Court Filings

The Ohio Court of Appeals (Eighth District) affirmed the convictions of defendant-appellant Cecil Fluker for burglary, menacing by stalking, and intimidation following jury trial. Fluker challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, joinder of indictments, jury instructions, admission of evidence (including jail calls and hearsay), and effectiveness of trial counsel. The court found the jail calls admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, any hearsay error harmless because the declarant testified and was cross-examined, joinder and instructions proper, and trial counsel’s strategic choices reasonable. The convictions were therefore affirmed and the case remanded for execution of sentence.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed Todd Clark’s nine-year aggregate prison sentence for sexual battery and two counts of gross sexual imposition following his guilty pleas. Clark argued the trial court erred by stating a statutory presumption of imprisonment applied to sexual battery. The court found the trial judge misstated the law but that the error did not change the outcome because the judge independently considered required sentencing factors (including the victim’s age, psychological harm, the familial relationship that facilitated the offenses, and Clark’s lengthy criminal history) and expressly rejected community control. The sentence was supported by the record and law.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed appellant Lashawn M. Slaughter’s convictions for two counts of nonsupport of dependents (fifth-degree felonies). The jury found he failed to pay court-ordered child support for his son over two consecutive two-year periods (2014–2018). The court concluded the State proved failure to pay under R.C. 2919.21(B) and that the defendant failed to meet the affirmative defense that he provided support within his means. The court found no reversible error in sufficiency, weight of the evidence, jury instructions, prosecutorial comments, or trial counsel’s performance.

The Ohio Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of John Eugene Morgan's postconviction petition. Morgan had been convicted of voluntary manslaughter, murder, and felonious assault after shooting a man; he argued that dash‑cam footage was improperly admitted, the search warrant for the footage was defective, and jury instructions were erroneous or resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court found most claims barred by res judicata because Morgan could have raised them earlier (including in his direct appeal or an application to reopen), and where those claims were considered, the record established no reasonable probability of a different outcome without the disputed evidence.

The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s convictions of Carol A. Seymour for providing heroin that contributed to a neighbor’s overdose death. The central question was whether the State had proved that Seymour’s conduct was an actual cause of death. The Court held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, sufficient circumstantial and expert evidence supported a finding that the heroin Seymour supplied was a but-for cause of the decedent’s death, so the convictions for involuntary manslaughter and corrupting another with drugs must be reinstated.

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.

The Texas Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed Markeith Terrell Oliver’s conviction and ten-year sentence for unlawful carrying of a weapon by a felon. Oliver filed a consolidated brief raising a single appellate point that did not challenge the conviction in this particular appellate cause. Because the sole point of error concerned Oliver’s other cases and raised no issue about the conviction at hand, the court found there was nothing to review and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court issued a brief memorandum opinion denying relief in this cause.

A jury convicted Markeith Terrell Oliver of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and the trial court sentenced him to nine years in prison. On appeal Oliver argued the trial court should have instructed the jury that witness Carlina McComb was an accomplice as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals held McComb was not an accomplice as a matter of law because she was not a felon at the time and her conviction for unlawful carrying was not a lesser-included offense of Oliver’s charge; the evidence showed separate, parallel possession of different weapons. The court therefore affirmed the conviction.

The Texas Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed Markeith Terrell Oliver’s conviction and six-month sentence for attempted tampering with physical evidence. Oliver filed a notice of appeal and later submitted a single consolidated brief raising one point of error, but that point did not challenge the tampering-with-evidence conviction at issue in this appeal. Because the brief contained no argument directed to the conviction in this cause, the appellate court found there was nothing to review and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Manuel Mata’s conviction for interference with public duties (a Class B misdemeanor) following his arrest during a police DWI investigation. Mata argued the statute was unconstitutional as applied, that the evidence was insufficient, and that the jury charge improperly used the word “belligerent.” The court held Mata waived the as-applied constitutional challenge, found the evidence legally sufficient because he approached officers, recorded a patrol computer displaying confidential data, and repeatedly refused to obey a clearly established boundary, and rejected charge-error claims as invited or harmless.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Derwin Dewayne Bell’s conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Bell was tried for two counts; a jury convicted him on Count I (threatening Robert Curry by shooting at him) and the court declared a mistrial on Count II. Bell argued (1) the jury charge improperly defined “firearm” and (2) the evidence was insufficient. The court upheld the conviction, finding the evidence (eyewitness IDs, shell casings, vehicle damage, sign-in sheet, and other testimony) was sufficient and that any error in including a nonstatutory definition of “firearm” did not cause egregious harm or deprive him of a fair trial.

The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed Derwin Dewayne Bell’s convictions for three counts of possession of controlled substances with intent to deliver (methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine) after a jury trial. The court reviewed sufficiency-of-the-evidence and jury-charge complaints. It held the evidence — including controlled-substance testing, large quantities and packaging consistent with distribution, scales, guns, cash, matching bags found in a vehicle and a residence linked to Bell, social-media and mail evidence, and his gang leadership — provided affirmative links supporting possession and intent. The court also held the trial court properly omitted a DEA-registration instruction because Bell bore the burden to produce any exemption evidence and did not do so or request such an instruction.

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed Stephen Kay Thorp Jr.’s criminal appeal because the trial-court certification states this was a plea-bargain case and the defendant has no right to appeal. The clerk’s record confirms the sentence did not exceed the prosecutor’s recommendation and there is no written pretrial motion, trial-court permission to appeal, or statute authorizing the appeal. The court gave Thorp an opportunity to supply an amended certification but none was filed, so the court dismissed the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d).

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed Samantha Ann Marie Vargas's appeal challenging a December 8, 2025 order that modified her community supervision to include a 30-day jail sanction (with credit for time served). The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from an order that alters conditions of community supervision, relying on controlling precedent. The panel ordered dismissal after Vargas failed to show a basis for continuing the appeal when asked to show cause.

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed Kenisha Sharron Simms's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Simms had been placed on deferred community supervision after a plea; the State later moved to adjudicate guilt, and the trial court modified the supervision conditions. The appellate court held that appeals from modifications to deferred adjudication supervision are not authorized by the legislature, cited controlling precedent, gave Simms an opportunity to show cause, received no response, and dismissed the appeal.

The Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, denied Shawn L. Sanders's petition seeking either a writ of mandamus or, alternatively, a writ of prohibition. Sanders filed the petition on March 23, 2026, asking the appellate court to intervene in underlying criminal case No. 2023-CR-3165 in Bexar County. After reviewing the petition and record, the court concluded Sanders did not establish entitlement to the extraordinary relief requested and therefore denied both the mandamus and prohibition petitions without publishing an opinion.

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed appellant Bryan Keith Gutierrez's filing for lack of jurisdiction. Gutierrez filed a "Motion for Bond Relief" that appeared to challenge bail and seek to quash multiple indictments. The appellate court treated the filing as a notice of appeal but found no final judgment of conviction in the record and noted that courts of appeals lack statutory authority to hear interlocutory appeals on excessive bail or motions to quash indictments. Because the appellant did not respond to an order to show cause, the appeal was dismissed.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of co-defendants Hakeem Neal and Lokari Boyd for home invasion and armed robbery following a joint jury trial. Neal argued the evidence was insufficient and his motion for directed verdict and new trial should have been granted; Boyd argued ineffective assistance of counsel and Confrontation Clause error. The court held the evidence was sufficient (including corroboration of an accomplice) and that Boyd’s challenges failed because the contested testimony was intrinsic or invited by defense, and counsel’s choices were strategic. Both appeals were affirmed.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Shawn Davart Lockhart Jr.'s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Lockhart had pled guilty in 2009 and in 2025 sought an out-of-time appeal under OCGA § 5-6-39.1; the trial court denied that motion on 2026-02-19. Lockhart filed a notice of appeal on 2026-03-24, but the Court of Appeals held the notice was untimely because it was filed 33 days after entry of the order and thus did not satisfy the 30-day filing requirement. Because timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, the court dismissed the appeal.

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s March 10, 2025 judgment convicting Theodore Wilson of burglary, gross sexual imposition, and pandering obscenity and upholding concurrent prison terms with a seven-year minimum and a ten-and-one-half-year maximum for the burglary count. Wilson argued his sentence exceeded the agreed seven-year recommendation. The court held the plea agreement and related forms informed him that a second-degree felony carries an indefinite sentence under the Reagan Tokes law (minimum plus a maximum 50% longer), and because the State and Wilson jointly recommended the seven-year sentence which the court imposed (including the statutory maximum), the sentence was authorized and not subject to appellate modification.

The court affirmed the municipal-court judgment against Diane Unser. Unser was stopped for traffic violations, a K9 unit conducted a free-air sniff that alerted to narcotics, and a subsequent search uncovered two used syringes in her purse. The trial court denied her motion to suppress and she pled no contest to possessing drug abuse instruments. The appellate court held the dog sniff did not unlawfully prolong the stop, found the K9 was reliably trained and certified, and concluded the record (including counsel’s statements and hearing evidence) supplied the facts needed to convict her of a first-degree misdemeanor.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed Melissa Smith’s misdemeanor conviction for disorderly conduct (R.C. 2917.11(A)(1)) after a bench trial in Hamilton County Municipal Court. Smith had argued she acted in self-defense after the victim, D.J., knocked Smith’s phone from her hand, but the court found the state proved Smith engaged in fighting and turbulent behavior and recklessly caused inconvenience, alarm, and annoyance. The court credited the testimony of the victim and responding officers over Smith’s account and concluded the evidence was sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence.

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.

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.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed Paul Boddy’s convictions following no-contest pleas for illegal possession of a firearm in a liquor-permit premises, carrying a concealed weapon, using a weapon while intoxicated, and possessing a defaced firearm. Boddy argued the trial court erred by not obtaining oral no-contest pleas, by failing to inform him on the record of the effect of his no-contest pleas, and by denying his motion to dismiss on Second Amendment grounds. The court held Boddy properly tendered written no-contest pleas, any Rule 11 advisory defect did not require vacatur because he did not show prejudice, and he waived his constitutional dismissal argument by entering pleas without pursuing the motion.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Summit County Common Pleas Court's denial of Jacky Robinson Jr.'s successive motion to withdraw his 2005 guilty plea to aggravated murder and aggravated burglary. Robinson argued sentencing errors, ineffective assistance of counsel, and breach of a plea agreement, but the appellate court held his claims were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised earlier or on direct appeal. The court explained that Robinson did not show the trial court lacked jurisdiction (which would render the sentence void) and therefore his motion was properly denied as successive and meritless.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Jack L. Bookhamer Jr.’s conviction for domestic violence following a jury trial in Mount Vernon Municipal Court. Bookhamer argued his verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the State failed to disprove his claim of self-defense. The court reviewed competing witness accounts, assessed credibility, and found objective evidence (photographs and officer observations of injuries to the victim but not to appellant) supported the jury’s conclusion that Bookhamer was the aggressor. The court held the jury did not lose its way and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Ross County Common Pleas Court's judgment revoking community control and imposing a 36-month prison term for Kirby Smith after finding multiple violations. Smith argued the trial court wrongly denied his mid-hearing request to proceed pro se and denied a continuance to obtain private counsel. The appellate court held both rulings were within the trial court’s discretion: Smith's invocation of the right to self-representation was untimely and the court properly balanced disruption and prior opportunities, and the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion under the Unger factors.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed two Washington County trial-court rulings involving David S. Wiggers, Sr. In Case No. 25CA5 the court upheld his bench conviction for fourth-degree domestic violence, finding the State proved he knowingly attempted to cause physical harm by swinging an axe handle at his brother. In Case No. 25CA10 the court affirmed revocation of Wiggers’s community control and the imposition of a 15-month prison term after he refused to sign community-control terms and admitted the violation. The court relied on witness testimony, medical records, appellant's inconsistent statements, and the sentencing record.

The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed Richard Turner’s convictions for attempted murder (reduced charge), felonious assault, and breaking and entering following a jury trial. Turner argued insufficient evidence and that the verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court reviewed the record, testimony (including the deputy victim, medical witnesses, and Turner’s statement), and applicable Ohio law, concluding the jury reasonably found Turner lured the deputy into a swamp, resisted arrest, grabbed the deputy’s radio, and placed him in a chokehold that led to near-drowning and serious physical harm. The court found the convictions supported by the evidence and not a miscarriage of justice.