THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, DANNY BROWN JR., Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR Filed August 27, 2014
|
|
- Rafe Richard
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. DANNY BROWN JR., Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR Filed August 27, 2014 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR The Honorable Scott Rash, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General Joseph T. Maziarz, Section Chief Counsel, Phoenix By David A. Sullivan, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Isabel G. Garcia, Pima County Legal Defender By Scott A. Martin, Assistant Legal Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Kelly authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Howard and Judge Brammer 1 concurred. K E L L Y, Presiding Judge: 1 Danny Brown appeals from his conviction and sentence for aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant (DUI) with a suspended driver s license. Specifically, Brown challenges the trial court s rulings denying his motions to dismiss two charges against him and to suppress evidence obtained after police violated his right to consult with an attorney. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction and sentence. Factual and Procedural Background 2 We consider only the evidence before the trial court at the time of its suppression rulings, and view that evidence in the light most favorable to upholding those rulings. State v. Hausner, 230 Ariz. 60, 23, 280 P.3d 604, 614 (2012). At around 3:15 on a December morning, a Tucson police officer initiated a stop after observing a vehicle driven by Brown exceed the posted speed limit by fifteen miles per hour. The officer activated his emergency lights and siren, but Brown did not stop the vehicle immediately. Eventually, he made a wide turn and pulled over, striking and running over the curb with one tire. 3 When the officer approached the driver s side of the vehicle, he noticed Brown had [a] strong odor of intoxicants; watery, bloodshot eyes; [and] slurred and thick-tongued speech. Despite repeated requests by the officer, Brown refused to provide his license, registration, or insurance, bec[ame] increasingly irate, 1The Hon. J. William Brammer, Jr., a retired judge of this court, is called back to active duty to serve on this case pursuant to orders of this court and the supreme court. 2
3 and used racial slurs toward the officer. During this rant, Brown said he wanted a lawyer and told the officer [y]ou might as well just take me to jail. When Brown got out of the car, he stagger[ed] and stumbl[ed] and the officer had to hold him up to keep him from falling over. Brown was arrested at 3:20 a.m. for failure to identify himself. 4 Police officers took Brown to the police substation and, at 4:10 a.m., read to him the admin per se/implied consent form. 2 After Brown refused to give consent for a blood draw, an officer obtained a telephonic search warrant for a blood sample. Because Brown remained uncooperative and violent despite having been informed that officers had a search warrant, officers placed him in leg restraints and, after Brown submitted at around 5 a.m., two vials of his blood were drawn. Officers provided him with a vial for an independent test. Officers did not follow-up with Brown about his request for an attorney, and did not provide him the opportunity or means to call one. 5 Brown was charged with one count each of aggravated driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of.08 or more while his license was suspended (the BAC charge), aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant with a suspended license (the DUI charge), fleeing from a law enforcement vehicle, and aggravated assault on a peace officer. 3 Before trial, he filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the DUI and BAC counts and to suppress evidence obtained following the alleged violation of his right to counsel. After a hearing, the trial court denied both 2An admin per se/implied consent form informs detainees of the consequences under Arizona law of refusing to submit to and complete an officer s choice of scientific test for intoxication. See State v. Gaffney, 198 Ariz. 188, 3, 8 P.3d 376, 377 (App. 2000); see also A.R.S The aggravated assault charge was based on the allegation that Brown had attempted to bite the officer during the traffic stop. Brown was found not guilty of the aggravated assault and fleeing charges, and neither is relevant to this appeal. 3
4 motions. It concluded that even if Brown had been denied the opportunity to consult with an attorney, there was no nexus between the denial of the right to counsel and the drawing of the blood in this particular case. 6 Brown filed a motion for reconsideration, urging the trial court to revisit its ruling. The court, finding good cause for further argument and reflection on [its] prior ruling, agreed to hear additional arguments and subsequently granted the motion to suppress evidence of Brown s refusal to submit to the blood test and the blood alcohol evidence obtained after Brown was denied an opportunity to speak with an attorney. The court denied Brown s motion to dismiss the DUI and BAC charges, concluding the violation of Brown s right to counsel did not interfere with [his] ability to obtain exculpatory evidence because [he] had access to a separate test tube of his blood that [he] could have chosen to have independently tested. The state moved to dismiss the BAC charge and the court granted the motion. 4 7 Following a jury trial, Brown was convicted of the DUI charge and sentenced to a 4.5-year term of imprisonment. 5 He 4The BAC charge was dismissed without prejudice. Because the charge potentially could be refiled, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 16.6, we address Brown s challenge to the trial court s denial of his motion to dismiss the charge with prejudice. See also A.R.S ; Short v. Dewald, 226 Ariz. 88, 20, 244 P.3d 92, 96 (App. 2010), citing State v. Boehringer, 16 Ariz. 48, 51, 141 P. 126, 127 (1914) ( An order of dismissal without prejudice... is no bar to the prosecution of another suit timely commenced, founded upon the same cause of action. ). 5Although the minute entry pronouncing Brown s sentence states he was found guilty of the BAC charge, the transcript from the sentencing hearing states he was found guilty of the DUI charge only. The trial court s oral pronouncement controls the sentencing minute entry, and is consistent both with its ruling dismissing the BAC charge and the jury s verdict. See State v. Lopez, 230 Ariz. 15, n.2, 279 P.3d 640, 643 n.2 (App. 2012). 4
5 timely appealed, challenging the trial court s rulings on his motions to dismiss the DUI and BAC charges and suppress any evidence including non-physical evidence obtained after the violation of his right to counsel pursuant to Rule 6.1, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We have jurisdiction over Brown s appeal pursuant to A.R.S (A)(1) and (A)(1). Discussion 8 Rule 6.1 provides that a suspect is entitled to the advice of counsel as soon as feasible after [he] is taken into custody. This rule recognizes the federal and state constitutional right to counsel. Kunzler v. Superior Court, 154 Ariz. 568, 569, 744 P.2d 669, 670 (1987). But police may interfere with a suspect s access to an attorney if allowing such access would unduly delay the DUI investigation. Id. (when suspect s exercise of right to counsel will hinder ongoing investigation, right must give way in time and place to the investigation by the police ). If police deny a DUI suspect the opportunity to exercise his right to counsel, the state must prove the police investigation would have been impeded had the suspect been allowed to consult with counsel at the time of his request. State v. Penney, 229 Ariz. 32, 13, 270 P.3d 859, 862 (App. 2012). 9 After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Brown requested an attorney during the traffic stop. Although Brown did not renew[] his request to speak with an attorney, police never sought to clarify his request or provide Brown with the opportunity to contact an attorney. The court found the state did not show that allowing Brown to confer with counsel after he had been detained at the substation would have interfered with the police investigation. Because neither Brown nor the state have challenged these findings on appeal, the only question we must address is whether the court s choice of remedy for the violation suppression of the admin per se and blood-alcohol evidence was error. 10 We review for an abuse of discretion the trial court s choice of remedy for the violation of a defendant s right to confer with counsel. State v. Rosengren, 199 Ariz. 112, 9, 14 P.3d 303, 307 5
6 (App. 2000). We defer to the court with respect to its determination of facts but review de novo its legal conclusions. State v. Brown, 233 Ariz. 153, 4, 310 P.3d 29, 32 (App. 2013). Whether evidence should have been excluded as a result of the deprivation of counsel is a mixed question of fact and law that we review de novo. State v. Rumsey, 225 Ariz. 374, , 238 P.3d 642, (App. 2010), quoting State v. Hackman, 189 Ariz. 505, 508, 943 P.2d 865, 868 (App. 1997). We will affirm the court s ruling if it is correct for any reason. State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133, 51, 42 P.3d 564, 582 (2002). 11 Brown argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the DUI and BAC charges. In the alternative, he claims the court abused its discretion by failing to suppress the non-blood test evidence collected after the violation of [Brown] s right to counsel. In support of his arguments, Brown cites State v. Rosengren, 199 Ariz. 112, 14 P.3d 303 (App. 2000), which upheld the trial court s ruling suppressing all evidence obtained following a right-to-counsel violation. Rosengren was arrested for DUI following a single-vehicle accident that resulted in the death of his passenger. Id. 2, 5. Although paramedics at the scene did not detect signs of impairment, Rosengren admitted he had been drinking alcohol and was taken to the hospital so police could obtain a blood sample. Id. 2, 4. Rosengren asked to contact his father, an out-of-state attorney, but police refused, allowing him instead to contact a local attorney. Id. 4. Rosengren declined, and refused to give a blood sample. Id. After he performed a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, officers arrested Rosengren for DUI. Id An hour after his arrest, police obtained a telephonic search warrant and took two samples of Rosengren s blood. Id. 6. Rosengren subsequently was charged with manslaughter. Id. 6, 7. Claiming that his rights to due process and to consult with counsel had been violated, Rosengren filed a motion to dismiss the charge with prejudice. Id. 7. The trial court found police had violated his right to consult with counsel of his choice in a situation where such would not interfere with the investigation and suppressed the results of the blood and HGN tests, Rosengren s refusal to submit to the blood test, and all observations of and statements by Rosengren that occurred after he arrived at the hospital. Id. 7. 6
7 13 On appeal, we determined that violation of the right to counsel and the concomitant due process right to gather independent evidence of sobriety requires outright dismissal only when the violation of right to counsel has foreclosed a fair trial by preventing [the defendant] from collecting exculpatory evidence no longer available. Id. 17, 19, quoting McNutt v. Superior Court, 133 Ariz. 7, 10, 648 P.2d 122, 125 (1982) (alteration in Rosengren). We recognized the importance of gather[ing] evidence relevant to intoxication close in time to when the defendant allegedly committed the crime. Otherwise, any alcohol that may have been in the blood will have decomposed before the blood can be tested. Id. 12, quoting McNutt, 133 Ariz. 7, n.2, 648 P.2d at 125 n We stated that such evidence may include not only chemical or other scientific evidence, such as a blood or breath test,... but also other forms of potentially exculpatory evidence, such as observations by non-police witnesses of a suspect s physical appearance and function. Id., quoting State ex rel. Webb v. City Ct. of City of Tucson, 25 Ariz. App. 214, 216, 542 P.2d 407, 409 (1975). We concluded that although Rosengren might have lost the opportunity to gather additional exculpatory evidence in the form of examinations by medical personnel or lay witnesses or investigators and close-up videography of [his] person and face, he was not forever left without exculpatory evidence in the form of testable blood and favorable observations by non-police witnesses. Id. 15, 16. We thus held the trial court did not err by determining that the manslaughter charge against Rosengren need not be dismissed but suppressing the evidence obtained after the violation of Rosengren s right to counsel. Id. 7, 16, Brown maintains that Rosengren stands for the proposition that it is the interference with the ability to amass all kinds of potentially exculpatory evidence of which an independent blood sample is only one example that compels the dismissal of the charge when the police interfere with a DUI suspect contacting his attorney. Had he been able to contact an attorney, he claims, the attorney could have arranged for one or more non-police witnesses to rebut the officer s assertions regarding Brown s behavior, and could have simply advised [Brown] to cease being 7
8 combative and noncooperative. We do not agree that Rosengren requires dismissal of the BAC and DUI counts. 16 As we stated in Rosengren, dismissal is required only when the interference with a defendant s right to counsel prevented him from gathering exculpatory evidence such that a fair trial was not possible. 199 Ariz. 112, 17-19, 14 P.3d at 309; see also McNutt, 133 Ariz. at 10, 648 P.2d at 125; Rumsey, 225 Ariz. 374, 15, 238 P.3d at 647. When the interference does not impinge on a defendant s ability to collect exculpatory evidence, the proper remedy is suppression. Rumsey, 225 Ariz. 374, 15, 238 P.3d at 647; see also State v. Juarez, 161 Ariz. 76, 81, 775 P.2d 1140, 1145 (1989); Kunzler, 154 Ariz. at 570, 744 P.2d at 671; but see State v. Holland, 147 Ariz. 453, 456, 711 P.2d 592, 595 (1985) (dismissal required when conviction direct result of violation of right to counsel). 17 Here, the violation of Brown s right to counsel did not deny him the opportunity to gather exculpatory evidence. As in Rosengren, Brown was provided with a vial of his blood for independent testing. 199 Ariz. 112, 16, 14 P.3d at 309. Brown also had two non-police witnesses at the scene his brother and a female passenger who potentially could have provided exculpatory evidence. 6 Brown did not call either passenger as a witness at trial, nor did he have the blood evidence tested. 7 His failure to do so undermines his argument that police violated his right to assistance of counsel in gathering exculpatory evidence. See State v. Transon, 186 Ariz. 482, 485, 924 P.2d 486, 489 (App. 1996) (questioning sincerity of defendant s argument police interfered with his right to 6The record does not indicate that officers prevented Brown s passengers from witnessing the stop and arrest, and Brown does not so allege. 7It is the defendant s responsibility to arrange an independent test; any difficulties he encounters in attempting to obtain a blood test must have been created by the state in order to find unreasonable interference. Van Herreweghe v. Burke, 201 Ariz. 387, 10, 36 P.3d 65, 68 (App. 2001). 8
9 counsel for assistance in gathering exculpatory evidence in light of defendant s repeated refusal to submit to breathalyzer, and absence of any indication of desire for independent testing). 18 Additionally, Brown was entitled to an attorney only if the exercise of that right would not interfere with the police investigation. Kunzler, 154 Ariz. at 569, 744 P.2d at 670. The trial court concluded that his right to an attorney would not have interfered with the investigation once he was being held at the substation. As a remedy, the court excluded physical evidence obtained after he was held there. Brown has failed to demonstrate how obtaining counsel after that point would have yielded potentially exculpatory evidence beyond that already available to him. We conclude Brown was not denied the opportunity to gather exculpatory evidence such that the possibility of a fair trial was foreclosed, and the court did not err in refusing to dismiss the charges against him. See Rosengren, 199 Ariz. 112, 16, 35, 14 P.3d at 309, We next turn to Brown s second argument that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to suppress the nonblood test evidence collected after the violation of Brown s right to counsel. Although the court suppressed all blood evidence and evidence of the admin per se form, Brown again relying on Rosengren urges that other statements by and alleged observations of Brown following the violation of his right to counsel at the substation also should have been suppressed. He urges us to remand for a new trial on the DUI charge, to preclude the arresting officer from testifying that Brown continued to be combative, uncooperative, [and] aggressive at the substation, and to preclude the prosecutor from arguing that these behaviors were alcohol related. 20 In Rosengren, we stated that the state should not be permitted to present a one-sided story on the issue of impairment by utilizing incriminating evidence obtained after the violation of [Rosengren s] right to counsel. Id. 28. Assuming this principle applies to the evidence that Brown s combative, uncooperative, [and] aggressive behavior continued after the violation of his right 9
10 to counsel, 8 we conclude that any error in admitting the evidence was harmless. See State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 18, 115 P.3d 601, 607 (2005) (we review issues preserved for appeal for harmless error, which requires state to prove beyond reasonable doubt error did not contribute to or affect verdict or sentence); State v. Beasley, 205 Ariz. 334, 27, 70 P.3d 463, 469 (App. 2003) (even if trial court abused discretion, we may affirm if error harmless beyond reasonable doubt). 21 To convict Brown of aggravated DUI, the state was required to demonstrate that Brown, while his driver s license was suspended, was in actual physical control of a vehicle... [w]hile under the influence of intoxicating liquor and impaired to the slightest degree. A.R.S (A)(1) and (A). The uncontested evidence presented at trial showed that prior to the right-to-counsel violation at the sub-station, Brown had been speeding and weaving in his lane of traffic; had failed to notice the officer s lights and siren; had made a wide turn before driving onto the curb while attempting to stop; had exhibited [w]atery, bloodshot eyes, [a] strong odor of intoxicants[,] and slurred speech ; had displayed verbally and physically aggressive behavior; and had staggered and stumbled while walking. The officer identified 8Rosengren is one of the few cases addressing the suppression of non-physical evidence as a remedy for the violation of a DUI defendant s right to counsel. Most cases are concerned instead with appropriate sanctions related to non-testimonial, physical evidence obtained following the violation of that right. See, e.g., State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 68-69, 94 P.3d 1119, (2004) (noting Arizona cases have mandated either dismissal of charges or suppression of non-testimonial, physical evidence [of intoxication] as a sanction for the state s violation of a defendant s rights under Rule 6.1); Rumsey, 225 Ariz. 374, 16, 238 P.3d at 647 (when right to counsel violated, even if fair trial possible, Arizona courts have suppressed breath- or blood-alcohol testing results as consequence of violation); State v. Keyonnie, 181 Ariz. 485, 487, 892 P.2d 205, 207 (App. 1995) ( suppression of the breath test results appropriate remedy for violation of right to counsel when state did not interfere with defendant s ability to gather exculpatory DUI evidence). 10
11 several of these acts and behaviors as known cues of alcohol impairment. This evidence was sufficient to support Brown s conviction for aggravated driving under the influence. See (A)(1) and (A). We conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that any error in admitting the evidence obtained following the violation of Brown s right to counsel did not contribute to or affect the verdict. See Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 18, 115 P.3d at 607. Disposition 22 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Brown s conviction and sentence. 11
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
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 informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, MICHAELANGELO GUTIERREZ GARCIA, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2012-0206 Filed November 6, 2013
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MICHAELANGELO GUTIERREZ GARCIA, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2012-0206 Filed November 6, 2013 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
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 OF
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 informationIN 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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) No. 1 CA-CR 10-0766 ) Appellant, ) DEPARTMENT E ) v. ) O P I N I O N ) MICHAEL KEVIN PENNEY, ) ) Appellee. ) ) ) Appeal from the
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellee, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO FILED BY CLERK SEP 13 2007 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, v. ALBERT BRION URIAS, Appellee, Appellant. 2 CA-CR 2006-0241 DEPARTMENT
More informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, GUILLERMO E. COONEY, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2012-0061 Filed November 8, 2013
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. GUILLERMO E. COONEY, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2012-0061 Filed November 8, 2013 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, VI ANN SPENCER, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0804
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. VI ANN SPENCER, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 13-0804 Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County No. V1300CR201280372 The Honorable
More informationIN 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 informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, MICHAEL JOHN GRIJALVA, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0051 Filed February 17, 2015
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MICHAEL JOHN GRIJALVA, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0051 Filed February 17, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, TEMA FINGI, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 14-0043
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationIN 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 informationTHE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, JOHN MICHAEL BOURQUE, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0098 Filed November 19, 2014
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JOHN MICHAEL BOURQUE, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2013-0098 Filed November 19, 2014 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT
More informationHow To Find A Guilty Verdict In An Accident Accident Case In Anarazona
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 informationN.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 informationSTATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE PHILIP ROGERS, Pro Tem Justice of the Peace of the SOUTH
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 25, 2011. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-10-00525-CR WILLIAM HOWARD CAVE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Criminal
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO
FILED BY CLERK IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO JUL 31 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) 2 CA-CR 2011-0346 ) DEPARTMENT B v. ) ) O P I N I O
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc STATE OF ARIZONA, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CR-08-0292-PR Appellee, ) ) Court of Appeals v. ) Division One ) No. 1 CA-CR 07-0696 JESUS VALVERDE, JR., ) ) Maricopa County
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 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 informationMARCELLO ARBIZO III, Petitioner/Appellee, AMANDA SHANK, Respondent/Appellant. No. 2 CA-CV 2014-0166 Filed September 18, 2015
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO MARCELLO ARBIZO III, Petitioner/Appellee, v. AMANDA SHANK, Respondent/Appellant. No. 2 CA-CV 2014-0166 Filed September 18, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE
More informationcompetent substantial evidence. Florida Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Luttrell,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA MICHAEL SASSO, CASE NO. 2014-CA-1853-O v. Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, v. Petitioner, HON. HOWARD HANTMAN, Judge of the Superior Court, in and for the County of Pima, and ALLAN CLYDE RIEDEL, Respondent,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER LEROY GONZALES, Appellant. 1 CA-CR 02-0971 DEPARTMENT D O P I N I O N Filed 12-2-03 Appeal from the Superior
More informationSUPERIOR 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 informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOSHUA ALLEN KURTZ Appellant No. 1727 MDA 2014 Appeal from the
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2010). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-1959 State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Andre
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 A13-2263 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Greer
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Respondent, APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO STATE OF ARIZONA, Petitioner/Appellant, HON. CHARLES SHIPMAN, Judge of the Green Valley Justice Court, in and of the County of Pima, v. and THOMAS
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. 05-13-01004-CR. NICOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed December 22, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01004-CR NICOLAS STEPHEN LLOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 24, 2011
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 24, 2011 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SHAWN DALE OWNBY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County No. 14548-III Rex
More informationNO. 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 informationSTATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, BRENT ALEXANDER HARGOUS, Appellant. No. 1 CA-CR 12-0706
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE
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 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 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 A13-1698 Brian Jeffrey Serber, petitioner, Respondent,
More informationNo. 2 CA-CV 2014-0086 Filed January 21, 2015
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE $170.00 U.S. CURRENCY; 2012 HARLEY DAVIDSON MOTORCYCLE, REG. AZ/JGMC3Z No. 2 CA-CV 2014-0086 Filed January 21, 2015 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appellee, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MARCOS ANTONIO HERRERA, Appellant. 2 CA-CR 2001-0371 DEPARTMENT A O P I N I O N APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No. 13-1967 Filed February 11, 2015. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Cynthia Moisan,
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 13-1967 Filed February 11, 2015 JOHN B. DEVORE JR., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County,
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner/Appellee,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner/Appellee, v. THE HONORABLE RONALD KARP, Justice of the Peace Pro Tempore,
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL LAW
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL LAW COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : vs. : NO: 272 CR 2011 : KEITH NORBIN MCINAW, : Defendant : Michael S. Greek, Esquire Eric J. Conrad,
More informationFILED 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 informationHow To Get A New Trial On A Drug Charge In A Federal Court In Arizona
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 OF
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE, ) ) ) Case No. 1305003287 v. ) ) KHAMIS A. ALDOSSARY, ) ) Defendant. ) Submitted: January 15, 2014
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2002
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2002 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DERRICK S. CHANEY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Williamson County No. II-22-201
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc DENNIS WAYNE CANION, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CV-04-0243-PR Petitioner, ) ) Court of Appeals v. ) Division One ) No. 1 CA-SA 04-0036 THE HONORABLE DAVID R. COLE, )
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Docket No. 108189. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. JORGE NUNEZ, Appellant. Opinion filed March 18, 2010. JUSTICE GARMAN delivered the judgment
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc STATE OF ARIZONA, ) Supreme Court ) No. CR-00-0569-PC Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) v. ) Pima County ) Superior Court CHRISTOPHER JOHN SPREITZ, ) No. CR-27745 ) Defendant-Petitioner.
More informationVIRGINIA 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 informationTitle 28 Vehicular Crimes
Title 28 Vehicular Crimes 28.622.01 Unlawful Flight From Pursuing Law Enforcement Vehicle The crime of unlawful flight from a pursuing law enforcement vehicle requires proof of the following three things:
More informationDRINKING AND DRIVING OFFENCE
What to do if you are charged with a DRINKING AND DRIVING OFFENCE This booklet is not about provincial Motor Vehicle Act penalties for drinking and driving. This guide explains what normally happens when
More informationCOURT 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 THE STATE OF TEXAS, v. JAVIER TERRAZAS, Appellant, Appellee. No. 08-12-00095-CR Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 of El Paso County, Texas
More informationISBA CLE PRESENTATION ON DUI POINTS OF INTEREST March 8, 2013 Judge Chet Vahle, Betsy Bier & Jennifer Cifaldi FACT SCENARIOS AND QUESTIONS
ISBA CLE PRESENTATION ON DUI POINTS OF INTEREST March 8, 2013 Judge Chet Vahle, Betsy Bier & Jennifer Cifaldi I. DUI Cannabis or Drugs FACT SCENARIOS AND QUESTIONS A. Causal connection when unlawful substances
More information2013 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**************************************** 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 informationDUI Enforcement. Timothy J. Dorn, Chief of Police. Effective: 12-21-98 Approved By: Supersedes: 904, Rev. 02-13
-- DUI Enforcement Effective: 12-21-98 Approved By: Supersedes: 904, Rev. 02-13 Timothy J. Dorn, Chief of Police A. Initial Investigation 1. Officers will use the field sobriety test (FST) work sheet on
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 informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA COUNSEL: THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Petitioner/Appellant, v. JOSEPH COOPERMAN, Respondent/Appellee. No. CV-12-0319-PR Filed August 5, 2013 Special Action from the
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A08-1670 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Theodore
More informationHow To Decide If A Man Can Be Convicted Of A Dui
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 2000 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTHONY ROBERTS Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 98-T-431 Frank G. Clement, Jr.,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO. v. : T.C. NO. 2007 TRC 2065
[Cite as State v. Swartz, 2009-Ohio-902.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 2008 CA 31 v. : T.C. NO. 2007 TRC 2065 ROBERT W. SWARTZ : (Criminal
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA STATE OF ARIZONA EX REL. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE HARRIETT CHAVEZ, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
More informationHow To Get A Re Check On A Datamaster
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 3-801 / 12-2221 Filed October 23, 2013 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TONY GENE LUKINS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for O Brien
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc. ) No. CR-07-0127-PR Appellee, ) ) Court of Appeals v. ) Division Two ) No. 2 CA-CR 05-0272 )
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc STATE OF ARIZONA, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CR-07-0127-PR Appellee, ) ) Court of Appeals v. ) Division Two ) No. 2 CA-CR 05-0272 ) GARY EDWARD COX, ) Pima County )
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 informationTRAVIS LANCE DARRAH, Petitioner,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE TRAVIS LANCE DARRAH, 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 informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-1296. Shawn Michael O'Connell, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-1296 Shawn Michael O'Connell, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. Filed January 12, 2015 Affirmed Bjorkman, Judge Hennepin County District
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY STATE OF DELAWARE, v. ID No. 1408013012 JOSE G. LOPEZ-MONCADA, Defendant. ORDER Defendant has moved for a modification of the
More informationState v. Melk, 543 N.W.2d 297 (Iowa App., 1995)
Page 297 543 N.W.2d 297 STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Daniel John MELK, Appellant. No. 94-277. Court of Appeals of Iowa. Nov. 27, 1995. David E. Brown of Hayek, Hayek, Brown & Engh, L.L.P., Iowa City, and
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 information2014 IL App (2d) 140489-U No. 2-14-0489 Order filed November 12, 2014 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
No. 2-14-0489 Order filed November 12, 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 allowed under Rule
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE JOSE CARRILLO, No. 1 CA-SA 09-0042 Petitioner, DEPARTMENT D v. O P I N I O N THE HONORABLE ROBERT HOUSER, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
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 informationCHANDLER POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDERS Serving with Courage, Pride, and Dedication
CHANDLER POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDERS Serving with Courage, Pride, and Dedication Order Subject G-01 TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 500 DUI Effective 12/28/12 A. POLICY [61.1.5] [61.1.11] 1. A DUI SUSPECT WILL
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc RYAN JOHN CHRONIS, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CV-08-0394-SA Petitioner, ) ) Maricopa County v. ) Superior Court ) No. CR2008-006808-001 DT HON. ROLAND J. STEINLE, JUDGE
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 informationNo. 105,863 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, RUSSEL RICKERSON, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 105,863 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. RUSSEL RICKERSON, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Section 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights guarantees
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: TERESA D. HARPER Bloomington, Indiana PATRICK J. ARATA Arata Law Firm Fort Wayne, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana MATTHEW
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 informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON April 1, 2014 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON April 1, 2014 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KEVIN CORTEZ CHRYSTAK Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. 12-550 Nathan B. Pride, Judge
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 informationSTATE of Idaho, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, Petitioner- Respondent, v. Jane DOE I, Respondent-Appellant.
In the Matter of Jane Doe, a minor Child, STATE of Idaho, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, Petitioner- Respondent, v. Jane DOE I, Respondent-Appellant. [Cite as State, Department of Health and Welfare
More informationDA 09-0067 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2009 MT 387
November 12 2009 DA 09-0067 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2009 MT 387 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LISA MARIE LEPROWSE, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 7, 2003 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 7, 2003 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DELBERT EUGENE OREY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Carroll County No. 01CR1769 Roy Morgan,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc STATE OF ARIZONA, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CR-10-0306-PR Appellant, ) ) Court of Appeals v. ) Division Two ) No. 2 CA-CR 2008-0342 RANDALL D. WEST and PENNY A. ) WEST,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA STATE OF ARIZONA EX REL. SHEILA SULLIVAN POLK, YAVAPAI COUNTY ATTORNEY, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE CELÉ HANCOCK, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
More information2015 IL App (4th) 140121-U NO. 4-14-0121 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT
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 140121-U NO. 4-14-0121
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as N. Royalton v. Turkovich, 2013-Ohio-4701.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99448 CITY OF NORTH ROYALTON PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs.
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CAITLIN MICHELE SCHAEFFER, CASE NO.: 2014-CA-001818-O v. Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY
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 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 informationAPPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Winnebago County: ROBERT HAWLEY, Judge. Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED June 11, 2003 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in
More information2015 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 informationHow To Prove That A Suspect Can Ask For A Lawyer
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Elder, Frank and Millette Argued at Alexandria, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. MARTIN MEMORANDUM OPINION BY v. Record No. 0035-07-4 JUDGE LeROY F. MILLETTE, JR. APRIL
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: MAY 2, 2014; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2012-CA-000371-MR GREGORY JERMAIN LANGLEY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE
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 informationv. CASE NO.: 2007-CA-13354-O Writ No.: 07-60 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, DIVISION OF DRIVER LICENSES,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STEPHEN SMITH, Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: 2007-CA-13354-O Writ No.: 07-60 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY
More information