Court Filings

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Matthew Larkins’s convictions for malice murder and related offenses arising from the August 4, 2016 shooting death of Shanna Smith. Larkins challenged sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions about a testifying co-defendant’s out-of-court statements, ineffective assistance for failing to object to a judge’s remark to jurors, admission of alleged co-conspirator hearsay, and the prosecutor’s initial closing argument. The Court found the evidence strong and any instructional or evidentiary errors harmless, trial counsel’s choices reasonable, and Georgia law permits the prosecutor’s opening; therefore the convictions and sentence were affirmed.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed David William Kelly’s convictions for the 2017 shooting death of his wife. Kelly challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, voir dire limits, hearsay rulings (including use of the residual hearsay exception), admission of certain testimony, and multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court reviewed the trial evidence in detail, found the forensic and witness evidence supported the jury’s verdict, held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting challenged testimony under OCGA § 24-8-807, and concluded Kelly failed to show deficient performance or prejudice from his attorneys’ actions. The convictions and sentence were affirmed.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Deon Altron Ellison’s convictions for felony murder and a firearm offense arising from the 2023 fatal shooting of his cousin. Ellison challenged the convictions on four grounds: inconsistent verdicts, prosecutorial misconduct involving a key witness, improper limitations on jury selection, and denial of a mistrial after closing argument. The Court held that any perceived inconsistency in the verdicts did not require reversal, the record did not show that the prosecution knowingly elicited false testimony or suppressed material evidence, the voir dire objection was not preserved, and the mistrial/closing-argument claim was also unpreserved. The convictions and sentence were therefore affirmed.

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Bobby Crawford’s conviction for malice murder arising from the beating death of his roommate, Timothy Walker. After a jury trial and the denial of his amended motion for new trial, Crawford appealed, arguing the evidence was constitutionally insufficient because the State failed to disprove self-defense and raising three trial-court-error claims. The Court held the evidence — including eyewitness testimony, physical and autopsy findings, and Crawford’s own testimony — allowed a rational jury to reject his self-defense claim. Any error admitting a 2001 other-acts conviction was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed John Bailey’s convictions, including life without parole for felony murder predicated on kidnapping. Bailey argued his trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress cell-phone records obtained via a Google search warrant that he said lacked probable cause and particularity. The Court assumed, without deciding, that counsel might have been deficient but found no prejudice because the record does not show that any evidence from the challenged Google warrant was used at trial. Cell-site and carrier records used at trial came from Sprint/T-Mobile and other carrier records, undermining Bailey’s claim of a different outcome.

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's April 14, 2025 sentencing of Paul Tunison to a total of 36 months' imprisonment and restitution after he pled guilty to multiple theft offenses, including thefts involving victims in a protected class. Tunison argued on appeal that the sentencing hearing recording was incomplete, violating Crim.R. 22 and preventing meaningful review, and asked for resentencing. The appellate court held the trial court had a duty to record but Tunison failed to use App.R. 9 to reconstruct the missing portions or show material prejudice, so any error was waived and the judgment was affirmed.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed Andrew Symington’s 11-month prison sentence for a fifth-degree felony theft after a guilty plea. The trial court considered but rejected community control, citing factors including economic harm, that the offense was for hire, and Symington’s prior felony conviction and prior prison term. The appellate court found those findings supported by the record and concluded that even if the court erred in labeling the conduct organized crime or “for hire,” other valid statutory findings (notably Symington’s prior felony and prison term) independently authorized a prison sentence, making any error harmless.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Wood County Common Pleas Court’s June 27, 2024 judgments denying John E. Gebrosky’s consolidated petitions for post-conviction relief in two criminal cases. Gebrosky argued his trial lawyers were ineffective and that the trial court erred by applying res judicata, denying counsel appointment, and refusing an evidentiary hearing. The court held some claims were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised on direct appeal, but acknowledged other ineffective-assistance claims relied on evidence outside the trial record. After reviewing the affidavits, reports, and trial record, the court concluded the remaining claims did not raise substantive grounds for relief and that no hearing or appointed counsel was required.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Jody Jones's petitions for postconviction relief in six consolidated Richland County felony cases. Jones had pleaded guilty in multiple indictments and later claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to share discovery, unlawful stops/searches, and unreliable drug testing. The appellate court held most claims were forfeited or barred by res judicata because they could have been raised earlier or were contradicted by the record (including the guilty pleas and provided discovery). The court found no abuse of discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Richland County Common Pleas Court's convictions and sentence of Charles R. Feagin. Police initiated a traffic stop after officers observed a lane violation while conducting surveillance; subsequent events led to a 12-count indictment for drug and related offenses. The trial court denied Feagin’s motion to suppress, he pleaded no contest to all counts, and received an aggregate sentence of 37 to 42.5 years. The appeals court held the trial court reasonably credited officer testimony, found the suppression and sentencing rulings supported by the record, and rejected ineffective-assistance claims for lack of record support.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Anzar Thompson's conviction and two-year sentence for attempted second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. Thompson challenged the stop-and-frisk as unsupported by reasonable suspicion based on a 911 caller's information; the court held the claim was unpreserved and declined review in the interest of justice, but alternatively rejected the challenge on the merits. The court found the 911 tip reliable because it included identifying details (partial name and callback number), a detailed description and location, and accurate vehicle information corroborated by the officer's observations, which together supplied reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment of the New York County Supreme Court in People v. Imbert. The appeals challenged a criminal conviction and sentence imposed on March 28, 2023. After briefing and oral argument, the appellate panel reviewed the record, considered counsel's arguments, and concluded the sentence was not excessive. The court therefore upheld the trial court's judgment and denied relief to the defendant, issuing a short unanimous order affirming the judgment on April 21, 2026.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Victor Jimenez Cespedes's conviction and eight-year sentence for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree. The court reviewed the jury verdict and found it was not against the weight of the evidence, crediting the jury's credibility determinations. Key facts supporting conviction were that defendant entered an undercover officer's car carrying a box containing over 6,000 fentanyl pills, acted as the courier in a negotiated $25,000 transaction, and admitted he would receive $2,000. The court held these facts supported an inference that he knew the box's contents and rejected his testimonial denial.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Gary W. Lucas, Jr.'s appeal from a Duval County circuit court criminal case. The panel issued a per curiam decision on April 21, 2026, and concluded the appeal lacked merit, affirming the judgment below. No published opinion or extended reasoning accompanied the single-line disposition; the court simply announced AFFIRMED and recorded concurrence by the three judges. The decision is subject to any timely post‑opinion motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Carl Joseph Johnson's appeal from Seminole County circuit court criminal proceedings and, in a brief per curiam decision dated April 21, 2026, affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion contains no extended explanation or reasoning, and the panel (Chief Judge Jay and Judges Eisnaugle and Boatwright) issued a unanimous affirmance. The mandate is subject to timely post-judgment motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment in the criminal case of Brent Paul Venrooy v. State of Florida. The opinion is per curiam, dated April 21, 2026, and provides no published reasoning beyond the single-word disposition "AFFIRMED." The panel of judges (Lambert, Soud, Boatwright) concurred. The decision notes the case came from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County and that any timely post-opinion motions under Florida appellate rules may still be filed.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Viswanauth Somwaru's appeal from the trial court's denial of a postconviction motion under Florida Rule 3.850. After briefing and oral argument, the appellate court issued a short, per curiam decision on April 21, 2026, holding that the lower court's ruling would be affirmed. The opinion contains no extended reasoning in the published entry; it simply affirms the circuit court's disposition and notes the panel members who concurred.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in the criminal case of Matthew Lucas Wade. The appeal arose from a conviction in Citrus County circuit court and was argued by Wade's public defenders against the State. The per curiam opinion contains no published reasoning beyond the court's conclusion to affirm. All three panel judges concurred and the opinion notes that the decision is not final until any timely authorized post-judgment motions are resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Christine Marie Lackey's appeals from three circuit-court criminal cases in Sumter County. After considering the record and briefs, the panel issued a unanimous per curiam decision affirming the judgments below. The opinion contains no extended discussion or legal analysis; it simply announces that the appellate court affirms the trial-court rulings. Judges Wallis, Harris, and Maciver concurred, and the opinion notes the decision is not final until any timely post-opinion motions are resolved.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in the criminal matter involving Keith Taurus Hamlet, Sr. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Orange County. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion—stating only 'AFFIRMED'—with three judges concurring and without published reasoning in the opinion excerpt provided. The defendant represented himself on appeal; the State was represented by the Attorney General's office.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Colbert Cherubin from a Polk County circuit court decision and, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion contains no extended discussion, reasoning, or explanation beyond the court's unanimous decision to affirm. The panel consisted of Judges Smith, Brownlee, and Kamoutsas, and counsel for both sides are noted. The decision was entered April 21, 2026, and is subject to the normal deadline for a motion for rehearing.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed a criminal appeal by Aron Rodriguez-Villasana from the Polk County circuit court under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The court issued a per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, affirming the lower court's judgment. No separate written opinion or explanation of reasoning is provided in the published entry; the panel of three judges concurred. The decision becomes final when the time to file a motion for rehearing expires or any filed rehearing motion is resolved.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed Wesley Bunsee's appeal from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County and issued a per curiam decision on April 21, 2026. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment without published opinion. The panel (Roberts, Ray, and Treadwell, JJ.) concurred, and the opinion notes that the judgment is not final until any timely post-judgment appellate motions are resolved. Counsel for both parties are listed in the record.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Wesley Bunsee from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The appellate court issued a short, per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, concluding simply: AFFIRMED. No opinion explanation or discussion of the issues appears in the published entry; the judgment of the lower court therefore stands. The panel consisted of Judges Roberts, Ray, and Treadwell, and counsel for the parties are noted in the filing.

The First District Court of Appeal reviewed Robert D. Allen's appeal from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County. After considering the record, the appellate court issued a per curiam decision on April 21, 2026, affirming the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief: it announces affirmation without published opinion or extended explanation, and the three-judge panel concurred. The decision noted that it is not final until any timely authorized post-judgment appellate motions are resolved.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Terry L. Young's appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County and issued a per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026. The court affirmed the lower court's decision. The short opinion contains only the disposition (affirmed), notes that the opinion is not final until the rehearing period expires, and records that Young appeared pro se while the State did not file a responding appearance.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed a County Court judgment in a criminal/procedural matter. The appeal was filed by Kendrick Tyron Perry, Sr., pro se, from a decision of the County Court for Lee County (Judge Devin S. George). The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 21, 2026, concluding the lower-court judgment should stand. No detailed reasoning, facts, or issues are provided in the published entry beyond the affirmance and the court of appeal judges concurring.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Justus Pierce's appeal from a Lee County circuit court criminal matter and affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion is per curiam, brief, and provides no extended reasoning in the published text. The panel (Traver, C.J., White and Gannam, JJ.) voted to affirm the judgment below. The decision was issued April 21, 2026, and counsel for both parties are identified in the filing.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed Jamal T. Jackson’s appeal from the circuit court in Orange County and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The opinion is per curiam, brief, and provides no published reasoning beyond affirmance. The appeal was taken pursuant to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and the panel affirmed the judgment below. The court noted the usual rehearing period and that the decision is not final until that period expires and any timely rehearing is resolved.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the trial court's decision in the criminal case of Casey Lynn Hennings. The appeal arose from proceedings in the Circuit Court for Orange County. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion, concluding there was no reversible error warranting relief. No separate written opinion or reasoning was published; the court affirmed the lower court's ruling and the panel members concurred.