Court Filings

Justice Dougherty concurred in part and dissented in part from the Court’s decision affirming the Superior Court’s judgment in Commonwealth v. Harrison. He would have reversed the Superior Court’s published opinion and remanded for application of this Court’s binding precedent (particularly Commonwealth v. Reinhart and Commonwealth v. DiPasquale) governing judicial review of a prosecutor’s motion to nolle prosequi. He criticizes the Superior Court for adopting a de novo standard for review and the majority for affirming on an alternate ground and addressing issues the Commonwealth did not raise, while warning about separation-of-powers concerns and unresolved practical consequences of the decision.

The Appellate Division, First Department reversed defendant Mauro Vivar's conviction for attempted assault in the second degree, vacated his guilty plea, and remitted the case for further proceedings. The court found Vivar's appellate-waiver invalid because the trial court failed to explain appellate rights separately from rights lost by pleading guilty and relied only on defense counsel to confirm the written waiver. The court also held the suppression court should have granted Vivar's motion to suppress custodial statements to the arresting officer, and that that error was not harmless because the statements could have affected his decision to plead.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the conviction and sentence of Stephanie Rodriguez. Rodriguez appealed a June 22, 2022 judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County. After oral argument and consideration, the appellate court found the sentence was not excessive and therefore upheld the trial court's judgment. The opinion is a brief affirmance without extended written opinion and refers defense counsel to the court's procedural rule § 606.5.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Luis Mendez’s convictions for attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and third-degree burglary and his concurrent sentences. The court held Mendez validly waived his right to appeal, which bars review of his suppression challenge, and alternatively found the trial court correctly denied suppression. The court accepted credibility findings and concluded police lawfully approached based on an intelligence report about a trend of firearms in fanny packs, observed a street-crossing violation, and legitimately pursued Mendez when he fled, making the abandonment of the fanny pack and the discovery of the gun lawful.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Michael T. Jackson's conviction and sentence after a guilty plea for criminal possession of a firearm, rejecting his challenges. The court held Jackson validly waived his right to appeal, which bars review of his excessive-sentence and most probation-condition claims. A facial challenge to the statute's "good moral character" licensing provision survives waiver and Jackson has standing, but the claim was unpreserved and not reviewed in the interest of justice; alternatively the court found it meritless. Ineffective-assistance claims based on counsel's failure to raise that argument must be pursued in a CPL 440.10 motion and were otherwise rejected on the record.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the Bronx County Supreme Court judgment entered December 17, 2024, in the criminal case against Joshua Brooks. The appeal challenged the sentence, but the appellate court, after argument and deliberation, found the sentence not excessive and affirmed. The decision is brief and focuses solely on the review of the sentence; no change to the conviction or sentence was ordered. Counsel for the appellant was referred to the court's Rule 606.5.

The Appellate Division, Third Department reversed County Court's denial of defendant Cendno Rahaman's CPL 440.10 motion and granted relief in the interest of justice. Rahaman argued his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to object to empaneling an anonymous jury. The court found the sworn allegations and counsel's affidavit showed a legal basis that could not be summarily rejected as successive, and that empaneling an anonymous jury without a factual predicate can deny a fair trial. The matter is remitted to County Court for a new trial.

The Appellate Division reversed a County Court order that denied defendant Shannon Dickinson's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his conviction, and remitted the matter to a different County Court judge for further proceedings. The court concluded that the judge who decided the 440 motion had a law clerk who previously worked as an assistant prosecutor on the underlying case and that the clerk's potential prior involvement — combined with the failure to disclose or insulate the clerk — created an appearance of impropriety. Because the record does not show the clerk's role on the motion, the court found reversal and reassignment appropriate in the interest of justice.

The Appellate Division affirmed defendant Eugene Cobbins' November 30, 2023 conviction following a guilty plea to multiple charges, holding that his custodial statements were knowingly and voluntarily made and not subject to suppression. The court rejected his challenge that delayed filing of charges created a right-to-counsel issue because that right had not yet attached and any statutory-arraignment delay claim was unpreserved. However, the court reversed the February 9, 2024 resentencing on two grand larceny convictions because Cobbins was not produced and there is no indication he knew of or waived his right to be present, and remitted the matter for resentencing on those counts.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Reynaldo Antonio Sanchez’s conviction and 40-year sentence for continuous sexual abuse of a young child. Sanchez argued he was denied a speedy trial and that the trial court erred by admitting portions of a medical examiner’s report and testimony that relied on a Spanish-to-English translation. The court held Sanchez failed to preserve the speedy-trial claim because he never made an unambiguous, timely demand in the trial court. The court also upheld admission of the translated statements, finding the translator acted as a reliable language conduit and that the statements were non-testimonial for confrontation-clause purposes.

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reviewed Nicholas Allen McDuffie's appeal from a Brevard County circuit court criminal matter and issued a brief per curiam decision on April 30, 2026. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's judgment. No written opinion or reasoning is provided in the published entry; the court's sole action was to affirm the circuit court's ruling. The decision notes that the opinion is not final until any timely motions under the Florida rules of appellate procedure are resolved.

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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a circuit court order that denied death-row inmate James Aren Duckett access to the underlying DNA testing data from a private laboratory. Duckett had obtained a court-ordered DNA test of a 1987 swab but sought the raw data so a qualified bioinformaticist could perform further statistical analysis (SNP/Y-SNP data). The Court held the statute and rule permitting postconviction DNA testing require production of the underlying data once testing is ordered and completed. The Court affirmed denial of Duckett’s public-records requests for the lab’s testing process and protocols and remanded for provision of the underlying data, with an evidentiary hearing if disputes over scope arise.

The Court of Appeal reversed two convictions and affirmed one from defendant Wayne Hansen Hsiung’s convictions arising from “open rescue” animal-rights protests at Sonoma County poultry farms. The court held the trial court erred by barring a mistake-of-law defense based on defendant’s good-faith (though mistaken) reliance on legal advice that a necessity justification made trespass lawful for rescuing or treating suffering animals; that defect required reversal of the conspiracy count and one trespass count and remand for further proceedings. The court rejected challenges to Penal Code section 31 and to section 602(o) and affirmed the remaining conviction.

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 California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded the case of Robert Lopez, convicted in 2007 of murder and related offenses, for further proceedings under Penal Code section 1172.6 (Senate Bill 1437/775). The trial court had denied his resentencing petition after an evidentiary hearing; the Court of Appeal affirmed on the ground Lopez forfeited his instructional-ambiguity claim by not raising it on direct appeal. The Supreme Court held that section 1172.6 does not categorically bar petitions based on jury instruction ambiguity that may have permitted conviction by imputed malice, and ordered the appellate court to consider Lopez’s claims on the merits.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Steven Donald Lemery’s appeal from the trial court’s February 10, 2026 denial of his extraordinary motion for new trial. The court found it lacked jurisdiction because Lemery’s notice of appeal was filed 41 days after the order and therefore untimely under OCGA § 5-6-38(a), and because appeals from denials of extraordinary motions for new trial must proceed by discretionary appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(7). Because both timeliness and the required procedural route were lacking, the Court dismissed the appeal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court exceeded its authority by directing the Department of Corrections (DOC) to credit the defendant, Jonathan Lynn Stansell, with time served beginning January 26, 2022, for burglary and theft convictions where Stansell was not arrested on those charges until January 12, 2025. The court held the sentencing judge misdirected the correctional custodian because only the custodian/DOC computes credit for time served under state law. The panel vacated the portion of the sentencing orders that set the starting date for credit and remanded to remove that language.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Jerome Locke’s appeal challenging the trial court’s dismissal of his 2024 request for credit for time served. Locke had pled guilty in 2018 and was sentenced to 20 years with 12 to be served in confinement. The trial court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the Department of Corrections computes credit under OCGA § 17-10-12. The Court of Appeals held the appeal improper because the correct remedy is a mandamus action against prison officials; a motion filed in the criminal case is a nullity and not appealable.

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.