Court Filings

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment convicting Paul Dillon Brown of possession with intent to deliver fentanyl and sentencing him to life imprisonment. Brown argued the appointment order incorrectly found he could pay for counsel and that his life sentence was cruel and unusual. The court held no modification to the appointment order was needed because Brown later retained private counsel and was not ordered to pay appointed-counsel fees. The Eighth Amendment claim was not considered because Brown failed to present his motion for new trial to the trial court, so the issue was unpreserved.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth District of Texas affirmed the conviction of Jacoby Latraille Brown, who pleaded guilty to failure to comply with sex-offender registration requirements and was sentenced to eight years in prison. Counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no nonfrivolous appellate issues; the court independently reviewed the record and found no reversible error. The court did find nonreversible errors in the bill of costs: a prematurely assessed $60 time-payment fee, which it struck under Dulin, and a contested assessment of $682.50 in attorney fees, which the concurrence would also delete but the majority did not.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment revoking Gary Ladale Criston's community supervision for possession offenses and sentencing him to five years' imprisonment with a $1,550 fine. Criston had originally pleaded guilty to possessing less than one gram of cocaine and received a ten-year sentence suspended in favor of five years' community supervision. After the State alleged multiple violations, the trial court found the allegations true and revoked supervision. Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no arguable appellate issues; the appellate court independently reviewed the record and found no reversible error, granted counsel's motion to withdraw, and affirmed.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Akron Municipal Court conviction of Clifford Atkinson for domestic violence. Atkinson argued on appeal that the City presented insufficient evidence that the victim, L.H., was a family or household member. The appellate court reviewed the record de novo, applied Ohio precedent defining "cohabitation" and family/household status, and concluded L.H.'s testimony that Atkinson had lived with her for about a month or two, that they were boyfriend/girlfriend, and that she provided transportation and support, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the relationship met the ordinance's definition. The conviction and sentence were therefore affirmed.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Tonya Redmond’s conviction for felonious assault with a firearm specification and her aggregate seven-to-nine year prison sentence. Redmond was convicted after a jury trial for shooting a 62-year-old man who had been housing her; she claimed the gun discharged accidentally while she was trying to turn on a light. The appellate court rejected her challenges to limits on displaying a written definition of “knowingly” during opening statement, found the trial court erred in declining to instruct that accident can negate knowledge but held that error harmless, and concluded the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence given contradictory testimony and other evidence suggesting a knowing shooting.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s August 28, 2025 denial of Charles McRae’s motion for leave to file an untimely petition for postconviction relief. McRae sought to challenge his 2023 convictions and sentence based on various ineffective-assistance, plea, competency, and record-related claims. The appellate court held the petition was untimely under R.C. 2953.21, McRae did not show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts or rely on a new retroactive right under R.C. 2953.23, and his claims were barred by res judicata. The court also found no evidentiary materials showing entitlement to a hearing.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Martin Holloman’s convictions after a jury trial for failure to comply with a police order and theft. Holloman argued the trial court should have instructed the jury on the affirmative defense of duress because he fled when an officer allegedly used force during an attempted arrest. The appellate court held the evidence did not support duress: Holloman initiated the struggle by pulling away and reentering his vehicle, any alleged force was not constant or imminent, and his fear of future harm was not objectively reasonable. The court therefore found no abuse of discretion in refusing the instruction.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed Edward Zealor’s convictions for fifty counts of possessing child sexual abuse material. Zealor had moved to suppress evidence obtained after the Commonwealth used administrative subpoenas under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5743.1 to obtain subscriber and router log information tying his shared IP/port to torrent files containing child pornography. The court held Zealor lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the subscriber, payment, and IP/port/torrent connection data, and even if some non‑constitutional statutory overreach occurred, suppression is not an available remedy under the Act. The convictions and sentence were therefore affirmed.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the dismissal of Jason Harding’s first PCRA petition without an evidentiary hearing. Harding sought post-conviction relief asserting layered ineffective-assistance claims (trial, direct-appeal, and PCRA counsel) and other errors stemming from trial events (jury delay/mistrial, admission of a statement to police, counsel’s witness choices, and his decision to testify). The court found the claims either procedurally waived, meritless, or unprejudicial: the delay did not prejudice Harding, his custodial statement was a spontaneous utterance not requiring Miranda warnings, failure to call a particular witness would not have helped his self-defense case, and his decision to testify was knowing and voluntary.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed Hakime Cooper’s conviction and sentence after a bench trial. Cooper was convicted of retaliation against a witness/victim and harassment for threatening the victim in a courthouse hallway after the victim testified against her. The court held the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence because Cooper and two companions together made multiple threats, satisfying the statute’s requirement of a course of conduct or repeated threatening acts. The court therefore upheld Cooper’s six- to twelve-month sentence for retaliation; no additional penalty was imposed for harassment.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order dismissing two counts of a grand jury indictment against defendant Rony Zino. The charges—criminally negligent homicide and reckless driving—arose from an October 11, 2023 vehicle-pedestrian accident that resulted in the pedestrian's death. The court held the grand jury evidence, even viewed in the People’s favor, did not provide the prima facie proof required for those crimes because it failed to show the defendant engaged in the degree of blameworthy conduct or reckless disregard of consequences necessary for conviction.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court order designating Benjamin Williams a level two sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act. Williams pleaded guilty to possessing child sexual performance material; after a SORA hearing the court scored him 80 points on the risk instrument, denied his request for a downward departure from the presumptive risk level, and imposed the level two designation. The appellate court held the trial court properly exercised its discretion because the quantity, nature, duration of viewing, and sharing of images supported the assessed risk, and other claimed mitigating factors were either unpreserved or already accounted for by the Guidelines.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed defendant Troy Williams's conviction for first-degree manslaughter after a jury trial but reduced his sentence in the interest of justice. The court found the guilty verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, denied claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and held a claim that the People withheld Brady material must be raised in a CPL 440.10 motion because the supporting facts are dehors the record. Exercising its discretion, the court reduced the prison term from 15 years to 8 years (postrelease supervision unchanged) and otherwise affirmed the judgment.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the County Court judgment convicting Brian Whittaker, who pleaded guilty to first-degree reckless endangerment and criminal possession of a firearm and was sentenced. The court held Whittaker validly, knowingly, and voluntarily waived his appellate rights and his written waiver of prosecution by indictment was valid. Although he argued the plea allocution was factually insufficient and thus involuntary, that claim was unpreserved and without merit because the allocution demonstrated he understood the charges and knowingly entered the plea.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed two County Court judgments that convicted Orlando Ramsay on multiple drug- and weapon-related charges after he pleaded guilty. Ramsay argued his pleas were not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and raised ineffective-assistance claims, but the court found those claims unpreserved because he never moved to withdraw his pleas or raised the issue below. The court also held his plea allocution did not cast significant doubt on guilt, and the record independently shows the pleas were valid. Any ineffective-assistance claims not directly related to plea negotiations or sentencing were forfeited by the guilty pleas.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender following his guilty plea to attempted second-degree robbery, but modified the judgment by vacating the mandatory surcharge and crime victim assistance fee. The court concluded those monetary assessments must be set aside because recent legislative amendments (and subsequent state appellate authority) apply retroactively to youthful-offender dispositions and repeal mandatory surcharges and victim assistance fees for youthful offenders. All other aspects of the judgment, including the youthful offender adjudication and sentence, were left intact.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the County Court's denial without a hearing of Valery Latouche's 2024 CPL 440.47 motion to vacate his sentences and be resentenced under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (Penal Law § 60.12). The court held Latouche failed to submit the required corroborating evidence—at least two pieces, one of which must be a specified form of record—showing he was subjected to substantial domestic abuse at the time of the offenses and that such abuse significantly contributed to his criminal behavior. The panel modified the order to state the denial was without prejudice.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the conviction and sentence of defendant Christopher Iregui. Iregui pleaded guilty in Queens County Supreme Court to attempted burglary in the second degree and was sentenced on July 24, 2023. On appeal he challenged the judgment and the severity of his sentence, but the appellate court found the sentence was not excessive and therefore upheld the conviction and sentence without further modification.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant's convictions for second- and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon and the resulting sentence. The court reviewed the denial of the defendant’s suppression motion and found the officers observed the defendant with a gun before pursuing or seizing him, giving them reasonable suspicion and then probable cause. The court also held the defendant abandoned the gun by throwing it beneath a tree, so he lacked standing to challenge its seizure. Claims of incredible police testimony, ineffective assistance, and prosecutorial misconduct were either unpreserved or without merit.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant's 2019 conviction for criminal possession of a firearm following a guilty plea. The court reviewed the denial, without a hearing, of the defendant's omnibus motion to suppress physical evidence recovered during a traffic stop. The court found the defendant's written waiver of the right to appeal invalid but held that the suppression motion was properly denied without a hearing because the supporting papers were conclusory and did not allege sufficient facts to require a hearing. Unpreserved constitutional challenges to the gun statute were not considered.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the defendant's conviction for second-degree criminal possession of a weapon following a guilty plea and sentence. The defendant had challenged the search warrant and sought disclosure of an unredacted warrant application and hearing minutes to attack probable cause and the confidential informant's anonymity. The court upheld the trial court's redactions as necessary to protect the informant and, after reviewing the unredacted materials, concluded there was probable cause for the warrant and properly denied suppression of the recovered firearms.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Kings County Supreme Court judgment that adjudicated the defendant a youthful offender after a guilty plea to criminal possession of a firearm and imposed sentence. The defendant argued the conviction was unconstitutional, but the court held those constitutional challenges were not preserved because they were not raised below and declined to address them in the interest of justice. Because the court resolved preservation, it did not reach the defendant's remaining arguments.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant's conviction for second-degree criminal contempt following his guilty plea and sentence. The defendant appealed, and his assigned counsel submitted an Anders brief seeking permission to withdraw for lack of nonfrivolous issues. After conducting an independent review of the record, the court agreed there were no meritorious appellate issues and granted counsel's motion to withdraw, affirming the judgment of conviction.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed defendant Michael Barnett's conviction for petit larceny entered on his guilty plea, but modified the judgment by vacating the mandatory surcharge and fees that had been imposed at sentencing. The court relied on Criminal Procedure Law § 420.35(2-a) and recent Appellate Division decisions allowing waiver of such financial penalties for defendants who were under 21 at the time of the offense. The People consented to the modification, and the court exercised its interest-of-justice jurisdiction to relieve Barnett of the surcharge and fees while leaving the conviction and sentence otherwise intact.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment in the criminal case against James L. Hudson. The court issued a brief per curiam affirmance without additional comment, but explicitly noted that Hudson remains free to pursue a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The decision leaves the underlying conviction intact while preserving Hudson's right to seek postconviction relief through the appropriate rule-based motion in the trial court.

The appellate court (Florida Second District) reviewed an appeal by Troy Markeith Griffin, Jr. from a decision of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County. After considering the arguments and record, the court issued a per curiam decision simply stating the judgment is affirmed. No published opinion or extended reasoning appears in the document; the panel of judges concurred and the opinion is subject to revision before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order revoking Joshua Aaron Edwards's probation and the resulting sentence for his 2022 conviction for possession of a controlled substance. The court clarified that a defendant does not enter a "plea" to an alleged violation of probation but may admit the violation; the rules governing guilty pleas on charged offenses do not apply to violation proceedings. The court explained that an admission waives the State's burden to prove the violation, while the decision to revoke remains reviewable for abuse of discretion and the post-revocation sentence may also be reviewed.

The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision in a criminal case brought by the State of Florida against appellant Sophina Webb. The appellate panel, writing per curiam, held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a departure sentence. The court relied on controlling precedent that sentencing departures are discretionary and will be upheld on review unless the trial court clearly abused that discretion. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed Shakel Devon McClain’s convictions for attempted first-degree murder, carjacking with a deadly weapon, and fleeing or attempting to elude an officer. McClain argued the trial court wrongly admitted his text messages to his girlfriend from days before the crimes as improper character evidence. The appellate court held that even if admission of the messages was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because there was no reasonable possibility the messages contributed to the guilty verdicts, citing controlling harmless-error precedent.

The State of Florida appealed a county court decision concerning defendant Stephen Bryce Balsinger. The District Court of Appeal, Second District, reviewed the appeal and unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion is per curiam (unsigned) and provides no additional reasoning in the published entry. The panel—Chief Judge Lucas and Judges Sleet and Rothstein-Youakim—concurred. The decision is subject to possible revision before official publication.