Court Filings

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal appeal brought by Doderick Woods-Smith against the State of Florida. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for DeSoto County. The per curiam opinion is brief and simply states “Affirmed,” with three judges concurring. No additional reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis is included in the published opinion.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling in a criminal matter brought by Lary Scott Morris, Jr. against the State of Florida. The opinion is per curiam, short, and provides no extended explanation; the appellate panel (Chief Judge Lucas and Judges Silberman and Smith) announced agreement with the lower court's decision and affirmed the judgment. The decision was issued April 24, 2026, and the opinion is subject to revision before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in a criminal appeal by Sarah Kynay Martinez against the State of Florida. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Hillsborough County Circuit Court. The per curiam opinion, issued April 24, 2026, concluded the appellant's challenge lacked merit and therefore affirmed the judgment below. Three judges concurred and the opinion may be revised before official publication.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the appellant's conviction. The appeal challenged trial rulings related to a search and the revocation hearing, but the court relied on prior decisions holding that smell plus additional observations can support searches and that failure to object preserves nothing for appeal. Because the case involved more than the smell of cannabis and the defendant failed to contemporaneously object at the revocation hearing, the panel concluded no reversible error occurred and affirmed the lower court's decision.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of Patrick Maxwell’s request for resentencing. Maxwell sought resentencing under an earlier Fifth District decision, but before resentencing occurred the Florida Supreme Court clarified in Pedroza v. State that juvenile offenders need resentencing only if their sentence is life or a functional equivalent. The appellate court held the trial court correctly applied the new Pedroza standard and therefore properly denied resentencing. The court found no error and affirmed the lower court’s order.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed Damerius Kashon Hart’s convictions and sentence for two counts of lewd and lascivious battery on a child aged 12–16. Hart challenged the trial court’s imposition of $4,025 labeled as “Cost of Extradition.” The appellate court held that extradition costs are authorized prosecution costs under Florida law (section 938.27(1)) and therefore properly imposed, and that the erroneous statutory citation on the judgment form did not invalidate the assessment. The court rejected Hart’s remaining appellate arguments without discussion.

The Texas Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Tyrone Shepard for possession of a controlled substance (less than one gram) but modified the trial court judgment to correct clerical errors about plea and jury-waiver language. Shepard argued jury-charge error, improper reopening of the State's case, and denial of a speedy-trial motion. The court held the “on or about” instruction was a correct statement of law and not a comment on the evidence, that the trial court permissibly reopened the State’s case, and that the Barker factors did not show a constitutional speedy-trial violation given delays largely attributable to Shepard and minimal prejudice.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s revocation of Austin Douglas Worley’s community supervision and three-year prison sentence. Worley, originally placed on deferred adjudication for evading arrest in 2017, faced a third motion to adjudicate alleging six violations including a new aggravated-assault offense, failures to report in writing, and unpaid fines and fees. The trial court found five violations true after testimony and evidence, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced him to three years’ confinement. The appellate court held the State met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence and that the revocation did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Michael Marvin Tucker pleaded guilty to deadly conduct, received deferred adjudication and five years’ community supervision, but after the State moved to adjudicate he pleaded true to the allegations, the trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no arguable grounds for appeal, the court conducted an independent review of the record, found no reversible error, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

A Texas court of appeals affirmed Jose Luis Espinoza’s convictions for one count of continuous sexual abuse of a young child and two counts of indecency with a child by sexual contact. A jury convicted him and sentenced him to prison terms running concurrently. On appeal he raised nine issues—challenging sufficiency of the continuous-abuse duration element, double-jeopardy, admission of outcry testimony, extraneous-offense evidence, medical records, expert testimony on credibility, and cumulative error. The court rejected these arguments, finding the evidence legally sufficient, preserved or harmless errors where applicable, and no cumulative error warranting reversal.

The Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals reviewed Homer Esquivel Jr.’s appeal after the trial court revoked his deferred-adjudication community supervision and adjudicated him guilty of two controlled-substance and firearm offenses, sentencing him to concurrent ten-year terms. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no arguable grounds for appeal; the court conducted an independent review, found no reversible error, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court corrected the judgment to reflect that Esquivel pled true to count 14 (not 15), granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and explained appellant’s rights to seek discretionary review.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Michael Riley’s application for postconviction DNA testing of six shell casings. Riley sought new collection and testing based on improved DNA collection techniques, but the court found he implicitly conceded that no “parent sample” (an existing collected sample of biological material containing human DNA) remains. Ohio law requires a parent sample to accept a DNA-testing application. Because Riley sought creation of a new sample from the casings rather than testing an existing parent sample, the statutory prerequisites were not met and the application was properly denied.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Mike Jones’s untimely, successive petition for postconviction relief and his motion for leave to file a motion for new trial. Jones argued newly discovered materials — an internal prosecutor memorandum and a 2024 affidavit from Larissa Taylor — would have supported his self-defense theory or shown Brady suppression. The court held Jones failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence, that the memorandum was admissible or material, or that Taylor’s affidavit would undermine confidence in the jury’s verdict. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction to grant relief and denied the motions.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in State v. Griffin. Griffin challenged a juvenile court’s probable-cause bindover and the imposition of a sentence that included both prison terms and a no-contact condition. The court held Griffin waived his challenge to the bindover by pleading guilty and did not separately raise or preserve a claim that his plea was invalid. The court also held there was no plain error in imposing a no-contact condition because the no-contact term was part of the negotiated plea agreement and Griffin invited any error by accepting the bargain. The convictions and 14-year aggregate sentence were affirmed.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed John Centers’s 66-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to amended unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, tampering with evidence, and gross abuse of a corpse. Centers argued on appeal that the tampering and corpse-abuse convictions should have merged for sentencing because they arose from the same conduct. The court applied merger statutes and plain-error review, concluded Centers did not meet his burden to show the offenses were allied, and held the record supported separate sentences because the conduct could reflect distinct acts and import.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Brianna Becks’s presentence motion to withdraw her guilty plea and upheld her conviction. Becks pled guilty to attempted endangering children as part of a day-of-trial plea agreement and later sought to withdraw the plea at sentencing, alleging ineffective assistance and pressure from counsel. The appeals court found counsel provided effective representation, rejected the claim that counsel had an adverse conflict of interest, and relied on the plea colloquy showing Becks understood the plea. The court therefore affirmed the sentence of one year community control.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed Sabestian A. Magan’s February 25, 2025 convictions for domestic violence and assault after a bench trial in Franklin County Municipal Court. Magan argued his convictions were unsupported by sufficient evidence, were against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for causing him to reject a plea offer. The court found the state presented adequate testimony and photographic evidence to prove physical harm to the victim, rejected credibility challenges to the state’s witnesses, and determined Magan failed to show prejudice under the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Michelle Saunders’s convictions and sentence for two second-degree felony drug charges. Saunders argued her guilty pleas were invalid because the trial court did not inform her, during the plea-change hearing, that any sentence in this Guernsey County case could be ordered consecutive to separate prison terms she was already serving in Union County. The appellate court held the trial judge had adequately complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) by advising Saunders of the maximum sentences for each offense and that the court could order consecutive terms between the counts in this case; the judge had no obligation to explain consecutive exposure to sentences from a different county where the defendant was already incarcerated.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Delaware Municipal Court's conviction of Samuel Baffoe for one count of menacing by stalking after a bench trial. Baffoe argued the trial court erred by not ordering a competency evaluation before trial because he told the court he did not feel competent and made various courtroom protests. The appeals court reviewed for abuse of discretion and concluded the record did not show reasonable cause to doubt competency: Baffoe made limited medical complaints, displayed understanding of the proceedings, and standby counsel (appointed by the trial court) never raised competency concerns.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed two judgments against Brandon Monegro. The court affirmed a January 18, 2024 conviction (amended April 10, 2024) for second-degree assault and a May 7, 2024 guilty plea conviction for third-degree assault, including the sentences. The court held that disorderly conduct was properly included in the Superior Court Information as a joinable lesser non-inclusory offense related to the same act charged in the felony complaint. Because the earlier conviction was affirmed, the defendant's argument that his later plea should be vacated as dependent on a reversal is moot.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a resentencing judgment that sentenced defendant Marques McGeachy to an aggregate term of 16 years. The court reviewed the trial court's denial of youthful offender treatment and found that, although McGeachy was technically eligible, the sentencing court properly considered the relevant factors and reasonably exercised its discretion to deny youthful offender status. The panel noted McGeachy’s participation with a violent gang, multiple shootings, and violent conduct over months involving multiple victims as reasons supporting the denial and the sentence.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a 2019 Bronx County conviction and sentence of Michael Mable, who pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal possession of a weapon and was sentenced as a second felony offender to 2½ to 5 years. The court declined to review Mable’s claim that his plea was involuntary because he failed to preserve the issue at the plea colloquy and the narrow exception allowing late review did not apply. The court also alternatively held that the record contains no evidence casting doubt on the voluntariness of the plea.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Keyshawn Kitchens' convictions for first- and second-degree assault and the concurrent seven-year sentences. The court found Kitchens failed to preserve statutory speedy trial and prosecutorial-misconduct claims and declined to review them in the interest of justice, but alternatively rejected those claims on the merits. The court also held the evidence was legally sufficient to convict, finding Kitchens the initial aggressor and that the victim was unarmed, with testimony corroborated by surveillance and other witnesses; jury credibility determinations were upheld.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Diondre Holman’s conviction following a guilty plea to fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon and his three-year probation sentence, but modified the judgment by striking the probation condition requiring payment of the mandatory surcharge and related fees. The court concluded Holman validly waived his right to appeal, which foreclosed review of his excessiveness challenge, but allowed review of his challenge to the legality of the probation condition and found that requirement unrelated to rehabilitation or public safety. Holman’s facial challenge to the "good moral character" licensing provision was unpreserved and declined in the interest of justice.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Jesse Faulkner's conviction for second-degree criminal possession of a weapon and his sentence of 3½ years plus five years of postrelease supervision. The court rejected Faulkner's unpreserved Second Amendment challenge and declined to review it in the interest of justice. Alternatively, the court held he had standing to bring a facial challenge but failed to show New York's "good moral character" licensing requirement was invalid under Bruen. His ineffective-assistance claim was held unreviewable on direct appeal and, in any event, meritless because the claim had little chance of success.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the judgment of conviction entered by Supreme Court, Bronx County (Marsha D. Michael, J.) on May 31, 2022. Derwin Blanks appealed his conviction and sentence. After briefing and argument, the appellate court found the sentence imposed was not excessive and therefore affirmed the lower court's judgment in full. The decision is a short, unanimous order without extended opinion, primarily addressing the proportionality of the sentence.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Shawn Batista’s conviction and sentence for attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, but exercised its interest-of-justice power to vacate the mandatory surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing. The court held Batista validly waived his right to appeal, which barred his as-applied constitutional and excessive-sentence claims, and found his preserved facial challenge to New York's age-based restriction on gun licensing failed on the merits under Bruen and controlling state precedent. The People did not oppose vacatur of the fees, so those monetary assessments were removed.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Durell Anderson’s conviction and sentence from Supreme Court, New York County. Anderson appealed a June 29, 2023 judgment; after argument, the appellate court reviewed the record, found the sentence not excessive, and denied relief. The opinion is brief: the court entered a unanimous order affirming the lower court’s judgment and referred defense counsel to the court’s Rule 606.5. No extended opinion or new legal holdings were published.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Robert W. Randolph’s conviction following his guilty plea to third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance. Randolph pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement that included a five-year prison term and a waiver of appellate rights; County Court imposed the agreed sentence. The appellate court found the written and colloquy-based appeal waiver valid, declined to disturb the plea (finding the voluntariness claim unpreserved), and rejected challenges to the People’s certificate of compliance and statutory speedy-trial claims as forfeited or foreclosed by the waiver. A constitutional speedy-trial claim was unpreserved and, on the merits, would not warrant relief.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Anthony Nesbitt’s convictions and sentences following his guilty plea to first-degree criminal contempt, attempted second-degree assault, and second-degree menacing. The court held that Nesbitt’s written appeal waiver was invalid because it failed to clearly explain what collateral challenges survived, so his challenge to sentence was not precluded. On the merits, however, the court found the agreed-upon consecutive sentences lawful and not unduly harsh, declined to modify the sentence in the interest of justice, and noted that any request about a missing letter of support should be made to County Court.