Court Filings

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.

The Ohio First District Court of Appeals affirmed Demarius Jester’s conviction for resisting arrest (R.C. 2921.33(A)). The municipal court struck Jester’s motion to suppress as untimely; the appellate court held that striking the motion did not constitute an abuse of discretion because the motion was filed after the Crim.R. 12(D) deadline and the State’s late disclosure of additional body-worn camera footage occurred after the motion was filed. The court also upheld admission of an officer’s testimony about computer-generated warrant information as non-hearsay evidence of the officer’s belief, and found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

The court affirmed the municipal-court judgments dismissing misdemeanor charges against Darryl Brown because his statutory right to a speedy trial was violated. Brown was arrested November 8, 2024; discovery problems (a missing 9-1-1 call) and the State’s delayed response led to multiple continuances and a motion to compel. The trial court found the State caused significant delay, sanctioned the State, and ultimately dismissed the complaints after calculating that more than 90 days had run. The appellate court held the continuances necessitated by the State’s discovery failures were chargeable to the State and affirmed.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgments against Samantha Huff. Huff had pleaded guilty in three consolidated Richland County cases (drug possession, failure to comply with police, and OVI) and later admitted violations of community control after pleading guilty to a first-degree heroin possession charge. She argued her plea was involuntary because she had professed innocence and the court failed to perform an enhanced inquiry for an Alford plea, and that the probation violation was unsupported. The appellate court found the record showed a knowing, voluntary plea with a factual basis and sufficient evidence to revoke community control, so it affirmed.

The Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s denial of pretrial release for Toni R. Kelly, who was charged with multiple methamphetamine delivery offenses. The trial court found Kelly dangerous and concluded no conditions could mitigate the threat. The appellate court held the lower court erred because the State did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that no combination of conditions (for example, inpatient treatment followed by GPS/home confinement) could mitigate any danger. The case is remanded for the trial court to determine appropriate conditions of release.

The Appellate Division (Second Department) reviewed the People’s appeal from a Supreme Court order that, after a hearing and reargument, vacated Omarny Williams’s 2017 guilty plea judgment and set aside his sentence. The appellate court reversed the grant to vacate the plea because the plea record showed Williams told the court he was a U.S. citizen, and thus the court’s failure to warn about immigration consequences could be reviewed on direct appeal and was untimely raised. The court affirmed that the sentence must be set aside because the sentencing court failed to properly determine Williams’s eligibility for youthful offender treatment and remitted the case for resentencing.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Kings County Supreme Court judgment adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender after he pleaded guilty to second-degree criminal possession of a weapon and imposing sentence. The defendant argued that the youthful-offender adjudication violated his Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights, but the appellate court found those constitutional claims unpreserved for review and declined to decide them in the interest of justice. Consequently, the lower court's judgment was affirmed without addressing the merits of the constitutional challenges.

The Appellate Division reviewed a County Court order that had designated Joshua Stewart a level three sexually violent offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act after his New Jersey conviction for promoting child prostitution. The court upheld the risk-point scoring and refused a downward departure, finding the Guidelines had adequately considered mitigating factors. However, the panel held that applying Correction Law § 168-a(3)(b) to label him a "sexually violent offender" was unconstitutional as applied because the underlying New Jersey offense would not qualify as a sexually violent offense under New York law. The court therefore modified the designation to "level three sex offender" and affirmed as modified.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed defendant Jaquan Oden’s conviction for disorderly conduct under Penal Law § 240.20(3) after a jury trial. Oden was acquitted of a separate disorderly conduct count under § 240.20(6) that alleged failure to disperse. The court rejected arguments that the conviction was legally insufficient or against the weight of the evidence because the disputed dispersal order was an element only of the acquitted charge, not the conviction. The court also found defense counsel effective and upheld the denial of a mistrial, concluding the prosecutor’s improper remark was cured by immediate instructions to the jury.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a County Court order designating Daniel Morrison a level three sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Morrison, convicted after jury trial of first‑degree sexual abuse and two counts of second‑degree murder, argued for a lower risk level based on mitigating factors. The court held the argument was unpreserved because he did not request a downward departure at the SORA hearing, and in any event he failed to meet the legal standard for a downward departure from the presumptive level three classification.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the County Court conviction and sentence of Daryl K. Miller for attempted sexual abuse in the first degree after Miller pleaded guilty. The court found Miller knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, and that valid waiver bars review of his claim that the sentence was excessive. Because the appeal waiver was valid, the appellate panel declined to review the sentencing challenge and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the County Court.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the sentence imposed on Mario Lazu after his guilty plea. The defendant appealed only on the ground that the sentence was excessive, but the court concluded he had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal. Because the appeal waiver was valid, the court found it could not consider the challenge to the sentence and therefore affirmed the lower court's June 27, 2023 sentence.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed defendant Andrew Jointe’s challenge to his sentence following guilty pleas to third-degree rape and attempted sex trafficking of a child. The court found the 10-year period of postrelease supervision imposed for the attempted sex trafficking conviction was illegal and reduced it to five years. As modified, the concurrent determinate prison terms of 3.5 years and the remaining 10-year postrelease supervision on the rape conviction were affirmed. The court stated it may correct an illegal sentence even if the issue was not raised below.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed defendant Clyde Johnson’s convictions for three counts of forcible touching and one count of third-degree sexual abuse after a jury trial. The court found the defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence unpreserved but, in any event, held the evidence sufficient and the verdict not against the weight of the evidence. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct were rejected. The court also concluded the time period alleged in the forcible touching counts gave the defendant fair notice to prepare a defense.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the sentence imposed on Tyshaun Holloway after his guilty plea. Holloway challenged the sentence as excessive, but the court held that he had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, and that valid waiver bars appellate review of his excessiveness claim. Because the waiver was valid, the court declined to consider the merits of the sentencing claim and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Supreme Court, Kings County.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant Lucious Griffin’s convictions following a jury trial for multiple drug and paraphernalia offenses and his sentence. Griffin argued the indictment should be dismissed for violation of his statutory speedy-trial rights because the People’s initial certificate of compliance (COC) omitted certain discovery (including a prisoner movement log and pole camera footage). The court held the initial COC was valid because the People exercised due diligence, promptly disclosed the missing log once discovered, and the defense sought no lesser remedy than dismissal. Several other claims were deemed unpreserved for appeal.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed defendant Darrel Greenlee’s appeal challenging the excessiveness of a nine-year determinate sentence (plus five years postrelease supervision) imposed after his guilty plea to first-degree assault. The court exercised its discretion in the interest of justice and reduced the prison term to seven years while leaving the five-year period of postrelease supervision intact. The court cited sentencing excessiveness principles and People v Suitte in concluding the original nine-year term was greater than warranted and therefore modified the sentence accordingly.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant Kwauhuru Govan’s convictions for second-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping following a jury trial. The court held the evidence was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence, rejected constitutional and prosecutorial-misconduct claims as unpreserved or without merit, and found the defendant received effective assistance of counsel. The court relied on the criminalist’s testimony as independent analysis and declined to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations, thus affirming the trial court’s judgment and sentence.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a February 16, 2024 sentence imposed on Darius Drummond following his guilty plea. Drummond challenged the sentence as excessive, but the court held his appellate waiver was valid and therefore bars review of the sentencing claim. Relying on controlling precedent, the court concluded the waiver foreclosed his appeal and affirmed the judgment without reaching the merits of the excessiveness argument.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant Nelson DeJesus's convictions for two counts of attempted first-degree assault and two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon following a jury trial and sentence. The court rejected the defendant's confrontation-clause challenge to admission of two DNA laboratory files and testimony because the testifying analyst generated and analyzed the relevant DNA profiles. The court also found trial counsel was not ineffective and declined to review other unpreserved issues in the interest of justice.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed four Supreme Court, Kings County judgments convicting Johnnie Corbett after his guilty pleas to various felonies and imposing sentences. The court held Corbett knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, which bars review of his claim that the sentences were excessive and most ineffective-assistance claims. Corbett's challenge that his pleas were unknowing survived the waiver but was unpreserved and without merit based on the plea allocutions and record. The court therefore affirmed all four judgments.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant Angel Berrios's conviction following his guilty plea to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court, Kings County. The court rejected Berrios's challenge to the denial of his suppression motion because he had validly waived his right to appeal; that waiver bars appellate review of the suppression ruling. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the judgment without reaching the merits of the suppression claim.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas granted the appellant's unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal of a trial court order adjudicating him guilty of theft of a firearm and sentencing him to seven months confinement. The motion complied with the appellate rule requiring signature by both the appellant and his attorney. Because no opinion had been issued in the case, the court dismissed the appeal, denied any rehearing motions, and directed that the court's mandate issue immediately.

The Seventh Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Curtis Johnson’s jury conviction for continuous sexual abuse of his six-year-old granddaughter and his 40-year prison sentence. Johnson argued the trial court erred by admitting evidence of prior sexual abuse against another victim (A.J.) because the State’s notice was insufficient. The court held Johnson waived complaint by not requesting a continuance or other relief to address alleged surprise, and even assuming error, any notice defect was harmless because the State had informed him of the victim, offenses, and date range well before trial and A.J. testified at a pretrial hearing.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Michael Evan Holley’s appeal from a Union County circuit court decision and, in a per curiam opinion dated April 29, 2026, affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The opinion is brief: the court announced its unanimous decision to affirm and provided no extended written reasoning. The panel noted the availability of timely post-opinion motions under Florida appellate rules and identified counsel for both sides.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed De Ante George Green's appeal from the Leon County Circuit Court and, in a brief per curiam decision dated April 29, 2026, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion contains no stated reasoning beyond the single-word disposition and notes that the decision is not final until timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules are resolved. The panel of judges Lewis, Roberts, and Kelsey concurred. Green appeared pro se; the State was represented by the Attorney General's office.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Bobby Lee Johnson from a Pinellas County circuit court judgment and, in a brief per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion contains no published reasoning or citation; the panel affirmed the judgment below and all three judges concurred. The opinion is subject to revision before official publication.

The court reviewed Andre Hunter's appeal from a Manatee County circuit court decision under Florida appellate rules. The Second District Court of Appeal, in a per curiam decision, affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion is short, unsigned, and gives no published reasoning; it simply states the judgment is affirmed and that the opinion may be revised before official publication.

The Second District Court of Appeal of Florida considered an appeal by Jason Casanas from a decision of the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion concluding that the circuit court's ruling should be affirmed. No extended reasoning, factual background, or specific legal issues are discussed in the published entry; the panel of judges concurred and the opinion was filed April 29, 2026.

The Second District Court of Appeal of Florida reviewed a pro se appeal by Labronx Bailey from a Hillsborough County circuit court order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). The appellate court, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's decision. No substantive reasoning or opinion text is provided in the published entry beyond the single-word disposition and concurrence by three judges. The opinion may be revised before official publication.