within six

More information

Case 4:12-cr-00141-WTM-GRS Document 153 Filed 06/17/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

Case 4:12-cr-00141-WTM-GRS Document 153 Filed 06/17/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION a / Case 4:12-cr-00141-WTM-GRS Document 153 Filed 06/17/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION minimum mandatory No 5K1.1 No 35(b)No Appeal Waiver No

More information

HP0868, LD 1187, item 1, 123rd Maine State Legislature An Act To Recoup Health Care Funds through the Maine False Claims Act

HP0868, LD 1187, item 1, 123rd Maine State Legislature An Act To Recoup Health Care Funds through the Maine False Claims Act PLEASE NOTE: Legislative Information cannot perform research, provide legal advice, or interpret Maine law. For legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney. Be it enacted by the People of the

More information

Stages in a Capital Case from http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/

Stages 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 information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No. 14-0420 Filed May 20, 2015. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey A.

IN 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 information

COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS COMMONWEALTH SUPERIOR COURT RULES GOVERNING PROCEDURE IN TRAFFIC CASES TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE RULE

COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS COMMONWEALTH SUPERIOR COURT RULES GOVERNING PROCEDURE IN TRAFFIC CASES TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE RULE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS COMMONWEALTH SUPERIOR COURT RULES GOVERNING PROCEDURE IN TRAFFIC CASES TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE RULE 1. Scope, Purpose, and Construction... 1 2. Definitions...

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO FILED BY CLERK JAN 31 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, v. SCOTT ALAN COLVIN, Appellant, Appellee. 2 CA-CR 2012-0099 DEPARTMENT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

IN 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 information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT

More information

GUILTY PLEA and PLEA AGREEMENT United States Attorney Northern District of Georgia

GUILTY 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 information

FILED December 20, 2012 Carla Bender th

FILED December 20, 2012 Carla Bender th 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. 2012 IL App (4th 110482-U NO. 4-11-0482

More information

Florida Rules of Traffic Court Table of Contents

Florida Rules of Traffic Court Table of Contents Florida Rules of Traffic Court Table of Contents CITATIONS TO OPINIONS ADOPTING OR AMENDING RULES... 4 I. SCOPE, PURPOSE, AND CONSTRUCTION... 5 RULE 6.010. SCOPE... 5 RULE 6.020. PURPOSE AND CONSTRUCTION...

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN 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 information

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY LC2014-000424-001 DT 01/22/2015 THE HON. CRANE MCCLENNEN HIGHER COURT RULING / REMAND

SUPERIOR 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 information

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A11-0309. Court of Appeals Dietzen, J.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A11-0309. Court of Appeals Dietzen, J. STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A11-0309 Court of Appeals Dietzen, J. Laura Patino, Respondent, vs. Filed: September 26, 2012 Office of Appellate Courts One 2007 Chevrolet, VIN # 1GNFC16017J255427,

More information

Case 1:03-cr-00422-LEK Document 24 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 7. Petitioner, Respondent. MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER 1

Case 1:03-cr-00422-LEK Document 24 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 7. Petitioner, Respondent. MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER 1 Case 1:03-cr-00422-LEK Document 24 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PATRICK GILBERT, Petitioner, -against- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1:05-CV-0325 (LEK)

More information

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 17 1

NC 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 information

Your Guide to Illinois Traffic Courts

Your Guide to Illinois Traffic Courts Consumer Legal Guide Your Guide to Illinois Traffic Courts Presented by the Illinois Judges Association and the Illinois State Bar Association Illinois Judges Association Traffic courts hear more cases

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN 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 information

MARK PEREZ, APPELLANT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE STATE S BRIEF

MARK PEREZ, APPELLANT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE STATE S BRIEF Nos. 05-11-01575-CR and 05-11-01576-CR The State Waives Oral Argument 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 06/04/2012 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS MARK

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT M. OAKLEY DANIEL K. DILLEY Dilley & Oakley, P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana HENRY A. FLORES,

More information

NO. 05-11-00657-CR. GLEN FRAZIER, Appellant. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW

NO. 05-11-00657-CR. GLEN FRAZIER, Appellant. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO WITHDRAW NO. 05-11-00657-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 03/23/2012 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk GLEN FRAZIER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

More information

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellant, v. JAMES EARL CHRISTIAN, Appellee. Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-02-0233-PR Court of Appeals Division One No. 1 CA-CR 00-0654 Maricopa County Superior

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE LOUISE E. PINAULT. Submitted: April 9, 2015 Opinion Issued: July 15, 2015

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE LOUISE E. PINAULT. Submitted: April 9, 2015 Opinion Issued: July 15, 2015 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

Proposed New Pa.R.Crim.P and Revisions to the Comment to Pa.R.Crim.P. 462 INTRODUCTION

Proposed New Pa.R.Crim.P and Revisions to the Comment to Pa.R.Crim.P. 462 INTRODUCTION Proposed New Pa.R.Crim.P. 1037 and Revisions to the Comment to Pa.R.Crim.P. 462 INTRODUCTION The Criminal Procedural Rules Committee is planning to recommend that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania adopt

More information

In order to avoid the delay and expense of further proceedings and to promote the best

In order to avoid the delay and expense of further proceedings and to promote the best State of New Hampshire Board ofmedicine Concord, New Hampshire 03301 In the Matter of: Erol Onel, M.D. No.: 12433 (Misconduct Allegations) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT In order to avoid the delay and expense of

More information

NO.05-09-00055-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. JAMES PAUL DOWNEY, Appellant. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

NO.05-09-00055-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. JAMES PAUL DOWNEY, Appellant. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee NO.05-09-00055-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS JAMES PAUL DOWNEY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO.9 OF DALLAS

More information

THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, TOAN NGOC TRAN, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0487 Filed September 24, 2014

THE 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 information

STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, MIGUEL BARAJAS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, MIGUEL BARAJAS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT No. 100,785 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. MIGUEL BARAJAS, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. K.S.A. 21-4711(e) requires the district court to classify a

More information

42 4 1301. Driving under the influence driving while impaired driving with excessive alcoholic content definitions penalties.

42 4 1301. Driving under the influence driving while impaired driving with excessive alcoholic content definitions penalties. 42 4 1301. Driving under the influence driving while impaired driving with excessive alcoholic content definitions penalties. (1) (a) It is a misdemeanor for any person who is under the influence of alcohol

More information

DIVISION ONE. STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, JOHN F. MONFELI, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0126

DIVISION ONE. STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, JOHN F. MONFELI, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0126 IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOHN F. MONFELI, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0126 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. LC2012-000405-001 The Honorable

More information

FINAL ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND REVERSING IN PART TRIAL COURT. Alex Alexandre ( Appellant ) appeals his judgment and sentence dated January 9, 2012.

FINAL ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND REVERSING IN PART TRIAL COURT. Alex Alexandre ( Appellant ) appeals his judgment and sentence dated January 9, 2012. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE CASE NO: LOWER CASE NO.: 2012-AP-04-A-O 2011-MM-7008-A-O ALEX JUNIOR ALEXANDRE, v. Appellant, STATE OF FLORIDA,

More information

v. CASE NO.: 2010-CV-15-A Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-19076-O

v. CASE NO.: 2010-CV-15-A Lower Court Case No.: 2008-CC-19076-O IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA MAURICIO CHIROPRACTIC WEST, as assignee of Alesha Kirkland, Appellant, v. CASE NO.: 2010-CV-15-A Lower Court Case No.:

More information

VIRGINIA DUI FACTSHEET

VIRGINIA DUI FACTSHEET VIRGINIA DUI FACTSHEET BOSE LAW FIRM, PLLC Former Police & Investigators Springfield Offices: 6354 Rolling Mill Place, Suite 102 Springfield, Virginia 22152 Telephone: 703.926.3900 Facsimile: 800.927.6038

More information

... SALT.,LAKE.CITY JUSTICE COURT SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH. ~.f: STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ENTERING A 'GUlL TY PLEA NOTIFICATION OF CHARGES

... SALT.,LAKE.CITY JUSTICE COURT SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH. ~.f: STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ENTERING A 'GUlL TY PLEA NOTIFICATION OF CHARGES ,,, ~.f:... SALT.,LAKE.CITY JUSTICE COURT SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH., 0 ~ Name of Defendant Case Number. L STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ENTERING A 'GUlL TY PLEA z NOTIFICATION OF CHARGES.. '!i... /; I have received

More information

BASIC CRIMINAL LAW. Joe Bodiford. Overview of a criminal case Presented by: Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer

BASIC 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 information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE THOMAS ALBANESE, No. 654, 2011 Defendant Below, Appellant, Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for v. Sussex County STATE OF DELAWARE,

More information

No. 108,809 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, SHANE RAIKES, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

No. 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 information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth 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 information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 41435 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No. 41435 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 41435 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANDREY SERGEYEVICH YERMOLA, Defendant-Appellant. 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 348 Filed: February

More information

HOW A TYPICAL CRIMINAL CASE IS PROSECUTED IN ALASKA

HOW 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 information

NO. COA11-480 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 February 2012. 1. Motor Vehicles driving while impaired sufficient evidence

NO. COA11-480 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 February 2012. 1. Motor Vehicles driving while impaired sufficient evidence NO. COA11-480 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 7 February 2012 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Union County No. 10 CRS 738 DOUGLAS ELMER REEVES 1. Motor Vehicles driving while impaired sufficient evidence

More information