Court Filings

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of Tyler Andrew Montoya for aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child. Montoya argued the trial court erred by admitting a video of his police interview without Miranda warnings and by denying his motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held the interview was noncustodial because Montoya came voluntarily, was told he could leave, was not restrained, and the questioning was not the functional equivalent of an arrest. The court also found no reasonable probability counsel’s choices altered the guilty verdict.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed Ricardo Isaac Alonso’s conviction for deadly conduct, a Class A misdemeanor, after a jury found him guilty of the lesser-included offense following a collision while he was fleeing law enforcement. Alonso argued the evidence was insufficient because the complainant’s vehicle, with bright lights, may have caused the crash. The court applied the standard that evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, upheld the jury’s credibility determinations, and found the combined evidence supported a reasonable inference that Alonso recklessly endangered the victim by driving into oncoming traffic while evading officers.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed Guy Dean Peele’s conviction for indecency with a child by sexual contact. Peele was tried by jury after a 2021 incident in which the complainant, then 14, accused him of touching her breasts while riding a four-wheeler and making sexually explicit remarks. On appeal Peele challenged sufficiency of the evidence, several evidentiary rulings, and the State’s closing argument. The court found S.S.’s testimony sufficient to support the verdict, held any hearsay error harmless because S.S. later testified, and deemed the remainder of Peele’s complaints unpreserved for appellate review.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Cody Tyler Morrow’s conviction for second-degree felony possession of fentanyl after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle. Officers found Morrow unconscious in his running car outside a closed store, smelled and observed marijuana in plain view, and then observed a baggie of hundreds of pills. The court held the officer was performing a community caretaking function in securing aid for an apparently incapacitated person and, based on the officer’s observations and experience, the contraband was in plain view and gave probable cause to seize it.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment revoking Antonio Lee Grey's deferred adjudication community supervision and adjudicating him guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Grey had pleaded true to a supervision violation at the revocation hearing; the trial court revoked supervision and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal and moved to withdraw; Grey did not file a pro se brief. The appellate court reviewed the record and concluded the appeal is frivolous and without merit, granted counsel's motion, and affirmed.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Delaware County Common Pleas Court's August 27, 2025 prison sentence for Adam Stone. Stone pleaded guilty to telecommunications fraud and attempted impersonation of a peace officer; the trial court imposed consecutive prison terms (36 months and 18 months). On appeal Stone argued the consecutive sentences were disproportionate and that the convictions should have merged as allied offenses. The appellate court found the trial court made the required statutory consecutive-sentence findings and that the two convictions arose from separate, distinct conduct, so it affirmed the sentence.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Shawn Atchley’s conviction for trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound following his arrest at a tavern. Officers found a handgun, $1,200, and about 1.5 grams of fentanyl divided into 11 tied baggies in Atchley’s sock. Atchley admitted possessing the drugs and firearm but insisted the fentanyl was for personal use and sharing, not sale. The court held the jury’s verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the drug packaging, officer testimony about trafficking indicators, and Atchley’s own admission about sharing supported the trafficking conviction.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Timothy A. Smith’s aggregate 88-month prison sentence imposed by the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas. Smith had pleaded guilty to weapons under disability, two counts of gross sexual imposition, and one count of retaliation as part of a plea agreement. On appeal he argued the trial court gave only cursory consideration to statutory sentencing factors. The appellate court held the trial court expressly considered the purposes of sentencing and listed the specific factors from R.C. 2929.12 it applied, sentenced within the statutory ranges, and therefore the sentence was not contrary to law.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Charles Flaherty’s convictions and sentences after review of multiple claims. The court rejected Flaherty’s challenges to evidentiary rulings, denials of pretrial motions asserting self-defense immunity and speedy trial violations, and the claim that the trial court failed to conduct a Faretta hearing. The appellate court also upheld sentences for two counts of attempted second-degree murder, finding no reversible error, but noted the defendant may still raise an improper reclassification sentencing claim in a post-conviction proceeding.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Josue Antonio Gurrola’s conviction for first-degree sexual assault of a child. Gurrola argued on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony from a clinical supervisor at a children’s advocacy center about the victim’s therapy, symptoms, and feelings during the guilt-innocence phase. The appeals court concluded Gurrola failed to preserve that complaint because he did not make contemporaneous, sufficiently specific objections at each contested point or obtain a running objection, so the court declined to address the merits and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeals of the Seventh District of Texas affirmed Tara Zoe Rios’s conviction for driving while intoxicated with a child passenger. Rios asserted she wanted to represent herself at a pretrial hearing but also demanded trial proceed that day; the visiting judge declined to allow self-representation that day and offered either to proceed to trial with appointed counsel or revisit self-representation later. Rios chose to proceed with counsel and went to trial, where she was convicted. The court held the trial judge did not abuse discretion and Rios effectively waived self-representation; assessed fines and costs were waived for indigence.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences of Justin Wayne Ortego, who was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a young child and three counts of indecency by contact based largely on text-message evidence recovered by his estranged wife and testimony from the victim. Ortego argued the phone evidence should have been suppressed and that the trial court erred by denying requests to have two defense witnesses testify remotely by Zoom. The court upheld the denial of suppression and concluded there is no general statutory, rule-based, or constitutional right to admit live remote testimony absent a specific statutory exception or proper procedure, so exclusion did not constitute reversible error.

The Court of Appeals of the First District of Texas affirmed the convictions of Justin Wayne Ortego for continuous sexual abuse of a young child and three counts of indecency by contact. Ortego challenged (1) denial of his motion to suppress text-message evidence his former partner, Jennifer, retrieved from his phone and (2) the trial court’s refusal to allow two defense witnesses to testify remotely via Zoom. The court held the phone-search evidence was admissible and that no statutory, rule-based, or constitutional right compelled admission of live remote testimony here, so exclusion was within the trial court’s discretion.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant Justin Wayne Ortego’s convictions for continuous sexual abuse of a young child and three counts of indecency by contact, and the trial court’s sentence (life plus three 20-year terms). The defendant challenged (1) denial of his motion to suppress evidence his wife found on his phone and (2) denial of his requests to have two defense witnesses testify remotely by Zoom. The court held the wife’s search did not trigger suppression and that trial courts have no general, enforceable right to admit live remote testimony absent a rule or statute, so denying Zoom testimony was not an abuse of discretion.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of Justin Wayne Ortego for continuous sexual abuse of a child and three counts of indecency by contact. Ortego challenged (1) the denial of his motion to suppress evidence his wife found on his phone and the trial court’s refusal to give an Article 38.23 jury instruction, and (2) the denial of his requests to have two defense witnesses testify remotely by Zoom. The court held the phone-search evidence was admissible and that there is no general statutory, rule-based, or constitutional right to require live remote testimony in criminal trials absent a specific statutory exception or agreement of the parties, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reviewed Jordan Potts’s conviction for murder and the Anders brief filed by his appointed counsel asserting the appeal is frivolous. After independent review of the full record and noting Potts received notice and the chance to file a pro se response (he did not), the court concluded there are no arguable grounds for reversal. The court affirmed the trial-court judgment sentencing Potts to 45 years, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and directed counsel to notify Potts of the result and file proof of that notice.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed Marcelino Rebollar’s convictions and sentences. After a jury convicted Rebollar of two counts of aggravated child molestation and one count of child molestation, he appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for one aggravated-child-molestation count, trial counsel’s effectiveness for not requesting a lesser-attempt charge, and the constitutionality of consecutive life sentences. The court found the evidence sufficient, concluded counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy and not shown to be deficient, and held the sentencing claim was unpreserved because it was not raised at sentencing. The convictions and sentences were affirmed.

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Fulton County Common Pleas Court’s June 5, 2025 judgments sentencing James Pontious to an aggregate 24-month prison term. Pontious was convicted after a bench trial of tampering with evidence for submitting an Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous meeting sign-in sheet he knew to be false and intended to mislead his probation officer. The appeals court rejected arguments that trial errors, discovery violations, admission of testimony, insufficiency and weight of the evidence, and Miranda problems required reversal, finding any evidentiary errors harmless and the proof sufficient and not against the manifest weight.

The court affirmed the trial court’s revocation of Edward Bobby Martinez’s community supervision for indecency with a child by sexual contact and the imposition of his ten-year sentence, but it modified the judgment and bill of costs to remove language permitting future assessment of court-appointed attorney’s fees. The court held that Martinez’s refusal to submit to an instant-offense polygraph—required by his sex-offender treatment—constituted a violation of supervision because his Fifth Amendment privilege no longer applied to the final, adjudicated offense. Because Martinez has been found indigent, the court deleted any prospective attorney-fee assessment.

The Ohio Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court's September 16, 2025 sentence of five consecutive one-year prison terms (aggregate five years) after Matthias Merritt Lewis pleaded guilty to five counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor. Lewis challenged only his sentence, arguing the record did not support the statutory findings for consecutive terms and that the trial court improperly considered societal harms of child pornography. The appellate court found the record, including Lewis’s admissions about two years of viewing and trading images across multiple platforms and the graphic nature of the materials, supported consecutive sentences and that considering societal impact was authorized by statute.

The appellate court affirmed Jennifer Hefner’s convictions and sentences from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. Hefner was convicted after a jury trial of complicity to aggravated burglary, complicity to kidnapping, burglary, and having weapons while under disability (several counts merged at sentencing). The court found the State presented sufficient evidence—including phone records, surveillance, witness testimony, and Hefner’s own statements—that she knowingly assisted or encouraged the home invasion and related assaults. The court also rejected challenges to the denial of Crim.R. 29 acquittal, weight-of-the-evidence claims, and an ineffective-assistance claim regarding joinder of two cases for trial.

The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed Andrew Myers’ conviction for operating a vehicle while under the influence of a listed controlled-substance metabolite. Myers was stopped for speeding early on the morning of December 30, 2023; police observed signs of impairment, conducted field sobriety tests, arrested him, and obtained a urine sample showing marijuana metabolite. Myers moved to suppress the field test results and the urine test results; the trial court denied suppression. On appeal the court found the officer had reasonable suspicion to expand the stop, the officer substantially complied with sobriety-test standards, and the lab substantially complied with Ohio health regulations, so the convictions and sentence were affirmed.

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the Van Wert County Common Pleas Court. Ryan E. Houser pleaded no contest to murder (Count Two) under a plea agreement; other counts were dismissed. Houser had sought to withdraw his plea before sentencing and moved to suppress cloud-based cellphone data. The trial court denied his motion to withdraw and denied suppression; on appeal the court held the warrant was sufficiently particular and supported by a probable-cause nexus to the phone and associated cloud data, and alternatively police relied in good faith on the warrant. The appellate court therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence.

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the Henry County trial court's judgment in State v. Grond. Ashley Grond pleaded guilty to amended aggravated trafficking (a second-degree felony); the trial court sentenced her to 6–9 years, waived the statutory fine due to indigence, but imposed statutory court costs and stayed collection until 60 days after release. Grond argued the court erred by ordering costs without findings on her ability to pay or specifying which costs. The appellate court held the trial court complied with statutory duties: courts must impose costs and may—but are not required to—make ability-to-pay findings when denying waiver.

The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the Auglaize County Municipal Court’s September 11, 2025 conviction of Abdullah M. Alqahtani for speeding. Alqahtani challenged admission of radar evidence, argued insufficient and against-the-weight evidence, and sought a continuance for additional discovery. The court held the trooper’s testimony and a radar certification provided adequate, case-specific proof of the device’s accuracy and operator qualifications, rejected claims of manifest-weight error, and found no abuse of discretion in denying a continuance because the State had provided the available discovery.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals granted the State's motion for reconsideration, vacated its earlier February 27, 2026 opinion, and affirmed the trial court's judgment revoking Jeffrey Heath's community control and imposing prison terms totaling 12–15 years. The court held that the trial court's September 2023 sentencing sufficiently notified Heath that prison terms (up to 20 years total across the counts) could be imposed upon violation of community control, and that the court properly reserved prison terms consistent with current R.C. 2929.19(B)(4). The court also held consecutive sentences were permissible under the circumstances because there was no existing prison term at the time the reserved terms were imposed.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Terry L. Bickerstaff’s conviction for third-degree felony assault arising from an incident in a Mansfield Correctional Institution segregation recreation cell. The jury found that Bickerstaff swung through the bars at a corrections officer, J.N., and the court held the State presented sufficient evidence that he attempted to cause physical harm and that the victim suffered at least minor physical injury. The court relied on statutory language that assault includes attempts and on the victim’s testimony and bodycam footage to conclude a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

A jury convicted Jordan Stephens of misdemeanor driving while intoxicated after police stopped his truck following a citizen’s 911 call reporting erratic driving. Officers observed signs of intoxication (odor of alcohol, glassy eyes), found empty alcohol bottles in the vehicle, and administered standardized field sobriety tests on which Stephens performed poorly. Stephens argued on appeal that errors in test administration and other explanations could account for observations, but the court found the combined evidence — eyewitness report of dangerous driving, officer observations, test performance, admissions about drinking, and refusal of blood testing — sufficient to support the conviction and affirmed.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed William Freeman’s convictions on four counts of child molestation. Freeman had initially been appointed counsel but requested to represent himself; the trial court held a thorough Faretta hearing, found his waiver of counsel knowing and voluntary, and later an amended indictment added two additional like charges. Freeman argued on appeal the court should have re-inquired after the amended indictment and failed to ensure he understood the risks of self-representation. The appellate court found the original Faretta hearing adequate, no post-waiver request for counsel was made, and the amended charges did not change the nature or maximum exposure, so the waiver remained valid.

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed Nancy Jean Taylor’s 30-month prison sentence for felony theft from a person in a protected class. Taylor had pleaded guilty to stealing $7,504 from an elderly client and received a presentence investigation and restitution hearing. She argued on appeal that the trial court misapplied sentencing factors and that the sentence was excessive. The appeals court held the sentence was within the statutory range, the trial court indicated it considered the required sentencing statutes, and therefore the sentence was not contrary to law.