Court Filings

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court’s denial of Kurt Rillema’s motion to strike a November 18, 2024 default judgment entered in favor of C.M. Rillema argued the judgment should be stricken because of defects related to notice, the automatic bankruptcy stay, and the court’s allegedly excessive sanctioning for failure to comply with a prior order. The panel held the trial court properly denied relief because (1) the court could enter default judgment under Pa.R.C.P. 1037(c) for failure to answer, (2) the automatic stay rendered earlier court action void but did not extend Rillema’s time to answer, and (3) no fatal defect appeared on the face of the record to warrant striking the judgment.

The Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court affirmed Bryce Andrews’ convictions and sentence for the murders of his father and stepfather. Andrews challenged the trial court’s order requiring him to submit to a psychological examination by the State’s expert before a suppression hearing on whether his February 5, 2021 statements were voluntary. The court held the order was proper under 725 ILCS 5/115-6 because the facts and circumstances gave reasonable ground to believe a mental-status defense might be raised, and alternatively the court had inherent authority to manage evidentiary presentation. The court also found no prejudice from the examination.

The Appellate Court affirmed the Cook County circuit court’s termination of T.M.’s parental rights to her four children. The mother argued her right to counsel and due process were violated when her attorney’s late motion to withdraw was granted two days before trial and the court required her to proceed that day with the withdrawing lawyer acting as standby counsel. The court found the withdrawal violated Rule 13 but held there was no due process violation because standby counsel actively represented the mother, the mother had a history of noncooperation with counsel, and delay would have harmed the children. The court also found sufficient evidence that terminating parental rights served the children’s best interests given their stable placements, bond with caregivers, and wishes to be adopted.

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's order ordering the Will County Clerk to place Cesar Guerrero on the April 1, 2025 consolidated election ballot as the Democratic nominee for Joliet Township Supervisor. The Board of Elections had listed Guerrero on a ballot-forfeiture list because his campaign committee owed civil penalties, and the County Clerk removed his name. Guerrero paid the fines on January 29, 2025, was renominated to fill the vacancy in early February, and the court held that the Election Code did not bar ballot placement once the penalties were paid and that the vacancy-filling complied with timing rules. The court also affirmed summary judgment for the County Clerk on Guerrero’s statutory civil-rights claim because the record lacked evidence of willful and wanton conduct.

The Third District affirmed the trial court’s grant of D.R. Horton’s motion for relief from a default final judgment. Amerant Bank obtained a clerk’s default and default final judgment after D.R. Horton failed to respond to an amended complaint; D.R. Horton later moved under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1), citing calendaring and clerical errors and in-house counsel’s unexpected maternity leave. The trial court found excusable neglect, a meritorious defense (supported by a draft answer), and prompt diligence after discovering the judgment, and therefore vacated the default final judgment. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by Shaquille Berod Solomon from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The appellate court, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's decision without published opinion on April 20, 2026. The court provided no extended reasoning in the opinion beyond the single-word disposition and noted concurrence by the three judges. The decision is subject to any timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in the criminal case of Marlo Michelle Lauritzen. The appeal, from the Circuit Court for Escambia County, was decided per curiam on April 20, 2026, with Judges Lewis, Rowe, and Nordby concurring. The opinion contains a single-line disposition: AFFIRMED. No additional reasoning, issues, or factual background is provided in the published entry.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Michael Shawn Hastings's appeal from a decision of the Circuit Court for Escambia County. In a per curiam opinion filed April 20, 2026, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief and provides no extended reasoning; the panel unanimously affirmed the trial court's ruling and noted that the decision is not final until any timely authorized post-judgment motion is resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in the criminal case of Shawn Faulk. The appeal arose from a decision by the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County, and the appellate court, in a per curiam opinion, concluded there was no reversible error and left the lower court's ruling in place. No separate written opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published; the court simply issued an affirmance with three judges concurring and noted that the decision is not final until any timely rehearing motions are resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed Jerry Lee Dupree's appeal from a Walton County circuit court decision and affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion is per curiam, unanimous, and short: the appellate court found no reversible error and therefore left the trial court's judgment in place. The written disposition notes the appeal number, parties, counsel, the judge below, and warns that the decision is not final until any timely motions under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure are resolved.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision in the appeal brought by David Eugene Brannen against the State of Florida. The appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 20, 2026, affirming the judgment of the Baker County Circuit Court. No extended opinion or separate reasoning was published; the panel of judges Lewis, Roberts, and Kelsey concurred. The decision is subject to any timely post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed De’erik Bell’s appeal from a Bay County circuit court decision. The panel issued a short per curiam opinion on April 20, 2026, affirming the lower court’s judgment. No additional opinion or published reasoning accompanied the disposition; the court simply affirmed the judgment below and noted concurrence by all three judges. The opinion advises that the decision is not final until resolution of any timely, authorized post-judgment motions under Florida appellate rules.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal reviewed an appeal by a child identified as H.H.E. from a decision of the Circuit Court for Jackson County. The appellate court issued a short per curiam opinion on April 20, 2026, summarily affirming the lower court's judgment. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning was published; the decision states only “AFFIRMED” with all three judges concurring. The ruling ends this appeal unless a timely motion for rehearing or other authorized relief is filed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Frank Estrada III’s conviction for one count of violating a protective order. Estrada was tried on three counts (two assault counts and one protective-order violation); the jury acquitted or deadlocked on the assault counts (mistrial and later dismissal) but convicted on the protective-order violation. Estrada challenged the admission of a 911 recording and EMS medical records and the trial court’s granting of the State’s challenge for cause to Juror 53. The court held the evidentiary rulings were not reversible error and that, although the trial court abused its discretion in excusing Juror 53 for cause, that mistake did not harm Estrada’s substantial rights, so the conviction stands.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s judgment that had adjudicated Debrah Elizabeth East guilty of possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine after she violated terms of deferred adjudication community supervision. The State proved she used controlled substances and failed to complete restitution; after a hearing the trial court imposed a nine-month state jail sentence. Appellate counsel found no nonfrivolous issues and filed an Anders brief; the appeals court independently reviewed the record, concluded the appeal was frivolous, and affirmed, granting counsel permission to withdraw.

A Lamar County jury convicted Andrew McCarty of indecency with a child by sexual contact. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment and the written judgment also included a $50 payment to the Children’s Advocacy Center and listed the offense as a second-degree felony. The Court of Appeals held the oral sentence—life imprisonment with no fine—controls, so the $50.00 entry must be deleted from the written judgment. The court also corrected the degree entry to reflect that the second-degree conviction was enhanced to first degree. The judgment was affirmed as modified.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant Tonya Newberry a new trial after a jury convicted her of furnishing contraband and crossing a guard line. The State argued the grant was premature because no judgment had been entered, that the trial court misapplied the thirteenth-juror standard, and that the judge should have been recused. The court held the premature order was not void, found no abuse of discretion in granting a new trial on weight-of-the-evidence grounds given conflicting witness credibility and lack of video, and declined to review the recusal denial because it was entered after the State’s appeal.

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court's denial of Raymond Warren’s application for postconviction DNA testing of three shell casings. Warren had sought testing for touch DNA after his 1995 murder conviction; the trial court initially denied testing, this court remanded for further factfinding about whether the casings remained suitable for testing, and on remand the trial court again denied the application. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion because testing authorities concluded the casings were at substantial risk of contamination and the record did not show the parent samples remained scientifically suitable for testing.

The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the Greene County Common Pleas judgment. William J. Sawyer, bound over from juvenile court, pleaded guilty to rape and related sexual-offense charges and received a four-to-six year prison term and Tier III sex-offender classification. On appeal he argued the juvenile court erred by transferring him for adult prosecution and the trial court erred by denying suppression motions. The court held Sawyer waived suppression challenges by pleading guilty and concluded the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding him not amenable to juvenile rehabilitation based on the statutory factors and expert testimony.

The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s restitution order requiring Jermaine Reynolds to pay $3,067 to his domestic-violence victim for medical expenses. Reynolds had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence; the felony strangulation count was dismissed. The trial court relied on the presentence investigation report (which included the victim’s impact statement and three medical bills showing $3,067.54 owed) when ordering restitution. Because Reynolds did not object below, the appeals court reviewed only for plain error and concluded the PSI provided competent, sufficient evidence to support the restitution award.

The appellate court affirmed the domestic relations trial court's dismissal of a husband's objections to a civil protection order (DVCPO) as moot. The husband challenged the trial court's finding that two alleged lasting harms — loss of a military housing entitlement and revocation of Global Entry — were not proven collateral consequences of the DVCPO. The appeals court held the husband provided only speculative testimony and no documentation linking the DVCPO to those consequences, so the collateral-consequences exception to mootness did not apply and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s August 6, 2025 judgment awarding permanent custody of three children to the Clark County Department of Job and Family Services (JFS) and denying the maternal aunt’s request for legal custody. The children were removed after deplorable home conditions and prior dependency adjudications; parents made minimal progress on case plans and mother admitted ongoing drug use. The appellate court found no reversible error in notice to the father, held the mother lacked standing to challenge denial of the aunt’s motion, and concluded the record supported that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Dennis Crowley's motion to suppress evidence found during a traffic stop. Officer Webb stopped Crowley on May 7, 2025 for a loud muffler in violation of Ohio law, and an inventory search of the towed vehicle uncovered powdered cocaine. The appellate court held the stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion because Officer Webb observed and the body-camera recorded an audible rumble from the exhaust consistent with R.C. 4513.22(A). The conviction (no contest plea) and community-control sentence were left intact.

The court affirmed the Sandusky Municipal Court’s August 20, 2025 judgment denying Shardaye Smith’s motion for relief from judgment under Ohio Civil Rule 60(B). LVNV Funding obtained summary judgment in a small-claims-style collection action after serving process by certified mail to the address on Smith’s account. Smith later sought relief, claiming defective service, lack of jurisdiction, and invalid evidentiary foundation; the magistrate and trial court found she was properly served, had notice (as shown by an earlier filing contesting jurisdiction), failed to show a meritorious defense, and filed her motion untimely. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief and affirmed.

The Ohio Supreme Court accepted the resignation of attorney David Paul Greulich Jr. under the rule for resignation when disciplinary action is pending. The court treated the filing as a resignation with disciplinary action pending and ordered that Greulich be immediately prohibited from practicing law in Ohio, surrender his admission certificate, and have his name stricken from the roll. The court also imposed post-resignation obligations: notify clients and opposing counsel, deliver client files, refund unearned fees, refrain from handling client funds, reimburse the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection if applicable, and file proof of compliance with the court and disciplinary counsel.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a Philadelphia County PCRA court order granting Jamal R. Sanders a new trial. Sanders had been convicted in 1998 of third-degree murder and related offenses based largely on testimony that he had access to the gun later used by a co-defendant. After decades in custody, a witness (Shawn Clark) submitted an affidavit recanting trial testimony and stating detectives coerced him; Clark later died. The PCRA court found the recantation admissible under the statement-against-interest exception and likely to produce a different verdict; the Superior Court agreed and affirmed.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the convictions and sentences of Kylen Pratt, who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, possession of an instrument of crime, abuse of a corpse, and tampering with evidence for the death and burning of Naasire Johnson. The court rejected challenges to (1) admission of a detective’s chart summarizing voluminous cell-phone timing data, finding the summary met the rules for admissibility; (2) admission of appellant’s Google searches, finding they were relevant to his state of mind and not unduly prejudicial; and (3) the discretionary imposition of consecutive sentences, finding no abuse of sentencing discretion.

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the dealership’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Plaintiff Berman sued Napleton for charging and not providing a rust- and stain-prevention product and signed two separate arbitration agreements during purchase: the Retail Installment Contract (RIC) and a Dispute Resolution Agreement (DRA). The court held the two agreements contain irreconcilable, material conflicts—about the arbitration forum, who decides whether a dispute is arbitrable, and allocation of arbitration fees—so no enforceable arbitration agreement exists as to Napleton’s effort to compel arbitration.

The Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Charles F. Watts’s postconviction petition after a third-stage evidentiary hearing. Watts argued he made a substantial showing of actual innocence, that trial counsel was ineffective for not calling an alibi witness (Terrance Linear), and that postconviction counsel failed to comply with Rule 651(c). The court held the petition was decided after a third-stage hearing, rejected the actual-innocence claim as forfeited for lack of a proper third-stage argument, found no Strickland error because counsel’s choice not to call Linear could be strategic in light of surveillance video, and determined Rule 651(c) claims about second-stage pleading are moot once a claim receives a full evidentiary hearing.

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of Brittany Colatorti’s amended complaint seeking a declaration that Darby Hills’s appointment to a vacant state senate seat was invalid. Colatorti argued the committee failed to give statutorily required notice and that Hills was not a member of the Republican Party at relevant times. The court held the statute requires only that the appointee be a member of the party at the time of appointment; Hills became a precinct committeeperson before her February 28, 2025 appointment and therefore qualified. The complaint was legally insufficient and properly dismissed.