Court Filings

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed Dean Dominique Gore’s convictions for engaging in prostitution and possession of criminal tools arising from an undercover online sting. Police posted an ad, Detective Haueter communicated with Gore by text and provided a false rendezvous location; officers observed Gore’s vehicle acting like it was searching for the address, stopped and arrested him, seized his phone, and later obtained his consent to search it. The court held the stop and seizure were supported by reasonable suspicion and probable cause, the phone seizure and subsequent consented search were lawful, and the evidence supported the convictions.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed Dennis Thompson Jr.’s conviction for strangulation following a jury trial in Fulton County. Thompson was acquitted of domestic violence but convicted under R.C. 2903.18(B)(3) after the victim and witnesses testified that Thompson gripped the victim’s neck, causing pain, difficulty breathing, and visible bruising. The court held the evidence was legally sufficient and the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, rejecting defense arguments about inconsistent witness accounts, lack of expert medical proof, and brief contact with the victim’s neck.

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed Anthony Mitchell’s convictions for aggravated murder, murder, felonious assault, aggravated burglary, and strangulation following a jury trial. The court found sufficient evidence linking Mitchell to the killing—most importantly, Mitchell’s DNA was found under the victim’s left fingernails and a new scar near his eye supported a struggle—so a rational juror could find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also rejected arguments that strangulation should have merged with aggravated murder, found the bill of particulars claim forfeited without prejudice, and rejected ineffective-assistance claims.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s sentence of 8 to 12 years imprisonment after defendant Antonio Castaneda pled guilty to one count of felonious assault. Castaneda argued on appeal that the trial court improperly relied on a supposed lack of remorse when imposing an above-minimum sentence. The appeals court found the remorse determination falls within the nonexhaustive factors courts may consider under R.C. 2929.12 and is not subject to reversal as contrary to law; the court distinguished the case relied on by defendant and upheld the sentence based on the defendant’s violent history, the injuries to the victim, and the allocution. Costs of appeal were assessed to Castaneda.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Anthony Sanchez’s August 2025 post-sentence motion to withdraw his 2016 guilty pleas. Sanchez claimed his trial lawyer withheld discovery and misled him about the State’s evidence, amounting to ineffective assistance. The appellate court found Sanchez’s second motion barred by claim preclusion because he had raised ineffective-assistance claims in a prior 2022 motion and had not shown the discovery was newly discovered. The court also held the submitted affidavits and documents were insufficient to show a fundamental unfairness requiring withdrawal.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the municipal-court conviction of Tangie Goodson for operating a vehicle while under the influence. Goodson argued her trial lawyer was ineffective because a motion to suppress was filed late and denied without a hearing, after which she pled no-contest. The appeals court found counsel’s delay was deficient under the rules, but concluded Goodson could not show prejudice: the traffic stop and officer observations justified tests, admissible lay observations would remain even if test results were suppressed, and the breath-test evidence was not necessary to the conviction. Therefore the conviction was affirmed.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s dental malpractice complaint against the Deol defendants. Plaintiff sued for injuries from root canals performed by an endodontist, Dr. Taggar, who practiced at premises operated by the Deol defendants. The court concluded Taggar was an independent contractor, not an employee, and the Deol defendants neither controlled his professional work nor actually supervised him, so they are not vicariously or directly liable. Plaintiff’s opposition lacked admissible evidence to create a triable issue of fact.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a Supreme Court order dismissing plaintiff Varma's complaint against Allstate and Wayne LeVan. The court held the complaint was barred by res judicata because the claims — challenging termination and asserting breach based on the same agency agreement and incorporated supplement — either were raised or could have been raised in an earlier action between the same parties. The court also held that the prior dismissal and the denial of leave to amend had preclusive effect because the new complaint mirrors the proposed amended pleading previously rejected on the merits.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed a lower court order denying plaintiff Jeremiah Smith's motion for leave to amend his complaint against the City of Buffalo, its police department, and unnamed officers. The appeal challenged Supreme Court (Erie County)'s November 12, 2024 decision refusing permission to amend, but the appellate court found no reversible error and denied relief. The appellate decision is brief and affirms the trial court's exercise of discretion without further elaboration in the slip opinion.

The Appellate Division affirmed a divorce judgment, modifying it to reduce the required life insurance the husband must carry from $750,000 to an amount equal to the remaining unpaid maintenance and allowing a declining term policy. The court upheld the equitable distribution, the sale of marital real estate, the maintenance award (including using the statutory income cap), and the attorney-fee award, rejecting claims of dissipation and insufficient property valuation. The cross-appeal succeeded only on the life-insurance security amount, which the court held should track the unpaid maintenance balance and decline as payments are made.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed an order of the Court of Claims that granted the administrator of Kaazim Freeman’s estate leave to amend her wrongful-death claim against the State and denied the State’s motion to dismiss. The court held that the proposed amendments related back to the original claim for statute-of-limitations purposes because they arose from the same occurrence — Freeman’s unexplained death in state custody — and that the State failed to show prejudice from the delay. Consequently, amendment was properly allowed under CPLR 3025 and CPLR 203(f).

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department unanimously affirmed a March 28, 2025 Oswego County Court order classifying defendant Alexander R. Watros as a Level Two sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The court reviewed the county court's risk-level determination and found no basis to disturb it. Because the Appellate Division affirmed, the Level Two classification and its attendant registration and community-notification requirements remain in effect.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Terrell L. Walker's conviction for driving while ability impaired. The court had previously reserved decision and remitted the case to Monroe County Court to resolve whether the People were required to obtain DMV refusal-hearing transcripts or recordings under the statutory discovery and whether any failure violated defendant's speedy-trial rights. On remand the court denied the motion to dismiss, and this court upheld that ruling, concluding the DMV materials were not in the prosecution's possession or deemed to be in possession and thus were not required to be obtained or listed in the certificate of compliance.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Bounleaung Thanthima’s convictions for predatory sexual assault against a child and endangering the welfare of a child. On appeal the defendant argued the jury heard evidence of oral sexual acts not specifically described to the grand jury, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held the indictment and bill of particulars were broad enough to cover the testimony, found the claimed prosecutorial errors either unpreserved or harmless, and determined defense counsel’s choices were strategic and did not amount to ineffective assistance. The sentence was upheld as not unduly harsh.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed a June 25, 2024 judgment convicting Carol Steinagle after she pleaded guilty to second-degree kidnapping (Penal Law § 135.20). The defendant argued on appeal that her plea was not knowing and voluntary and that her sentence was harsh. The court found the claim unpreserved because she did not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment, declined to review it in the interest of justice, and rejected the claim that the sentence was unduly harsh, so the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Joseph Serrano’s convictions for second-degree murder and two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The court reviewed the trial record and concluded the guilty verdicts were not against the weight of the evidence, crediting eyewitness testimony supported by ballistics. The court rejected or found unpreserved Serrano’s claims about confrontation, suppression of statements, suggestive identification, grand jury misconduct, discovery sanctions, prosecutorial misconduct, juror misconduct, late expert disclosure, and ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding none warranted reversal or a new trial.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Markeef Royal’s convictions following a jury trial for second- and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The court rejected Royal’s double jeopardy claim that an earlier trial judge declared a mistrial without consent and without necessity, concluding defense counsel implicitly consented to the mistrial. The court also rejected challenges to a prospective juror for cause, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and a constitutional attack on Penal Law § 265.03(3) after Bruen, and found the sentence not unduly harsh.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Christopher O'Neal Jr.'s conviction following his guilty plea to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The court held that O'Neal validly waived his right to appeal, and that the oral waiver cured any deficiency in establishing on the record his understanding of the written waiver. The court also rejected his claim that the trial court erred in denying a hearing on his motion to withdraw the plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel, finding nothing in the record undermined counsel's effectiveness and that credibility issues could be resolved without a hearing.

The Fourth Department affirmed defendant Kenneth Nixon’s convictions entered after he pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and two counts of menacing a police or peace officer. The court held that the waiver of appeal obtained during a court-initiated plea was invalid because the record did not show a distinct and proper reason for conditioning the plea on an appeal waiver. On the merits, the court found no error in the court’s revocation of interim probation after a sufficient summary hearing showing Nixon violated curfew and failed to report to his probation officer, and it declined to grant youthful offender status.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Kenneth T. Mountzouros's convictions (jury verdict) for sexual abuse in the first and second degrees and two counts of forcible touching. The court rejected challenges that the indictment was duplicitous, that the first-count time frame rendered it defective, and that the court erred by admitting victim testimony about uncharged acts and expert testimony about child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Several preservation failures also prevented review of other claims. The court noted the Livingston County District Attorney failed to file an opposing brief on appeal.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed defendant James A. Moore’s conviction following a jury trial. Moore was convicted of three counts of first-degree sexual abuse and one count of second-degree escape. The court issued a brief order affirming the underlying Supreme Court, Monroe County judgment, adopting the same memorandum opinion issued in the companion appeal listed as Appeal No. 1. No change to the convictions or sentence was made by this decision.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Curtez McLaurin’s conviction following a jury trial for second-degree murder (felony murder), attempted first-degree robbery, and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The court rejected McLaurin’s request for a manslaughter-in-the-second-degree jury charge because that offense is not a lesser included offense of felony murder, and found no prejudice from the omission as McLaurin had been acquitted of intentional murder. The court also declined to review an unpreserved challenge to a supplemental jury instruction, found the verdicts were not against the weight of the evidence, and affirmed the sentence as not unduly harsh.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Carlos Machado-Garcia’s convictions following a jury trial for multiple theft-related offenses, including two counts each of third-degree criminal possession of stolen property and third-degree burglary, plus attempted grand larceny and fourth-degree grand larceny. The court held the verdicts were supported by evidence (including exclusive possession of a stolen vehicle and conflicting statements to police), denied a severance request because the separate incidents were similar and properly joined, rejected ineffective assistance claims as strategy disagreements or unpreserved, and found the sentence not unduly harsh.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Carlos A. Machado-Garcia's conviction following a guilty plea to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The defendant argued his plea was not knowing and voluntary because the court failed to advise him about sentencing consequences under Penal Law § 70.25(2-b), and he also raised ineffective-assistance claims. The court held the failure to preserve the plea-advice claim barred review and declined to reach it in the interest of justice. The panel rejected the surviving ineffective-assistance arguments, finding counsel was not ineffective for failing to secure concurrent sentencing.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed Warren Love’s conviction following his guilty plea to third-degree grand larceny. Love had asked to represent himself after complaining about communication with appointed counsel, but the court found his request equivocal because he sought self-representation only as an alternative to receiving new counsel. The court further held Love failed to preserve his claim that the plea was involuntary because he did not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment, and no exception to preservation applied. Accordingly, the conviction was affirmed.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed a Cayuga County Court judgment convicting Craig E. Laird, who pleaded guilty, of four counts of aggravated family offense and one count of criminal contempt in the second degree. The appeal challenged the conviction following the October 3, 2024 judgment, but the appellate court unanimously found no reversible error and affirmed. The opinion is brief and records the affirmance without extended discussion of the underlying facts or legal analysis.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Ryan S. Kelsey’s conviction for second-degree assault entered after his guilty plea in Cayuga County Court. The court reviewed the appeal from the May 16, 2024 judgment and unanimously affirmed, rejecting the grounds raised by the defendant. The opinion is short and concludes the plea and resulting conviction were proper, leaving the trial court’s judgment intact without further modification or remand.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department unanimously affirmed a conviction of defendant Ryan S. Kelsey. Kelsey pleaded guilty in Cayuga County Court to the crime of aggravated family offense, and the appellate court reviewed the judgment entered February 13, 2024. The court issued a short order affirming the conviction without published opinion, indicating it found no reversible error in the plea-based judgment or the sentencing process in the record presented.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Kimberly J. Jones's convictions for two counts of second-degree murder, first-degree kidnapping, first- and second-degree robbery, and criminal possession of stolen property following a jury trial. The court rejected challenges to the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, concluding that surveillance footage, cell-site data, physical evidence (including a synthetic wig fiber), the victim's restrained decomposing body, and other circumstantial proof permitted a rational jury to find defendant guilty as a principal or accomplice. The court modified the sentencing structure to make certain robbery sentences concurrent with the murder and first-degree robbery sentences, but left the aggregate 40-years-to-life term intact.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Jaquan C.'s conviction following his guilty plea to first-degree manslaughter. The court held that his waiver of the right to appeal was knowing and valid, which waived his challenge to sentence severity. The majority rejected defendant's ineffective-assistance claim about counsel's failure to seek a hearing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA), concluding the record was insufficient to resolve that claim and that it should be raised in a CPL article 440 motion. Two judges dissented, finding counsel was ineffective and would have vacated the sentence for a DVSJA hearing.