Court Filings
39 filings indexedRecent court opinions cross-linked with public notices by case number, summarized and classified by AI.
Jason Padilla v. the State of Texas
The Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed Jason Padilla’s bench-trial convictions for three counts of sexual assault of a child, one count of indecency with a child, and one count of possession of a controlled substance. The court held that testimony about prior minor acts of violence in the household was admissible to explain the victim’s delayed reporting and did not unduly prejudice Padilla. However, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove the seized residue was cocaine (no lab analysis or expert testimony), reversed the possession conviction, rendered an acquittal on that count, and modified one judgment to correct the statutory citation.
Criminal AppealAffirmed in Part, Reversed in PartTexas Court of Appeals, 11th District (Eastland)11-24-00245-CRPeople v. Sanchez
The Court of Appeal reviewed a 2024 trial-court proceeding in which the trial court attempted to correct an error on the 2019 abstract of judgment for Victor Lopez Sanchez. The appellate court held that the 2019 error was a clerical mistake (a math/recording error that included county-jail misdemeanor time in the stated state-prison total) and therefore the trial court was not required to conduct full resentencing. The denial of a Romero motion and denial of full resentencing were affirmed. However, the trial court exceeded its authority by altering misdemeanor terms (reducing and making them concurrent), so that portion of the 2024 order was vacated and the case remanded to amend the abstract to reflect the lawful 2019 sentence.
Criminal AppealAffirmed in Part, Reversed in PartCalifornia Court of AppealD085325State v. McCrary
The court reviewed Seandell McCrary’s appeal of convictions for fentanyl trafficking and possession after a jury trial where he represented himself. The court held the trial court erred by failing to conduct a sufficient on-the-record inquiry under Crim.R. 44 before allowing McCrary to waive counsel, so his waiver was not shown to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The court nevertheless found the suppression ruling and the sufficiency of the evidence supported retrial: probable cause supported the arrest and evidence seized is admissible. The convictions are reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Criminal AppealAffirmed in Part, Reversed in PartOhio Court of AppealsC-250240State v. Jones
The First District Court of Appeals reviewed two consolidated criminal appeals by Sparkle Jones after bench convictions in municipal court. The court affirmed Jones’s conviction for permitting drug abuse based on evidence found in her home (drug paraphernalia, cash, and firearms) but reversed and discharged her on two child-endangerment convictions because the State failed to show she had custody, control, or a parental role over her boyfriend’s children. The court therefore found sufficient evidence for the drug-related conviction but insufficient evidence to prove the required relationship/duty element for child endangerment.
Criminal AppealAffirmed in Part, Reversed in PartOhio Court of AppealsC-250269, C-250270People v. Southhall
The appellate court reviewed Michael Southall’s convictions for attempted residential arson and related domestic-violence offenses. Southall argued the Will County Sheriff’s Office violated his due process rights and Supreme Court Rule 412 by destroying a seized Kingsford charcoal lighter fluid container, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent or a substantial step toward arson. The court held the destruction did not violate due process because it was routine, not shown to be in bad faith, and the missing item was not shown to be clearly exculpatory. The court affirmed the arson and aggravated battery convictions but vacated two domestic-battery convictions under the one-act, one-crime rule.
Criminal AppealAffirmed in Part, Reversed in PartAppellate Court of Illinois3-25-0264Thomason v. Thomas
The Twelfth District Court of Appeals reviewed a trial court's grant of a three-year civil stalking protection order (CSPO) against appellant William Thomas after he posted repeatedly about appellee Brittney Thomason on his public Facebook page. The appellate court found sufficient credible evidence that Thomas engaged in a pattern of conduct that knowingly caused Thomason mental distress, so it affirmed the issuance of the CSPO. However, the court concluded one provision was an unconstitutional, overbroad prior restraint on speech because it effectively barred Thomas from posting anything concerning Thomason, and it vacated that portion and remanded for a narrower order.
Criminal AppealAffirmed in Part, Reversed in PartOhio Court of AppealsCA2025-07-051State v. Evans
The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendants' convictions for robbery, kidnapping, grand theft, and possession of criminal tools, but reversed sentencing in part and remanded for limited resentencing. The court held that the kidnapping and robbery convictions merge for sentencing because the victim's movement through the store was instrumental to the theft and did not create an independent risk or purpose. By contrast, possession of criminal tools (bags, gloves, masks) did not merge with robbery because those items facilitated but did not constitute the instrument of the robbery. The court also found procedural sentencing errors: the trial court failed to provide oral postrelease-control advisals and failed to make required consecutive-sentence findings at the sentencing hearing.
Criminal AppealAffirmed in Part, Reversed in PartOhio Court of AppealsCA2025-07-058; CA2025-08-068State v. Wilson
The First District Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded defendant Derrick J. Wilson’s convictions for multiple counts of rape and gross sexual imposition arising from allegations by his stepdaughter. The court upheld the convictions and most evidentiary rulings (including Mayerson Center and therapist testimony under the medical-diagnosis exception) but found sentencing error: the trial court failed to make the statutory findings required for consecutive sentences. The court vacated the consecutive nature of the sentence and remanded for resentencing limited to the consecutive-sentence findings.
Criminal AppealAffirmed in Part, Reversed in PartOhio Court of AppealsC-240696State v. Blevins
The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed Jerry Ray Blevins’s convictions for fourth-degree and second-degree aggravated trafficking in methamphetamine after a jury trial, finding the record contained substantial, credible evidence to support the verdicts despite the confidential informant’s criminal history and incentives. However, the court reversed and remanded the postrelease-control portion of the sentence because the trial court failed to orally advise Blevins at sentencing whether postrelease control was discretionary or mandatory and the consequences for violating it, as required by statute. The remainder of the sentence was left intact.
Criminal AppealAffirmed in Part, Reversed in PartOhio Court of Appeals24CA22