Court Filings

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Sheldon Ragland’s convictions for malice murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and related firearm offenses for the 2017 shooting death of Kenneth Adair. Ragland challenged several trial rulings (exclusion/limitation of questioning about a witness’s 9mm gun, admission of recorded jail calls and a detective’s identification/opinion about the callers), argued trial counsel was ineffective, and claimed cumulative prejudice. The Court found no reversible error: the evidence about the 9mm was before the jury or cumulative, counsel strategically declined objections to use the tape, any opinion testimony was harmless given strong independent evidence, and the ineffectiveness and cumulative-prejudice claims failed.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Gregory Painter’s convictions for malice murder and related offenses. Painter argued the trial court erred by refusing to give jury instructions on two forms of the insanity defense (lack of ability to distinguish right from wrong and delusional compulsion). The Court held there was no slight evidence to support either instruction: evidence of mental illness or odd behavior alone is insufficient, Painter refused a court-ordered evaluation and presented no expert proof or contemporaneous evidence of a delusion that would justify the killing, and his post-shooting statements and concealment undermined a claim he could not distinguish right from wrong.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Trevor Lamont Nuckles’s post-judgment motion. Nuckles, who pleaded guilty in 2012 to felony murder and related offenses and was sentenced to life plus five years, sought to quash the indictment, withdraw his guilty plea as involuntary, obtain leave for an out-of-time appeal, and secure counsel. The Court held the trial court correctly denied relief because Nuckles’s plea-withdrawal request was untimely after the term of court expired, his attempt to vacate convictions via a motion was not an appropriate criminal remedy, and he failed to show entitlement to an out-of-time appeal under OCGA § 5-6-39.1.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Tonya Monroe’s 2022 convictions for malice murder, first-degree cruelty to children, and distribution of methamphetamine for the 2016 death of her nine-month-old grandson, Kobe Shaw. The Court held that the evidence — expert testimony showing meth in Kobe’s blood consistent with direct administration, medical findings, and witness statements that Monroe admitted placing meth in Kobe’s mouth — was sufficient for a rational jury to convict. The Court also rejected Monroe’s ineffective-assistance claims, finding trial counsel’s strategic choices (cross-examination, rebuttal expert, and tactical decisions about limiting instructions and impeachment) reasonable.

The Georgia Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s dismissal of Jonathan Miller’s motion to correct a void sentence and remanded for further proceedings. Miller, who was sentenced to life with parole after convictions including felony murder for a 1998 killing committed when he was 15, argued his life sentence is grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court held that an Eighth Amendment disproportionality claim is a cognizable void-sentence claim that may be raised at any time, found the trial court erred by dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded because the record did not clearly show the trial court decided the constitutional claim on the merits.

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Travis McFarland’s convictions, including felony murder and related counts, and his Street Gang Act convictions. The court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence, a denied jury instruction on justification (self-defense), and ineffective-assistance claims. It concluded the evidence (social media, phone data, a fingerprint on a gun, eyewitness testimony, and a gang expert) supported a finding that McFarland committed the predicate offenses with intent to further gang interests and his status. The court also found no basis for a justification instruction and no showing of deficient or prejudicial trial performance by counsel.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Deqaveon Malcolm’s convictions for two counts of felony murder, two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and criminal damage to property arising from a 2016 drive-by shooting that killed James Simmons and injured Trevis Bufford. Malcolm challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, his trial counsel’s failure to move to suppress gunshot-residue evidence from his mother’s car, and the trial court’s refusal to remove a juror who had been a victim in a Fulton County case. The Court held the evidence supported guilt as a party to the crimes, counsel’s decision to forego suppression was a reasonable strategy, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion on the juror issue.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Matthew Larkins’s convictions for malice murder and related offenses arising from the August 4, 2016 shooting death of Shanna Smith. Larkins challenged sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions about a testifying co-defendant’s out-of-court statements, ineffective assistance for failing to object to a judge’s remark to jurors, admission of alleged co-conspirator hearsay, and the prosecutor’s initial closing argument. The Court found the evidence strong and any instructional or evidentiary errors harmless, trial counsel’s choices reasonable, and Georgia law permits the prosecutor’s opening; therefore the convictions and sentence were affirmed.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed David William Kelly’s convictions for the 2017 shooting death of his wife. Kelly challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, voir dire limits, hearsay rulings (including use of the residual hearsay exception), admission of certain testimony, and multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court reviewed the trial evidence in detail, found the forensic and witness evidence supported the jury’s verdict, held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting challenged testimony under OCGA § 24-8-807, and concluded Kelly failed to show deficient performance or prejudice from his attorneys’ actions. The convictions and sentence were affirmed.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Deon Altron Ellison’s convictions for felony murder and a firearm offense arising from the 2023 fatal shooting of his cousin. Ellison challenged the convictions on four grounds: inconsistent verdicts, prosecutorial misconduct involving a key witness, improper limitations on jury selection, and denial of a mistrial after closing argument. The Court held that any perceived inconsistency in the verdicts did not require reversal, the record did not show that the prosecution knowingly elicited false testimony or suppressed material evidence, the voir dire objection was not preserved, and the mistrial/closing-argument claim was also unpreserved. The convictions and sentence were therefore affirmed.

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Bobby Crawford’s conviction for malice murder arising from the beating death of his roommate, Timothy Walker. After a jury trial and the denial of his amended motion for new trial, Crawford appealed, arguing the evidence was constitutionally insufficient because the State failed to disprove self-defense and raising three trial-court-error claims. The Court held the evidence — including eyewitness testimony, physical and autopsy findings, and Crawford’s own testimony — allowed a rational jury to reject his self-defense claim. Any error admitting a 2001 other-acts conviction was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed John Bailey’s convictions, including life without parole for felony murder predicated on kidnapping. Bailey argued his trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress cell-phone records obtained via a Google search warrant that he said lacked probable cause and particularity. The Court assumed, without deciding, that counsel might have been deficient but found no prejudice because the record does not show that any evidence from the challenged Google warrant was used at trial. Cell-site and carrier records used at trial came from Sprint/T-Mobile and other carrier records, undermining Bailey’s claim of a different outcome.

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's April 14, 2025 sentencing of Paul Tunison to a total of 36 months' imprisonment and restitution after he pled guilty to multiple theft offenses, including thefts involving victims in a protected class. Tunison argued on appeal that the sentencing hearing recording was incomplete, violating Crim.R. 22 and preventing meaningful review, and asked for resentencing. The appellate court held the trial court had a duty to record but Tunison failed to use App.R. 9 to reconstruct the missing portions or show material prejudice, so any error was waived and the judgment was affirmed.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed Andrew Symington’s 11-month prison sentence for a fifth-degree felony theft after a guilty plea. The trial court considered but rejected community control, citing factors including economic harm, that the offense was for hire, and Symington’s prior felony conviction and prior prison term. The appellate court found those findings supported by the record and concluded that even if the court erred in labeling the conduct organized crime or “for hire,” other valid statutory findings (notably Symington’s prior felony and prison term) independently authorized a prison sentence, making any error harmless.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Wood County Common Pleas Court’s June 27, 2024 judgments denying John E. Gebrosky’s consolidated petitions for post-conviction relief in two criminal cases. Gebrosky argued his trial lawyers were ineffective and that the trial court erred by applying res judicata, denying counsel appointment, and refusing an evidentiary hearing. The court held some claims were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised on direct appeal, but acknowledged other ineffective-assistance claims relied on evidence outside the trial record. After reviewing the affidavits, reports, and trial record, the court concluded the remaining claims did not raise substantive grounds for relief and that no hearing or appointed counsel was required.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Jody Jones's petitions for postconviction relief in six consolidated Richland County felony cases. Jones had pleaded guilty in multiple indictments and later claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to share discovery, unlawful stops/searches, and unreliable drug testing. The appellate court held most claims were forfeited or barred by res judicata because they could have been raised earlier or were contradicted by the record (including the guilty pleas and provided discovery). The court found no abuse of discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Richland County Common Pleas Court's convictions and sentence of Charles R. Feagin. Police initiated a traffic stop after officers observed a lane violation while conducting surveillance; subsequent events led to a 12-count indictment for drug and related offenses. The trial court denied Feagin’s motion to suppress, he pleaded no contest to all counts, and received an aggregate sentence of 37 to 42.5 years. The appeals court held the trial court reasonably credited officer testimony, found the suppression and sentencing rulings supported by the record, and rejected ineffective-assistance claims for lack of record support.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Anzar Thompson's conviction and two-year sentence for attempted second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. Thompson challenged the stop-and-frisk as unsupported by reasonable suspicion based on a 911 caller's information; the court held the claim was unpreserved and declined review in the interest of justice, but alternatively rejected the challenge on the merits. The court found the 911 tip reliable because it included identifying details (partial name and callback number), a detailed description and location, and accurate vehicle information corroborated by the officer's observations, which together supplied reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment of the New York County Supreme Court in People v. Imbert. The appeals challenged a criminal conviction and sentence imposed on March 28, 2023. After briefing and oral argument, the appellate panel reviewed the record, considered counsel's arguments, and concluded the sentence was not excessive. The court therefore upheld the trial court's judgment and denied relief to the defendant, issuing a short unanimous order affirming the judgment on April 21, 2026.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Victor Jimenez Cespedes's conviction and eight-year sentence for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree. The court reviewed the jury verdict and found it was not against the weight of the evidence, crediting the jury's credibility determinations. Key facts supporting conviction were that defendant entered an undercover officer's car carrying a box containing over 6,000 fentanyl pills, acted as the courier in a negotiated $25,000 transaction, and admitted he would receive $2,000. The court held these facts supported an inference that he knew the box's contents and rejected his testimonial denial.

The Court of Appeals held that the three-year delay between the third and fourth trials of Travis Woods violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial and ordered dismissal of the murder and weapon-possession charges. The court found the prosecution offered only vague, unsubstantiated reasons for the long delay—internal meetings, reassignment, and reinvestigation—insufficient to justify more than three years of inaction during which a key eyewitness died. The court affirmed Woods's earlier drug convictions, rejecting his claim that lack of notice about two jury notes required reversal because the jury later sent the same request and counsel participated in the readback.

The Court of Appeals held that defendant's written speedy-trial motion under CPL 30.30(1)(b), filed on the day trial was to begin, was timely and provided reasonable notice to the People. The Appellate Division erred in affirming the trial court's summary refusal to consider the motion as untimely and for lack of notice. Because the motion complied with the specific statutory deadline in CPL 170.30(2) and included detailed calculations of chargeable days, the Court reversed and remitted the case for further proceedings on the motion so the People may be given a fair opportunity to respond and the trial court may exercise its discretion how to proceed.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Gary W. Lucas, Jr.'s appeal from a Duval County circuit court criminal case. The panel issued a per curiam decision on April 21, 2026, and concluded the appeal lacked merit, affirming the judgment below. No published opinion or extended reasoning accompanied the single-line disposition; the court simply announced AFFIRMED and recorded concurrence by the three judges. The decision is subject to any timely post‑opinion motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Carl Joseph Johnson's appeal from Seminole County circuit court criminal proceedings and, in a brief per curiam decision dated April 21, 2026, affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion contains no extended explanation or reasoning, and the panel (Chief Judge Jay and Judges Eisnaugle and Boatwright) issued a unanimous affirmance. The mandate is subject to timely post-judgment motions under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment in the criminal case of Brent Paul Venrooy v. State of Florida. The opinion is per curiam, dated April 21, 2026, and provides no published reasoning beyond the single-word disposition "AFFIRMED." The panel of judges (Lambert, Soud, Boatwright) concurred. The decision notes the case came from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County and that any timely post-opinion motions under Florida appellate rules may still be filed.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Viswanauth Somwaru's appeal from the trial court's denial of a postconviction motion under Florida Rule 3.850. After briefing and oral argument, the appellate court issued a short, per curiam decision on April 21, 2026, holding that the lower court's ruling would be affirmed. The opinion contains no extended reasoning in the published entry; it simply affirms the circuit court's disposition and notes the panel members who concurred.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in the criminal case of Matthew Lucas Wade. The appeal arose from a conviction in Citrus County circuit court and was argued by Wade's public defenders against the State. The per curiam opinion contains no published reasoning beyond the court's conclusion to affirm. All three panel judges concurred and the opinion notes that the decision is not final until any timely authorized post-judgment motions are resolved.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Christine Marie Lackey's appeals from three circuit-court criminal cases in Sumter County. After considering the record and briefs, the panel issued a unanimous per curiam decision affirming the judgments below. The opinion contains no extended discussion or legal analysis; it simply announces that the appellate court affirms the trial-court rulings. Judges Wallis, Harris, and Maciver concurred, and the opinion notes the decision is not final until any timely post-opinion motions are resolved.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision in the criminal matter involving Keith Taurus Hamlet, Sr. The appeal was taken under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Orange County. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion—stating only 'AFFIRMED'—with three judges concurring and without published reasoning in the opinion excerpt provided. The defendant represented himself on appeal; the State was represented by the Attorney General's office.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Colbert Cherubin from a Polk County circuit court decision and, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion contains no extended discussion, reasoning, or explanation beyond the court's unanimous decision to affirm. The panel consisted of Judges Smith, Brownlee, and Kamoutsas, and counsel for both sides are noted. The decision was entered April 21, 2026, and is subject to the normal deadline for a motion for rehearing.