Court Filings

The Texas Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s termination of Mother’s parental rights to her infant child, E.T. The Department removed the child shortly after birth when both tested positive for amphetamine and later showed Mother’s continued methamphetamine and other drug use, untreated bipolar disorder, failure to complete court-ordered services, and periods of incarceration and mental-health treatment. The court applied the statutory best-interest factors (Holley factors) and concluded that Mother’s instability, ongoing substance use, untreated mental-health issues, and failure to complete services supported a finding by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the child’s best interest.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Real Dream Investors, LLC in a dispute over redemption of a tax deed purchased by Monarch Holdings Group, LLC. Monarch bought the property at a tax sale and published a barment notice giving April 16, 2022 as the redemption deadline; the Court held that state time-computation rules extended that deadline to Monday, April 18, 2022. Real Dream timely tendered a cashier’s check and deed on April 18 by attempted personal delivery and overnight mailing after Monarch could not accept delivery, and Monarch’s rejection waived any further tender, extinguishing its tax deed.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Morris Charles Spann’s convictions for malice murder, felony murder (merged), aggravated assaults, and related firearm-possession counts arising from the July 30, 2011 shootings that killed his mother and wounded Willie Ricks. The Court reviewed a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge and held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could find Spann guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The ruling relied on eyewitness testimony, physical evidence linking Spann to the gun, his flight from the scene, and inconsistencies in his account to reject alternative theories of innocence.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of I’Kenyo Shine’s 2025 motion for leave to file an out-of-time appeal from a 2006 guilty plea to felony murder. Shine argued his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of appellate rights, relying on later precedent and a 2025 statute authorizing out-of-time appeals. The Court held Shine’s claim was barred by earlier habeas litigation and res judicata, and that counsel could not be ineffective for failing to advise of a right that did not exist under controlling law in 2006. The Court also found Shine waived a recusal claim by not raising it below.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Sheldon Ragland’s convictions for malice murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and related firearm offenses for the 2017 shooting death of Kenneth Adair. Ragland challenged several trial rulings (exclusion/limitation of questioning about a witness’s 9mm gun, admission of recorded jail calls and a detective’s identification/opinion about the callers), argued trial counsel was ineffective, and claimed cumulative prejudice. The Court found no reversible error: the evidence about the 9mm was before the jury or cumulative, counsel strategically declined objections to use the tape, any opinion testimony was harmless given strong independent evidence, and the ineffectiveness and cumulative-prejudice claims failed.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Gregory Painter’s convictions for malice murder and related offenses. Painter argued the trial court erred by refusing to give jury instructions on two forms of the insanity defense (lack of ability to distinguish right from wrong and delusional compulsion). The Court held there was no slight evidence to support either instruction: evidence of mental illness or odd behavior alone is insufficient, Painter refused a court-ordered evaluation and presented no expert proof or contemporaneous evidence of a delusion that would justify the killing, and his post-shooting statements and concealment undermined a claim he could not distinguish right from wrong.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Trevor Lamont Nuckles’s post-judgment motion. Nuckles, who pleaded guilty in 2012 to felony murder and related offenses and was sentenced to life plus five years, sought to quash the indictment, withdraw his guilty plea as involuntary, obtain leave for an out-of-time appeal, and secure counsel. The Court held the trial court correctly denied relief because Nuckles’s plea-withdrawal request was untimely after the term of court expired, his attempt to vacate convictions via a motion was not an appropriate criminal remedy, and he failed to show entitlement to an out-of-time appeal under OCGA § 5-6-39.1.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Tonya Monroe’s 2022 convictions for malice murder, first-degree cruelty to children, and distribution of methamphetamine for the 2016 death of her nine-month-old grandson, Kobe Shaw. The Court held that the evidence — expert testimony showing meth in Kobe’s blood consistent with direct administration, medical findings, and witness statements that Monroe admitted placing meth in Kobe’s mouth — was sufficient for a rational jury to convict. The Court also rejected Monroe’s ineffective-assistance claims, finding trial counsel’s strategic choices (cross-examination, rebuttal expert, and tactical decisions about limiting instructions and impeachment) reasonable.

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Travis McFarland’s convictions, including felony murder and related counts, and his Street Gang Act convictions. The court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence, a denied jury instruction on justification (self-defense), and ineffective-assistance claims. It concluded the evidence (social media, phone data, a fingerprint on a gun, eyewitness testimony, and a gang expert) supported a finding that McFarland committed the predicate offenses with intent to further gang interests and his status. The court also found no basis for a justification instruction and no showing of deficient or prejudicial trial performance by counsel.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Deqaveon Malcolm’s convictions for two counts of felony murder, two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and criminal damage to property arising from a 2016 drive-by shooting that killed James Simmons and injured Trevis Bufford. Malcolm challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, his trial counsel’s failure to move to suppress gunshot-residue evidence from his mother’s car, and the trial court’s refusal to remove a juror who had been a victim in a Fulton County case. The Court held the evidence supported guilt as a party to the crimes, counsel’s decision to forego suppression was a reasonable strategy, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion on the juror issue.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Matthew Larkins’s convictions for malice murder and related offenses arising from the August 4, 2016 shooting death of Shanna Smith. Larkins challenged sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions about a testifying co-defendant’s out-of-court statements, ineffective assistance for failing to object to a judge’s remark to jurors, admission of alleged co-conspirator hearsay, and the prosecutor’s initial closing argument. The Court found the evidence strong and any instructional or evidentiary errors harmless, trial counsel’s choices reasonable, and Georgia law permits the prosecutor’s opening; therefore the convictions and sentence were affirmed.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed David William Kelly’s convictions for the 2017 shooting death of his wife. Kelly challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, voir dire limits, hearsay rulings (including use of the residual hearsay exception), admission of certain testimony, and multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court reviewed the trial evidence in detail, found the forensic and witness evidence supported the jury’s verdict, held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting challenged testimony under OCGA § 24-8-807, and concluded Kelly failed to show deficient performance or prejudice from his attorneys’ actions. The convictions and sentence were affirmed.

The Georgia Supreme Court accepted attorney Leonard Richard Medley, III’s petition for voluntary surrender of his law license after he pled guilty in federal court to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud (a felony). Medley admitted his conviction violated the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct and asked the Court to accept surrender of his license, which is equivalent to disbarment. The Court reviewed the Special Master’s recommendation, noted no exceptions were filed, relied on precedent treating felony financial-crime convictions as warranting disbarment, and removed Medley from the roll of attorneys licensed in Georgia.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed Deon Altron Ellison’s convictions for felony murder and a firearm offense arising from the 2023 fatal shooting of his cousin. Ellison challenged the convictions on four grounds: inconsistent verdicts, prosecutorial misconduct involving a key witness, improper limitations on jury selection, and denial of a mistrial after closing argument. The Court held that any perceived inconsistency in the verdicts did not require reversal, the record did not show that the prosecution knowingly elicited false testimony or suppressed material evidence, the voir dire objection was not preserved, and the mistrial/closing-argument claim was also unpreserved. The convictions and sentence were therefore affirmed.

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed Bobby Crawford’s conviction for malice murder arising from the beating death of his roommate, Timothy Walker. After a jury trial and the denial of his amended motion for new trial, Crawford appealed, arguing the evidence was constitutionally insufficient because the State failed to disprove self-defense and raising three trial-court-error claims. The Court held the evidence — including eyewitness testimony, physical and autopsy findings, and Crawford’s own testimony — allowed a rational jury to reject his self-defense claim. Any error admitting a 2001 other-acts conviction was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed John Bailey’s convictions, including life without parole for felony murder predicated on kidnapping. Bailey argued his trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress cell-phone records obtained via a Google search warrant that he said lacked probable cause and particularity. The Court assumed, without deciding, that counsel might have been deficient but found no prejudice because the record does not show that any evidence from the challenged Google warrant was used at trial. Cell-site and carrier records used at trial came from Sprint/T-Mobile and other carrier records, undermining Bailey’s claim of a different outcome.

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's April 14, 2025 sentencing of Paul Tunison to a total of 36 months' imprisonment and restitution after he pled guilty to multiple theft offenses, including thefts involving victims in a protected class. Tunison argued on appeal that the sentencing hearing recording was incomplete, violating Crim.R. 22 and preventing meaningful review, and asked for resentencing. The appellate court held the trial court had a duty to record but Tunison failed to use App.R. 9 to reconstruct the missing portions or show material prejudice, so any error was waived and the judgment was affirmed.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed Andrew Symington’s 11-month prison sentence for a fifth-degree felony theft after a guilty plea. The trial court considered but rejected community control, citing factors including economic harm, that the offense was for hire, and Symington’s prior felony conviction and prior prison term. The appellate court found those findings supported by the record and concluded that even if the court erred in labeling the conduct organized crime or “for hire,” other valid statutory findings (notably Symington’s prior felony and prison term) independently authorized a prison sentence, making any error harmless.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Wood County Common Pleas Court’s June 27, 2024 judgments denying John E. Gebrosky’s consolidated petitions for post-conviction relief in two criminal cases. Gebrosky argued his trial lawyers were ineffective and that the trial court erred by applying res judicata, denying counsel appointment, and refusing an evidentiary hearing. The court held some claims were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised on direct appeal, but acknowledged other ineffective-assistance claims relied on evidence outside the trial record. After reviewing the affidavits, reports, and trial record, the court concluded the remaining claims did not raise substantive grounds for relief and that no hearing or appointed counsel was required.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County trial court’s March 27, 2025 judgment that granted intervenor Kelly Moore’s motion for relief from judgment, ordered genetic testing of the older child (L.M.), and denied plaintiff-appellant Joyce Wilson’s motion for reconsideration. Joyce had sought custody of her two grandchildren and argued the court lacked jurisdiction because a 2010 paternity affidavit for the older child established paternity. The appeals court held that Ohio law (R.C. 3119.962) allows challenge to an acknowledgment of paternity via genetic testing and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Moore to intervene despite procedural shortcomings.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County domestic relations court’s adoption of a magistrate’s decisions that established paternity, named Jessica L. Jackson sole residential parent and legal custodian of the minor child J.J., granted parenting time to Rajael H. Tyler, and ordered Tyler to pay about $140 per month in child support. Jackson appealed, alleging evidentiary error and perjury at a child-support hearing, but she did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision. The appellate court declined to consider the hearing transcript not before the trial court and found any unobjected-to errors waived absent a showing of plain error, which Jackson did not raise.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Jody Jones's petitions for postconviction relief in six consolidated Richland County felony cases. Jones had pleaded guilty in multiple indictments and later claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to share discovery, unlawful stops/searches, and unreliable drug testing. The appellate court held most claims were forfeited or barred by res judicata because they could have been raised earlier or were contradicted by the record (including the guilty pleas and provided discovery). The court found no abuse of discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Richland County Common Pleas Court's convictions and sentence of Charles R. Feagin. Police initiated a traffic stop after officers observed a lane violation while conducting surveillance; subsequent events led to a 12-count indictment for drug and related offenses. The trial court denied Feagin’s motion to suppress, he pleaded no contest to all counts, and received an aggregate sentence of 37 to 42.5 years. The appeals court held the trial court reasonably credited officer testimony, found the suppression and sentencing rulings supported by the record, and rejected ineffective-assistance claims for lack of record support.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Twelfth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of Ramone Wright’s mandamus petition asking the Madison County Municipal Court to vacate a prior traffic conviction. Wright argued he could not have committed the traffic offense because he was allegedly jailed on another matter at the time, and said his time to appeal had passed. The Supreme Court held Wright had an adequate remedy at law—direct appeal or postconviction procedures—and therefore mandamus was not available. The municipal court’s motion to dismiss the appeal was denied as procedurally improper but its brief was considered on the merits.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the jury verdict for Thomas Chevrolet in Scott Martin’s wrongful-termination suit. Martin alleged he was fired for refusing his supervisor’s instructions to commit insurance fraud. The jury found for the employer, and the trial court denied post-trial relief. On appeal Martin argued the court erred by (1) refusing a jury instruction on the “cat’s paw” theory, (2) denying a juror challenge for cause, and (3) excluding evidence and an email about other employees’ post-termination allegations against the supervisor. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the court’s jury instructions, juror inquiry, or relevancy and prejudice rulings on evidence, and affirmed judgment.

The appellate court upheld the trial court’s finding that 11-year-old K.W. was neglected by his sole custodial parent, M.W., because K.W. suffered physical injuries (including a black eye) while in M.W.’s care and was exposed to an injurious home environment. The court also affirmed the dispositional order making K.W. a ward of the court and setting a 12‑month reunification goal, based largely on M.W.’s refusal to complete a court‑ordered substance abuse assessment despite admissions of recent drinking and past substance abuse and his failure to obtain timely physical and mental health care for K.W. The court credited school and DCFS testimony and found the rulings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Chancery Division's May 14, 2025 order denying the executors' motion to compel arbitration of will/trust disputes under Samuel Hekemian's 2002 will. The court held the will's arbitration clause is not a valid, enforceable waiver because interested parties did not mutually assent to arbitrate or knowingly relinquish their right to court adjudication. The court also held arbitration clauses in testamentary instruments that would displace statutory court supervision of estates conflict with New Jersey's Probate Code, so the disputes must remain subject to court proceedings.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment to the Board of Managers of 388 West Broadway Condominium (388 West) in a slip-and-fall suit by Miguel Torres. The court held that 388 West did not meet its initial burden to show it bore no liability for a trip hazard formed where its sidewalk and an adjacent sidewalk met. Evidence showed 388 West or a prior owner had altered the sidewalk in 2002, creating a sloped ramp that encroached on the neighbor’s sidewalk, and the record did not eliminate the possibility that 388 West failed to keep the sidewalk abutting its property in a reasonably safe condition, making summary judgment inappropriate.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed two Supreme Court orders: one denying plaintiffs' motion to disqualify defendants' counsel, and the other granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The court held that the business judgment rule prevented judicial review of the board's actions because the complaint lacked sufficient allegations showing the board majority was not independent. The court also found plaintiffs failed to show a conflict of interest warranting counsel disqualification, noting a written waiver from the organization's executive director. Because dismissal rested on the business judgment rule, the court did not decide standing or pleading sufficiency.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment to Consolidated Edison and Verizon in a personal-injury suit after plaintiff's motorcycle encountered low-hanging wires. The court held that Con Ed could be liable because, under the Joint Use Agreement, it was responsible for maintaining the pole and had actual notice of the hazard from a morning complaint but did not inspect until hours after the crash. Verizon likewise failed to show it had no responsibility or lacked notice because ownership of the offending wires was disputed and its claimed defenses were unpreserved or unsupported.