Court Filings

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Cory Tanner from a decision of the Circuit Court for Leon County. The appellate court issued a per curiam opinion on April 30, 2026, and affirmed the lower court's decision without published opinion. The panel (Rowe, Nordby, and Long, JJ.) concurred. The opinion notes that the judgment is not final until the time for certain post‑opinion motions under Florida appellate rules has passed.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Jonathan Adam Jones's appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Jackson County. The appellate panel issued a per curiam decision on April 30, 2026, and affirmed the lower court's decision. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published in this entry; the court simply announced affirmance with Judges Ray, Winokur, and Treadwell concurring. The mandate may issue after disposition of any timely post-judgment motions under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Chandler Washington's appeal from a Leon County circuit court decision and, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is terse: the panel announced its decision to affirm without extended explanation. All three judges concurred, and the opinion notes the ruling is not final until any timely, authorized rehearing motions are resolved. Chandler Washington appeared pro se; the State was represented by the Attorney General's office.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the county court's decision in a criminal matter. Thomas Souffrant appealed a judgment from Broward County (case no. 062023MM006736A88810). After review, the appellate court, per curiam, concluded the lower court's ruling should be upheld and entered an affirmance. The opinion was brief, without published reasoning, and the court noted the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment below in a criminal case. The appeal by Stravious B. Johnson from his conviction/sentencing in the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County, was reviewed and the appellate panel unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion is per curiam, with concurrence from all three judges. The opinion does not state detailed reasoning in the published entry and notes the decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's rulings in two consolidated criminal cases brought by the State of Florida against Hector Calderon. The appeal was taken from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's disposition without published opinion; the decision remains subject to a timely motion for rehearing. No additional reasoning or factual discussion appears in the opinion.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in the criminal case of Carlensky Deneville. The appeal was taken from a conviction or judgment entered in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion simply stating 'Affirmed' without published reasoning, with three judges concurring. The opinion notes it is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a criminal case in which James William Chaney appealed his conviction or sentence. The appeal arose from the Circuit Court for Lake County before Judge Brian J. Welke. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision on April 30, 2026, simply stating 'AFFIRMED' with all judges concurring, and provided no published opinion or extended reasoning in the decision document provided.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed multiple consolidated appeals in which the State challenged rulings involving defendant Jadarius Brown. After consideration, the court issued a per curiam opinion on April 30, 2026, affirming the lower court's decision. The opinion is brief: it affirms the judgment of the trial court without published opinion or extended explanation, and the three-judge panel concurred. The mandate is subject to any timely rehearing motions under Florida appellate rules.

The California Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence of Cary Anthony Stayner for the murders of Carole Sund, her daughters’ friend Silvina Pelosso, and 15-year-old Juli Sund, and related kidnapping. After a jury convicted Stayner of three counts of murder and one count of kidnapping, found multiple special circumstance allegations true, found him sane, and the jury fixed penalty at death, the trial court denied motions for new trial and sentence modification. The high court reviewed guilt, sanity, and penalty-phase claims and concluded the record did not establish reversible error, affirming the judgment in full.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed Deair R. Wray’s convictions for murder, felonious assault, and improperly discharging a firearm after a jury trial in Summit County. The court reviewed Wray’s four assignments of error — sufficiency of the evidence, manifest weight, jury-question instruction, and speedy-trial claim — and found no reversible error. The court held the testimony of cooperating witnesses, GPS ankle-monitor data, victim and neighbor testimony, and other evidence permitted the jury to find Wray was the shooter. The court found counsel waived the speedy-trial claim and that credibility disputes did not merit reversal.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Summit County Common Pleas Court's judgment against Dezmond Gainer. Gainer pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea deal to trafficking in cocaine with forfeiture specifications and possession of a fentanyl-related compound; other charges were dismissed. After sentencing to 5 to 7.5 years and forfeiture orders, Gainer obtained leave for a delayed appeal. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no nonfrivolous issues exist and moved to withdraw; Gainer indicated he prefers to raise an ineffective-assistance claim in post-conviction proceedings. The appellate court independently reviewed the record, found no meritorious direct-appeal issues, granted counsel's motion, and affirmed.

The court affirmed Thurmell Maley’s conviction for public indecency after a bench trial where an officer observed her with her pants and underwear pulled down, urinating at a busy bus stop. The officer’s testimony and body-worn camera showed her exposed buttocks in an area with heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic, satisfying the statute’s requirement that the conduct was likely to be viewed by and affront others. Because the trial court’s journal entry mistakenly listed the offense as a third-degree misdemeanor, the case is remanded for a clerical correction to reflect a fourth-degree misdemeanor conviction.

The Ohio First District Court of Appeals affirmed Demarius Jester’s conviction for resisting arrest (R.C. 2921.33(A)). The municipal court struck Jester’s motion to suppress as untimely; the appellate court held that striking the motion did not constitute an abuse of discretion because the motion was filed after the Crim.R. 12(D) deadline and the State’s late disclosure of additional body-worn camera footage occurred after the motion was filed. The court also upheld admission of an officer’s testimony about computer-generated warrant information as non-hearsay evidence of the officer’s belief, and found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

The court affirmed the municipal-court judgments dismissing misdemeanor charges against Darryl Brown because his statutory right to a speedy trial was violated. Brown was arrested November 8, 2024; discovery problems (a missing 9-1-1 call) and the State’s delayed response led to multiple continuances and a motion to compel. The trial court found the State caused significant delay, sanctioned the State, and ultimately dismissed the complaints after calculating that more than 90 days had run. The appellate court held the continuances necessitated by the State’s discovery failures were chargeable to the State and affirmed.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgments against Samantha Huff. Huff had pleaded guilty in three consolidated Richland County cases (drug possession, failure to comply with police, and OVI) and later admitted violations of community control after pleading guilty to a first-degree heroin possession charge. She argued her plea was involuntary because she had professed innocence and the court failed to perform an enhanced inquiry for an Alford plea, and that the probation violation was unsupported. The appellate court found the record showed a knowing, voluntary plea with a factual basis and sufficient evidence to revoke community control, so it affirmed.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Kings County Supreme Court judgment adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender after he pleaded guilty to second-degree criminal possession of a weapon and imposing sentence. The defendant argued that the youthful-offender adjudication violated his Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights, but the appellate court found those constitutional claims unpreserved for review and declined to decide them in the interest of justice. Consequently, the lower court's judgment was affirmed without addressing the merits of the constitutional challenges.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed defendant Jaquan Oden’s conviction for disorderly conduct under Penal Law § 240.20(3) after a jury trial. Oden was acquitted of a separate disorderly conduct count under § 240.20(6) that alleged failure to disperse. The court rejected arguments that the conviction was legally insufficient or against the weight of the evidence because the disputed dispersal order was an element only of the acquitted charge, not the conviction. The court also found defense counsel effective and upheld the denial of a mistrial, concluding the prosecutor’s improper remark was cured by immediate instructions to the jury.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a County Court order designating Daniel Morrison a level three sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Morrison, convicted after jury trial of first‑degree sexual abuse and two counts of second‑degree murder, argued for a lower risk level based on mitigating factors. The court held the argument was unpreserved because he did not request a downward departure at the SORA hearing, and in any event he failed to meet the legal standard for a downward departure from the presumptive level three classification.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the County Court conviction and sentence of Daryl K. Miller for attempted sexual abuse in the first degree after Miller pleaded guilty. The court found Miller knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, and that valid waiver bars review of his claim that the sentence was excessive. Because the appeal waiver was valid, the appellate panel declined to review the sentencing challenge and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the County Court.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the sentence imposed on Mario Lazu after his guilty plea. The defendant appealed only on the ground that the sentence was excessive, but the court concluded he had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal. Because the appeal waiver was valid, the court found it could not consider the challenge to the sentence and therefore affirmed the lower court's June 27, 2023 sentence.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed defendant Clyde Johnson’s convictions for three counts of forcible touching and one count of third-degree sexual abuse after a jury trial. The court found the defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence unpreserved but, in any event, held the evidence sufficient and the verdict not against the weight of the evidence. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct were rejected. The court also concluded the time period alleged in the forcible touching counts gave the defendant fair notice to prepare a defense.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the sentence imposed on Tyshaun Holloway after his guilty plea. Holloway challenged the sentence as excessive, but the court held that he had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, and that valid waiver bars appellate review of his excessiveness claim. Because the waiver was valid, the court declined to consider the merits of the sentencing claim and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Supreme Court, Kings County.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant Lucious Griffin’s convictions following a jury trial for multiple drug and paraphernalia offenses and his sentence. Griffin argued the indictment should be dismissed for violation of his statutory speedy-trial rights because the People’s initial certificate of compliance (COC) omitted certain discovery (including a prisoner movement log and pole camera footage). The court held the initial COC was valid because the People exercised due diligence, promptly disclosed the missing log once discovered, and the defense sought no lesser remedy than dismissal. Several other claims were deemed unpreserved for appeal.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant Kwauhuru Govan’s convictions for second-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping following a jury trial. The court held the evidence was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence, rejected constitutional and prosecutorial-misconduct claims as unpreserved or without merit, and found the defendant received effective assistance of counsel. The court relied on the criminalist’s testimony as independent analysis and declined to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations, thus affirming the trial court’s judgment and sentence.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a February 16, 2024 sentence imposed on Darius Drummond following his guilty plea. Drummond challenged the sentence as excessive, but the court held his appellate waiver was valid and therefore bars review of the sentencing claim. Relying on controlling precedent, the court concluded the waiver foreclosed his appeal and affirmed the judgment without reaching the merits of the excessiveness argument.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant Nelson DeJesus's convictions for two counts of attempted first-degree assault and two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon following a jury trial and sentence. The court rejected the defendant's confrontation-clause challenge to admission of two DNA laboratory files and testimony because the testifying analyst generated and analyzed the relevant DNA profiles. The court also found trial counsel was not ineffective and declined to review other unpreserved issues in the interest of justice.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed four Supreme Court, Kings County judgments convicting Johnnie Corbett after his guilty pleas to various felonies and imposing sentences. The court held Corbett knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, which bars review of his claim that the sentences were excessive and most ineffective-assistance claims. Corbett's challenge that his pleas were unknowing survived the waiver but was unpreserved and without merit based on the plea allocutions and record. The court therefore affirmed all four judgments.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant Angel Berrios's conviction following his guilty plea to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court, Kings County. The court rejected Berrios's challenge to the denial of his suppression motion because he had validly waived his right to appeal; that waiver bars appellate review of the suppression ruling. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the judgment without reaching the merits of the suppression claim.

The Seventh Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Curtis Johnson’s jury conviction for continuous sexual abuse of his six-year-old granddaughter and his 40-year prison sentence. Johnson argued the trial court erred by admitting evidence of prior sexual abuse against another victim (A.J.) because the State’s notice was insufficient. The court held Johnson waived complaint by not requesting a continuance or other relief to address alleged surprise, and even assuming error, any notice defect was harmless because the State had informed him of the victim, offenses, and date range well before trial and A.J. testified at a pretrial hearing.