Court Filings

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.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Columbiana County Common Pleas Court judgment convicting Davante L. Jackson after he entered a no-contest plea to multiple drug and evidence-tampering charges. Jackson argued his trial counsel was ineffective for withdrawing a suppression motion without his knowledge and that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent. The appeals court found the record does not show deficient performance or prejudice from counsel’s withdrawal of the motion, and the trial court substantially complied with plea procedures and ensured Jackson understood his rights and the plea consequences. The conviction and sentence (total 5½ to 7½ years) were affirmed.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Kenneth Lewis’s postconviction application for DNA testing of a long-sleeved shirt recovered after a 2020 pawnshop robbery. The court concluded a prior DNA test by BCI was definitive because it showed Lewis was the major contributor of DNA on the shirt, and Lewis did not present evidence that prior testing was unreliable or that new testing would be outcome determinative. The court also relied on strong corroborating evidence (surveillance video, eyewitnesses, officer recovery of the shirt, license plate identification, cash and items on Lewis, and a jailhouse confession).

The Superior Court considered James Smith’s challenge to the sufficiency of evidence for two convictions of unlawful contact with a minor after the Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Strunk. The Court concluded Smith’s verbal statements to the victims — instructing them to perform oral sex and directing one to lie on a table immediately before assaulting her — were communications that induced or otherwise furthered sexual exploitation and therefore satisfied the statute’s communicative requirement. The court affirmed Smith’s convictions and judgment of sentence.

The Superior Court affirmed Jonathan Rivera’s convictions and sentence following his second jury trial for multiple sexual offenses against four minor girls. Rivera argued the trial court vindictively imposed a longer sentence after he successfully appealed his first convictions and that applying a later-enacted felony grading to one corruption-of-minors count violated the ex post facto clauses. The court found a presumption of vindictiveness attached but held it was rebutted by objective new information at resentencing (an SVP designation, victims’ updated testimony and impact, and Rivera’s trial testimony showing lack of remorse). The court also found the record supported offenses occurring after the statute’s effective date, so no ex post facto violation occurred.

A jury in McLean County convicted Kevon Moon of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and obstructing justice based on circumstantial evidence tying him and co-defendant James to firearms and conduct surrounding an October 12, 2020 shooting. On appeal Moon argued (1) ineffective assistance for not objecting when the State impeached its own witness with prior recorded inconsistent statements, (2) that a video showing him rapping and dancing with a firearm was unduly prejudicial, and (3) it was error to allow a lead detective to sit at the State’s counsel table. The appellate court affirmed, finding the recorded statements were admissible as substantive evidence, the video was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial, and the court properly exercised its discretion to permit the detective at counsel table.

The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Appellate District of Texas reviewed Dustin Eric Rubio’s appeal after he pleaded guilty and was convicted of multiple sexual offenses and related counts. Rubio received lengthy prison terms totaling consecutive and concurrent sentences. His appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous. After an independent review of the record, the court agreed the appeal lacked any nonfrivolous grounds, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The opinion explains the court performed the required frivolity review under Anders and related precedent.

The Texas Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed Derek Joseph Daigneault’s conviction and life sentence for the murder of his cousin, Mandy Rose Reynolds. The court rejected Daigneault’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, reasoning that cumulative circumstantial evidence — including his possession of Mandy’s car and handgun, video and cell‑phone location data, purchases of items matching debris at the burn site, a high‑speed flight in Mandy’s car, and ballistic matches — supported a rational juror’s finding he shot Mandy and burned her body. The court also upheld the trial judge’s exclusion of proffered “alternate perpetrator” evidence as speculative and lacking the required nexus to the crime.

The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment revoking Juan David Garcia’s deferred-adjudication community supervision for sexual assault of a child, adjudicating him guilty, and sentencing him to seven years’ imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating there were no arguable grounds for appeal; the court independently reviewed the record, found no reversible error, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. The opinion instructs counsel to notify Garcia of the decision and his right to seek discretionary review and explains procedural steps for further review.

The Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction and twelve-year sentence for Ashley Lynette Salinas following a revocation of deferred adjudication community supervision for burglary of a habitation. The dispute centered on whether prior trial counsel misinformed Salinas about which drug treatment program she had agreed to attend (Journey Recovery Center versus the county Substance Abuse Treatment Facility). The court found the record supported the trial court’s disbelief of Salinas’s claim because she signed an amended order explicitly requiring SATF participation and acknowledged the modification, so her ineffective-assistance claim failed under governing standards.

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences of Anthony Schultz after a jury found him guilty on multiple counts arising from a re-indictment: two counts of sexual assault of a child, three counts of improper relationship between educator and student, and one count of solicitation of prostitution of a minor. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting there were no arguable grounds for appeal; the court conducted an independent review of the record and found no reversible error. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw and directed counsel to notify Schultz of his right to seek discretionary review.

The Court of Appeals affirmed appellant Luis Gerardo Lugo Pena’s conviction and fifteen-year sentence for aggravated robbery. Pena argued the trial court erred by not holding a hearing under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.22 to determine the voluntariness of his police statement and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found any failure to hold the hearing was harmless because the recorded statement was largely cumulative of other properly admitted evidence and there was no evidence the statement was involuntary; similarly, counsel’s conduct did not fall below professional standards or prejudice the defense.

The First District of Texas affirmed Jason Jermaine Armster’s 55-year murder conviction and $10,000 fine. Armster challenged three rulings: denial of his motion to suppress a custodial statement, admission of testimony about past bad acts, and the trial court’s refusal to give a sudden-passion instruction at punishment. The court found the statement admissible because Armster himself reinitiated conversation after invoking counsel and then knowingly waived his right; any error admitting extraneous-act testimony was harmless given overwhelming evidence; and the record did not minimally support sudden passion as an affirmative mitigating finding.

The court of appeals reviewed Billy Jack Barrera’s conviction for felony cruelty to animals after his lawyer filed an Anders brief asking to withdraw because the appeal was frivolous. The record shows Barrera was convicted by a jury based on eyewitness testimony and photographic and veterinary evidence of injuries inflicted with a machete. After conducting an independent review of the record, the court concluded there were no arguable grounds for appeal, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s four-year sentence and costs.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed John Paul Ortega’s conviction and life-without-parole sentence for capital murder in the deaths of Iliana Garza and her unborn child. Ortega challenged the sufficiency of the evidence as to the unborn child’s death and argued the jury charge was erroneous for including self-defense in the abstract but not in the application paragraph. The court found the evidence sufficient because Ortega knew Garza was pregnant and a jury could infer he knew killing her was reasonably certain to kill the fetus. The court also found the charge error non-egregious given the evidence and arguments, so the conviction stands.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed Fred Gonzales’s conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and the resulting 25-year sentence. Gonzales argued his trial lawyer was ineffective for not showing him a dash-cam video before he rejected a misdemeanor plea offer and that the trial court erred by refusing a hearing on his motion for new trial. The court found the record did not affirmatively show deficient performance, and Gonzales failed to prove prejudice under the standard for plea-negotiation claims. The court also held the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying a hearing on the motion for new trial.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed Charles Wright’s conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to sexual battery and two counts of endangering children. Wright claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel did not ask the trial court to state the elements of sexual battery during the plea colloquy and did not move to withdraw his plea after Wright made statements at sentencing that he now contends were protests of innocence. The court found counsel’s performance was not deficient and Wright failed to show prejudice: the plea was knowing and voluntary and a withdrawal motion would not have succeeded.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed Mark Moore’s conviction for third-degree domestic violence following a bench trial. The case arose from the defendant’s mother reporting that Moore shoved her into a refrigerator door on February 28, 2025. The trial court credited the victim’s testimony, medical records, and photographs over Moore’s denial that he assaulted his mother. On appeal Moore argued the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, but the appeals court found the trial court, as factfinder, reasonably resolved credibility disputes and did not clearly lose its way.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed a 17-to-20 year aggregate prison sentence imposed on defendant-appellant Dameon Kijanski after he pled guilty to multiple felonies arising from a November 29, 2024 shooting of two teens. The trial court ordered three counts to run consecutively (two felonious-assault counts for separate victims and one having-weapons-while-under-disability count) and the remaining counts concurrent. The appeals court held the record supported the required statutory findings for consecutive sentences — including multiple victims and the defendant’s criminal history — and applied the deferential standard of review to affirm.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Arto D. Green III’s postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea and rejected his ineffective-assistance claim. Green had pled guilty to aggravated robbery with a one-year firearm specification and was sentenced under the Reagan Tokes Law to a minimum of seven up to ten years. He later argued he suffered mental-health problems at the time of plea and that counsel failed to investigate or seek transfer to the court’s mental-health docket. The appellate court found the record did not show qualifying mental-health issues or prejudice from counsel’s actions, and no manifest injustice or need for an evidentiary hearing was shown.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence of Augustus G. Frazier, IV for murder, felonious assault, and having weapons while under disability arising from the August 8, 2023 killing of Alexander Eaton. The jury convicted Frazier of murder and related firearm specifications after trial; two weapons counts were tried to the bench. The court held the evidence — eyewitness testimony of a codefendant, corroborating video, GPS data, tattoos, and forensic findings — was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence. The court also rejected claims of improper jury guidance, an improper complicity instruction, and ineffective assistance of counsel.