Court Filings

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Michael Marvin Tucker pleaded guilty to deadly conduct, received deferred adjudication and five years’ community supervision, but after the State moved to adjudicate he pleaded true to the allegations, the trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no arguable grounds for appeal, the court conducted an independent review of the record, found no reversible error, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

A Texas court of appeals affirmed Jose Luis Espinoza’s convictions for one count of continuous sexual abuse of a young child and two counts of indecency with a child by sexual contact. A jury convicted him and sentenced him to prison terms running concurrently. On appeal he raised nine issues—challenging sufficiency of the continuous-abuse duration element, double-jeopardy, admission of outcry testimony, extraneous-offense evidence, medical records, expert testimony on credibility, and cumulative error. The court rejected these arguments, finding the evidence legally sufficient, preserved or harmless errors where applicable, and no cumulative error warranting reversal.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Jason Kelsey’s petition for a bill of review seeking to set aside an agreed final divorce decree that awarded most marital assets to Maria Rocha. Kelsey, who signed the decree while incarcerated and proceeded pro se, claimed fraud, duress, lack of a valid marriage, and mischaracterization of his separate property. The trial court found he failed to prove a meritorious defense or that he was prevented by fraud, official mistake, or wrongful act from presenting a defense, and that his own negligence contributed to the outcome. The appellate court held those findings were supported and reviewed for abuse of discretion, so the denial was affirmed.

The Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals reviewed Homer Esquivel Jr.’s appeal after the trial court revoked his deferred-adjudication community supervision and adjudicated him guilty of two controlled-substance and firearm offenses, sentencing him to concurrent ten-year terms. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no arguable grounds for appeal; the court conducted an independent review, found no reversible error, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court corrected the judgment to reflect that Esquivel pled true to count 14 (not 15), granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and explained appellant’s rights to seek discretionary review.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's order discontinuing reunification services and approving a permanency plan of adoption for two minor children after finding the parents subjected the younger child, A. A., to chronic physical abuse. Medical evidence showed A. A. suffered twelve fractures in various healing stages; a child-abuse pediatrician concluded the injuries resulted from repeated adult-inflicted pulling and twisting. The parents invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege at the nonreunification hearing, and the court drew adverse inferences from that refusal. The appellate court held that the evidence met the clear-and-convincing standard for nonreunification and aggravated circumstances.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Michael Riley’s application for postconviction DNA testing of six shell casings. Riley sought new collection and testing based on improved DNA collection techniques, but the court found he implicitly conceded that no “parent sample” (an existing collected sample of biological material containing human DNA) remains. Ohio law requires a parent sample to accept a DNA-testing application. Because Riley sought creation of a new sample from the casings rather than testing an existing parent sample, the statutory prerequisites were not met and the application was properly denied.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Mike Jones’s untimely, successive petition for postconviction relief and his motion for leave to file a motion for new trial. Jones argued newly discovered materials — an internal prosecutor memorandum and a 2024 affidavit from Larissa Taylor — would have supported his self-defense theory or shown Brady suppression. The court held Jones failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence, that the memorandum was admissible or material, or that Taylor’s affidavit would undermine confidence in the jury’s verdict. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction to grant relief and denied the motions.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in State v. Griffin. Griffin challenged a juvenile court’s probable-cause bindover and the imposition of a sentence that included both prison terms and a no-contact condition. The court held Griffin waived his challenge to the bindover by pleading guilty and did not separately raise or preserve a claim that his plea was invalid. The court also held there was no plain error in imposing a no-contact condition because the no-contact term was part of the negotiated plea agreement and Griffin invited any error by accepting the bargain. The convictions and 14-year aggregate sentence were affirmed.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed John Centers’s 66-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to amended unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, tampering with evidence, and gross abuse of a corpse. Centers argued on appeal that the tampering and corpse-abuse convictions should have merged for sentencing because they arose from the same conduct. The court applied merger statutes and plain-error review, concluded Centers did not meet his burden to show the offenses were allied, and held the record supported separate sentences because the conduct could reflect distinct acts and import.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Brianna Becks’s presentence motion to withdraw her guilty plea and upheld her conviction. Becks pled guilty to attempted endangering children as part of a day-of-trial plea agreement and later sought to withdraw the plea at sentencing, alleging ineffective assistance and pressure from counsel. The appeals court found counsel provided effective representation, rejected the claim that counsel had an adverse conflict of interest, and relied on the plea colloquy showing Becks understood the plea. The court therefore affirmed the sentence of one year community control.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals, on remand from the Ohio Supreme Court, affirmed the trial court’s ruling that relators’ writ of mandamus alleging inverse condemnation against the City of Cleveland was not barred by the four-year statute of limitations. The court concluded the cause of action did not accrue until the airport runway expansion at issue was completed in August 2004, because that completion was when all events fixing Cleveland’s alleged liability occurred. Because the relators filed their mandamus petition on August 1, 2008, the court held the action was timely and remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits of the taking claim.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody of 10-year-old C.F. to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (CCDCFS), terminating the parental rights of L.Y. (mother) and D.F. (father). The child had been repeatedly removed for concerns including domestic violence, parental substance use, and unmet mental-health and educational needs. The court held that statutory grounds for permanent custody were met and that permanent custody best served the child’s interests because C.F. was thriving in his caregiver J.F.’s home while Mother had not remedied the conditions that led to removal or demonstrated reliable sobriety or engagement with services.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Euclid Municipal Court’s denial of Malik Dahdouh’s last-minute motion to continue a small-claims trial. The case arose after the plaintiff sued for vehicle damage; the trial was scheduled within the 40-day small-claims deadline. Dahdouh filed a pro se continuance request the day before trial, citing overseas travel, which the magistrate denied. The appellate court held the trial court properly applied the factors governing continuances (including statutory timing, delay length, prejudice to the plaintiff, and the defendant’s contribution to the delay) and did not abuse its discretion in refusing the continuance.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Dr. Anthony Gingo in his defamation suit against Jane Hanak based on a Yelp review. The appellate court held the challenged statements were false, defamatory per se, and not protected by any qualified privilege; damages (total $245,000, including $145,000 compensatory and $100,000 punitive) and attorney fees were upheld after a hearing. The court also affirmed the trial court’s prior designation of Hanak as a vexatious litigator. The ruling rests on undisputed admissions, admissible record evidence, and the conclusion that the statements alleged criminal conduct and attacks on professional reputation.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Shawn Hamilton's negligence and intentional-tort claims against Ameristone, American Countertops, and employee Noah Troyer. Hamilton was injured at work and sued for negligence, negligence per se, and under Ohio's intentional-tort statute. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings and denied leave to amend because the complaint did not allege deliberate intent to injure, and the employers were covered by the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation. The appellate court agreed that the pleadings failed to state an actionable intentional-tort claim and affirmed.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed Sabestian A. Magan’s February 25, 2025 convictions for domestic violence and assault after a bench trial in Franklin County Municipal Court. Magan argued his convictions were unsupported by sufficient evidence, were against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for causing him to reject a plea offer. The court found the state presented adequate testimony and photographic evidence to prove physical harm to the victim, rejected credibility challenges to the state’s witnesses, and determined Magan failed to show prejudice under the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the Cicorettis’ complaint against A&M Total Restoration. The Cicorettis repeatedly filed complaints captioned as breach of contract but pleaded only negligent, defective, and unworkmanlike performance and failed to attach a written contract or adequately plead contract terms as required by Civ.R. 10(D). The appellate court agreed the complaint failed to state a cognizable breach claim and that negligence/oral-contract claims were time-barred, so dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was proper.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Michelle Saunders’s convictions and sentence for two second-degree felony drug charges. Saunders argued her guilty pleas were invalid because the trial court did not inform her, during the plea-change hearing, that any sentence in this Guernsey County case could be ordered consecutive to separate prison terms she was already serving in Union County. The appellate court held the trial judge had adequately complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) by advising Saunders of the maximum sentences for each offense and that the court could order consecutive terms between the counts in this case; the judge had no obligation to explain consecutive exposure to sentences from a different county where the defendant was already incarcerated.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Delaware Municipal Court's conviction of Samuel Baffoe for one count of menacing by stalking after a bench trial. Baffoe argued the trial court erred by not ordering a competency evaluation before trial because he told the court he did not feel competent and made various courtroom protests. The appeals court reviewed for abuse of discretion and concluded the record did not show reasonable cause to doubt competency: Baffoe made limited medical complaints, displayed understanding of the proceedings, and standby counsel (appointed by the trial court) never raised competency concerns.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's October 6, 2025 judgment denying Lynette L. Shidaker’s post-judgment motions seeking to reopen or set aside the May 31, 2023 divorce judgment. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Civ.R. 60(B) motion untimely despite being filed within one year, concluding Appellant had known of the asserted grounds earlier and offered no sufficient explanation for delay. The court also rejected Civ.R. 60(A) relief for alleged clerical error in spousal-support calculations and found it lacked jurisdiction to review arguments that should have been raised in a timely appeal from the 2023 judgment.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a juvenile court order changing 13-year-old C.B.’s permanency goal from reunification to subsidized permanent legal custodianship (SPLC). The stepfather, I.Q., appealed and appointed counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous. The appellate court found counsel complied with Anders procedural requirements, reviewed the record, and held that the juvenile court’s factual findings and legal conclusions — including that placement remained necessary, reunification efforts were thwarted by the parent’s noncooperation, and C.B. had a strong bond with her foster custodian — were supported by the record. The court granted counsel’s withdrawal and affirmed the goal change order.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the lower court's denial of Eastmore Owners Corp.'s motion to dismiss three causes of action brought by tenant Blanche Zelmanovich. The court held that Zelmanovich plausibly pled housing discrimination and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under federal, state, and city fair housing and human rights laws. Her complaints about inaccurate noise reports, temporal proximity between notice of default and notice of her disability, differential treatment of a neighbor, and a psychologist's letter supporting an emotional support dog were sufficient at the pleading stage to create inferences of discrimination and failure to engage in an interactive accommodation process.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed two judgments against Brandon Monegro. The court affirmed a January 18, 2024 conviction (amended April 10, 2024) for second-degree assault and a May 7, 2024 guilty plea conviction for third-degree assault, including the sentences. The court held that disorderly conduct was properly included in the Superior Court Information as a joinable lesser non-inclusory offense related to the same act charged in the felony complaint. Because the earlier conviction was affirmed, the defendant's argument that his later plea should be vacated as dependent on a reversal is moot.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a resentencing judgment that sentenced defendant Marques McGeachy to an aggregate term of 16 years. The court reviewed the trial court's denial of youthful offender treatment and found that, although McGeachy was technically eligible, the sentencing court properly considered the relevant factors and reasonably exercised its discretion to deny youthful offender status. The panel noted McGeachy’s participation with a violent gang, multiple shootings, and violent conduct over months involving multiple victims as reasons supporting the denial and the sentence.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a 2019 Bronx County conviction and sentence of Michael Mable, who pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal possession of a weapon and was sentenced as a second felony offender to 2½ to 5 years. The court declined to review Mable’s claim that his plea was involuntary because he failed to preserve the issue at the plea colloquy and the narrow exception allowing late review did not apply. The court also alternatively held that the record contains no evidence casting doubt on the voluntariness of the plea.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Keyshawn Kitchens' convictions for first- and second-degree assault and the concurrent seven-year sentences. The court found Kitchens failed to preserve statutory speedy trial and prosecutorial-misconduct claims and declined to review them in the interest of justice, but alternatively rejected those claims on the merits. The court also held the evidence was legally sufficient to convict, finding Kitchens the initial aggressor and that the victim was unarmed, with testimony corroborated by surveillance and other witnesses; jury credibility determinations were upheld.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Diondre Holman’s conviction following a guilty plea to fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon and his three-year probation sentence, but modified the judgment by striking the probation condition requiring payment of the mandatory surcharge and related fees. The court concluded Holman validly waived his right to appeal, which foreclosed review of his excessiveness challenge, but allowed review of his challenge to the legality of the probation condition and found that requirement unrelated to rehabilitation or public safety. Holman’s facial challenge to the "good moral character" licensing provision was unpreserved and declined in the interest of justice.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Jesse Faulkner's conviction for second-degree criminal possession of a weapon and his sentence of 3½ years plus five years of postrelease supervision. The court rejected Faulkner's unpreserved Second Amendment challenge and declined to review it in the interest of justice. Alternatively, the court held he had standing to bring a facial challenge but failed to show New York's "good moral character" licensing requirement was invalid under Bruen. His ineffective-assistance claim was held unreviewable on direct appeal and, in any event, meritless because the claim had little chance of success.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the judgment of conviction entered by Supreme Court, Bronx County (Marsha D. Michael, J.) on May 31, 2022. Derwin Blanks appealed his conviction and sentence. After briefing and argument, the appellate court found the sentence imposed was not excessive and therefore affirmed the lower court's judgment in full. The decision is a short, unanimous order without extended opinion, primarily addressing the proportionality of the sentence.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Shawn Batista’s conviction and sentence for attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, but exercised its interest-of-justice power to vacate the mandatory surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing. The court held Batista validly waived his right to appeal, which barred his as-applied constitutional and excessive-sentence claims, and found his preserved facial challenge to New York's age-based restriction on gun licensing failed on the merits under Bruen and controlling state precedent. The People did not oppose vacatur of the fees, so those monetary assessments were removed.