Court Filings

The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s restitution order requiring Jermaine Reynolds to pay $3,067 to his domestic-violence victim for medical expenses. Reynolds had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence; the felony strangulation count was dismissed. The trial court relied on the presentence investigation report (which included the victim’s impact statement and three medical bills showing $3,067.54 owed) when ordering restitution. Because Reynolds did not object below, the appeals court reviewed only for plain error and concluded the PSI provided competent, sufficient evidence to support the restitution award.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of a misdemeanor charge against Nathan Hake for illegally disposing of construction and demolition debris and remanded the case for further proceedings. The trial court had dismissed the charge as unconstitutionally vague, focusing on terms like “disposal,” “storage,” “temporary period,” and “substantially unchanged.” The appellate court held that the statutory and regulatory definitions give fair notice and are not impermissibly vague as applied to Hake’s alleged conduct (digging a pit, burying construction debris and household waste), so the dismissal was improper.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Dennis Crowley's motion to suppress evidence found during a traffic stop. Officer Webb stopped Crowley on May 7, 2025 for a loud muffler in violation of Ohio law, and an inventory search of the towed vehicle uncovered powdered cocaine. The appellate court held the stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion because Officer Webb observed and the body-camera recorded an audible rumble from the exhaust consistent with R.C. 4513.22(A). The conviction (no contest plea) and community-control sentence were left intact.

The State of Ohio appealed two Lucas County trial-court judgments that allowed cash seized in investigations to be applied toward fines imposed on defendant Shakur Ishmail Shabaa. The appellate court reversed and remanded. It held that (1) $122 forfeited through a civil forfeiture consent judgment could not be used to pay criminal fines because R.C. 2981.12(G) expressly forbids using forfeited property to pay fines; and (2) $4,460 that Shabaa forfeited by plea agreement could not be applied to his fines because the trial court lacked authority to alter the parties’ negotiated plea terms that specified disbursement to the State and Sylvania Township Police.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals denied Frederick Mundt’s application for reconsideration and request for en banc review of its prior opinion affirming the trial court’s dismissal of his postconviction petition under Ohio’s serious mental illness (SMI) statute. The court reaffirmed that Mundt had clinical diagnoses of Bipolar Disorder and Schizoaffective Disorder but found the record lacked sufficient evidence that those conditions significantly impaired his capacity to make rational judgments at the time of the offense. Because the trial court reasonably credited the state expert’s interpretation of Mundt’s conduct, the panel found no basis to overturn or rehear the decision.

The Superior Court vacated a April 29, 2025 revocation-of-probation sentence imposed on Leroy Kenneth Thomas and remanded to re-impose his earlier October 25, 2021 revocation-of-probation sentence. The PCRA court had entertained an untimely collateral petition and resentenced Thomas without jurisdiction because the petition did not satisfy the PCRA’s time limits or an exception. Because the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction, its resentencing was void ab initio. The court therefore vacated the 2025 sentence and ordered reinstatement of the 2021 sentence, leaving any discretionary-sentencing challenges unreviewed.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a Philadelphia County PCRA court order granting Jamal R. Sanders a new trial. Sanders had been convicted in 1998 of third-degree murder and related offenses based largely on testimony that he had access to the gun later used by a co-defendant. After decades in custody, a witness (Shawn Clark) submitted an affidavit recanting trial testimony and stating detectives coerced him; Clark later died. The PCRA court found the recantation admissible under the statement-against-interest exception and likely to produce a different verdict; the Superior Court agreed and affirmed.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the convictions and sentences of Kylen Pratt, who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, possession of an instrument of crime, abuse of a corpse, and tampering with evidence for the death and burning of Naasire Johnson. The court rejected challenges to (1) admission of a detective’s chart summarizing voluminous cell-phone timing data, finding the summary met the rules for admissibility; (2) admission of appellant’s Google searches, finding they were relevant to his state of mind and not unduly prejudicial; and (3) the discretionary imposition of consecutive sentences, finding no abuse of sentencing discretion.

The Illinois Appellate Court reversed the circuit court’s denial of leave to file a successive postconviction petition by Angel Navarro and remanded for second-stage proceedings. Navarro had been convicted of first-degree murder in 2004 based primarily on three eyewitness identifications and police testimony; he later obtained Chicago Police Department records via FOIA that included officer Meer’s professional complaints. The court held Navarro’s petition raised newly discovered, noncumulative evidence that could materially affect officer credibility and thus created a colorable claim of actual innocence. The court declined to reassign the case sua sponte on remand.

The Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Charles F. Watts’s postconviction petition after a third-stage evidentiary hearing. Watts argued he made a substantial showing of actual innocence, that trial counsel was ineffective for not calling an alibi witness (Terrance Linear), and that postconviction counsel failed to comply with Rule 651(c). The court held the petition was decided after a third-stage hearing, rejected the actual-innocence claim as forfeited for lack of a proper third-stage argument, found no Strickland error because counsel’s choice not to call Linear could be strategic in light of surveillance video, and determined Rule 651(c) claims about second-stage pleading are moot once a claim receives a full evidentiary hearing.

The Second District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed a county court judgment in a criminal/procedural matter. The appeal was brought pro se by Rosea Maria White and was argued on the record from Pinellas County before Judge Diane M. Croff. The panel, in a per curiam decision, unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling without published opinion, and the judgment stands as decided by the county court. No additional reasoning or substantive analysis was provided in the published entry.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court. The appeal was brought by Jennifer Suzanne Waters against the State of Florida following a proceeding in the Circuit Court for DeSoto County. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment without a published opinion, and all three judges concurred. No new legal analysis or changes to the trial-court outcome were announced in this short entry.

The District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's dismissal of a misdemeanor information charging Christine Heidi Scott with resisting or obstructing officers without violence. The trial court had required ever-more specific allegations about the exact legal duties the deputies were performing and dismissed the second amended information as vague. The appellate court held the original information was legally sufficient because it tracked the statute, gave date and place, and provided adequate notice; any further detail was a matter for proof or for a statement of particulars, not a required element of the charging document.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, considered an appeal by Marquise Devon Ponder from a decision of the Circuit Court for Manatee County. After review, the appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision simply stating 'Affirmed' without opinion, thereby upholding the lower court's judgment. The panel of judges (Kelly, Khouzam, and Sleet) concurred. No further reasoning or discussion was provided in the published entry, and the opinion is subject to possible revision before official publication.

The District Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed the lower court's decision in the appeal brought by Scott Meier against the State of Florida. The panel issued a per curiam opinion on April 17, 2026, concluding that the trial court's judgment should stand. No reasoning or detailed factual findings were provided in the published entry, and three judges (Black, Atkinson, Smith) concurred. The appeal arose from the Manatee County Circuit Court before Judge Frederick P. Mercurio.

The appellate court reviewed a criminal appeal by Markeis Daveon Levatte from a Hillsborough County circuit court decision. After briefing and substitution of counsel, the District Court of Appeal for the Second District issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The opinion was short and did not include detailed reasoning in the published entry, but the panel concurred and the judgment remained in effect pending any further review or official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Yordan Hernandez from a decision of the Hillsborough County Circuit Court. After considering the parties' submissions, the appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's ruling. The short per curiam opinion provides the disposition without published reasoning, and the decision is subject to possible revision before official publication.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, reviewed an appeal by A.R. from a decision of the Circuit Court for Pasco County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment. No opinion content or underlying facts, issues, or reasoning are provided in the published entry; the court simply announced 'Affirmed' with three judges concurring and noted the opinion is subject to revision before official publication.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a Rule 3.800(a) postconviction claim brought by Deanijah Denson. The court concluded the appeal did not provide a basis for relief under Rule 3.800(a) but left open Denson's ability to seek relief in the underlying circuit court case (2020-CF-002358-A) under Rule 3.850. The opinion cites precedent explaining the proper procedural vehicle for the relief sought and therefore affirms the appellate disposition while directing the appellant to the appropriate remedy in circuit court.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal issued an opinion in a pro se 3.800 postconviction appeal brought by Charles James Skolnick challenging denial of relief in Duval County (Case No. 16-2015-CF-009362-A). The court notes it previously affirmed the trial court's denial and found Skolnick's subsequent filings in this court relating to that case to be repetitive, frivolous, and abusive. The court cautioned that further frivolous pro se filings may trigger sanctions, including prohibition on future pro se filings and referral for prison disciplinary proceedings that could include loss of gain time.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed Brent Paul Venrooy’s criminal judgment and sentence after an Anders brief, finding no reversible error in the conviction or sentencing. The court did, however, remand to the trial court to enter a corrected judgment removing a $100 investigative costs fee because the State never requested investigative costs. The court relied on Richards v. State to hold that investigative costs may be imposed only when the State has expressly requested them. The panel issued its decision per curiam on April 17, 2026.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed Stephanie Proffitt’s convictions and rejected her claim that the trial court imposed a vindictive sentence after she declined the State’s plea offer. The court reviewed the record and Wilson factors, finding the trial judge did not initiate plea negotiations, did not depart from the role of an impartial arbiter, and provided reasons for the sentence based on trial evidence and rejection of mitigation. Because the totality of circumstances did not create a presumption of vindictiveness, the appellate court affirmed the sentencing decision.

The Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order that had authorized involuntary antipsychotic medication for defendant C.F., who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity. At the renewal hearing the trial court proceeded without a court reporter because defense counsel failed to request the no-cost reporter available under local rules; the hearing lasted about 13 minutes and the transcript of testimony is therefore missing. The appellate court found defense counsel’s failure to secure a reporter was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial because it eliminated any meaningful appellate review, and because the medication order will expire before a settled statement could be produced, the case is remanded for a new hearing.

The Court of Appeals dismissed William Antoine Thomas’s appeal from a conviction entered pursuant to a plea bargain because the trial-court certification, signed by the judge, Thomas, and his trial counsel, states the case is a plea-bargain case, that the defendant has no right of appeal, and that Thomas waived his right to appeal. The State moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the court granted the motion, holding the certification deprived it of jurisdiction to hear the appeal under applicable Texas appellate rules and precedent.

A jury convicted Tyriq Bradford of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Bradford appealed, arguing the trial court erred by admitting three out-of-court statements by the six-year-old victim identifying him, over hearsay and confrontation objections. The court concluded the statements were admissible as excited utterances and also were non-testimonial, and that the victim’s presence and limited testimony at trial satisfied confrontation requirements. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion on hearsay and the Confrontation Clause was not violated, the conviction was affirmed.

The Court of Appeals reviewed James Chadleigh Schrotel’s conviction for misdemeanor assault causing bodily injury against a family member. The court upheld the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction but found reversible error in jury selection: a prospective juror (venireperson six) admitted a bias favoring victims of family violence and could not guarantee that bias would not affect his decision. The trial court denied the defendant’s challenge for cause and also denied an additional peremptory strike, resulting in an objectionable juror sitting. Because that denial was erroneous and harmful, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

The defendant, Ethan Alexander Herrera, appealed a conviction for aggravated robbery. On April 13, 2026, Herrera filed a signed, voluntary motion to dismiss his appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). The Court of Appeals granted the motion and dismissed the appeal. The opinion is a short memorandum explaining the dismissal was pursuant to the rule permitting voluntary dismissal when requested by an appellant and properly signed.

The Texas Court of Appeals (Tenth Appellate District) affirmed Dana Loment Pettigrew’s convictions for two counts of indecency with a child by contact and exposure. Pettigrew challenged admission of extraneous-offense testimony from L.H. under article 38.37 (as-applied facial challenge, Rule 403 balancing, and jury instruction) and claimed his counsel denied him the right to testify at the guilt-innocence phase. The court held the statute was not unconstitutional as applied, the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403, the article 38.37 jury instruction was proper, and Pettigrew failed to show prejudice from counsel’s failure to reopen the evidence; thus the convictions and sentences were affirmed.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed Victor Rolando Corpus’s convictions for continuous sexual abuse of a child and indecency with a child. Corpus sought a continuance at trial because subpoenaed psychiatric/hospital records for a State witness had not arrived. The trial court denied the oral motion after efforts to locate the records and the court’s concern that delay could be indefinite. The appeals court held Corpus waived the complaint because the continuance motion was unsworn and, alternatively, that the court did not abuse its discretion because the missing records were not shown to be unexpectedly unavailable or likely to be obtained with a finite delay, and Corpus showed no harm from the denial.

A Texas appellate court affirmed the convictions of Noel Amador-Castillo for continuous sexual abuse of a young child and attempted indecency with a child by contact. The jury had convicted him of continuous sexual abuse (multiple acts over years) and the lesser-included offense of attempted indecency by breast touching, and sentenced him to concurrent prison terms. The court rejected a double-jeopardy challenge because the breast-touching offense is distinct from the acts alleged as predicates for continuous sexual abuse. It also held the victim’s testimony was legally sufficient to support both convictions.