Court Filings

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights to four children. The Department had filed for termination after repeated removals tied to Mother’s chronic methamphetamine use and related instability, including leaving a child in a home with a person against whom a protective order had been obtained. The appellate court found the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support statutory grounds (D) and (E) — that Mother’s conduct and the children’s environment endangered their physical and emotional well‑being — and also held termination was in the children’s best interests based on the children’s repeated disruptions, their expressed desire to remain with relatives, and the relatives’ ability to provide permanency.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed Guy Dean Peele’s conviction for indecency with a child by sexual contact. Peele was tried by jury after a 2021 incident in which the complainant, then 14, accused him of touching her breasts while riding a four-wheeler and making sexually explicit remarks. On appeal Peele challenged sufficiency of the evidence, several evidentiary rulings, and the State’s closing argument. The court found S.S.’s testimony sufficient to support the verdict, held any hearsay error harmless because S.S. later testified, and deemed the remainder of Peele’s complaints unpreserved for appellate review.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying appellant George Michael Welch attorney’s fees. Welch sold property to Felix and Summerlyn Lopez under an owner-financed contract. The Lopezes missed a May 1, 2023 payment but attempted to tender payment within the contract’s 91-day cure period; Welch rejected the tender and filed for foreclosure. The trial court found Welch prematurely sought foreclosure, unjustifiably refused payment, and reinstated the note upon payment of $22,221.92, denying fees because Welch was not the prevailing party. The appeals court held a temporary injunction and reinstatement did not confer prevailing-party status under section 38.001.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Cody Tyler Morrow’s conviction for second-degree felony possession of fentanyl after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle. Officers found Morrow unconscious in his running car outside a closed store, smelled and observed marijuana in plain view, and then observed a baggie of hundreds of pills. The court held the officer was performing a community caretaking function in securing aid for an apparently incapacitated person and, based on the officer’s observations and experience, the contraband was in plain view and gave probable cause to seize it.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment revoking Antonio Lee Grey's deferred adjudication community supervision and adjudicating him guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Grey had pleaded true to a supervision violation at the revocation hearing; the trial court revoked supervision and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there were no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal and moved to withdraw; Grey did not file a pro se brief. The appellate court reviewed the record and concluded the appeal is frivolous and without merit, granted counsel's motion, and affirmed.

The court affirmed a trial-court judgment forfeiting $8,000 and a 2006 Harley-Davidson to the State under Texas civil forfeiture law. The owner, Chad Wade Spence, argued the trial court abused its discretion by forcing him to trial without material witnesses and that doing so violated his constitutional rights. The appellate court held Spence never properly requested subpoenas — he filed only informal witness lists and failed to complete the clerk’s subpoena request form — and therefore the trial court did not err in proceeding. The court also explained the right to compulsory process is a criminal right and does not apply in civil in rem forfeiture proceedings.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s decision upholding the Georgia Public Service Commission’s approval allowing Sandersville Railroad Company to condemn privately owned land to build a new spur. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the PSC’s factual findings that the spur would function as a channel of trade and aid the railroad’s operations, which qualifies as a statutory “public use.” The Court also rejected landowners’ complaints about subpoena enforcement and attorney-fee claims, and it upheld the superior court’s discretionary stay of condemnation proceedings pending appeal.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s orders placing N.D. in the permanent custody of Summit County Children Services Board (CSB) and placing K.D. in the legal custody of the parents of her friend. The appeals came after contested juvenile proceedings in which the children were adjudicated abused and dependent due to Father’s physical and verbal mistreatment and Mother’s long absence and history of untreated mental illness/substance abuse. The appellate court held CSB proved an alternative statutory ground that the child could not be placed with either parent and found the placements were in the children’s best interests given parental noncompliance and the children’s expressed wishes.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Steubenville Municipal Court's August 5, 2025 judgment awarding plaintiff-appellant Sol Rose III $683.50 plus 8% interest for conversion of personal property by Jefferson Behavioral Health System (J.B.H.S.) after its employee, Lou Stein, entered and discarded items from Rose’s unit. The trial court found Stein acted within the scope of his employment but without malice, so J.B.H.S. was liable under respondeat superior while Stein faced no individual or punitive damages. The court declined to award compensation for the decedent daughter’s urn and ashes because sentimental value is speculative and no market value testimony was offered.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Delaware County Common Pleas Court's August 27, 2025 prison sentence for Adam Stone. Stone pleaded guilty to telecommunications fraud and attempted impersonation of a peace officer; the trial court imposed consecutive prison terms (36 months and 18 months). On appeal Stone argued the consecutive sentences were disproportionate and that the convictions should have merged as allied offenses. The appellate court found the trial court made the required statutory consecutive-sentence findings and that the two convictions arose from separate, distinct conduct, so it affirmed the sentence.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Shawn Atchley’s conviction for trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound following his arrest at a tavern. Officers found a handgun, $1,200, and about 1.5 grams of fentanyl divided into 11 tied baggies in Atchley’s sock. Atchley admitted possessing the drugs and firearm but insisted the fentanyl was for personal use and sharing, not sale. The court held the jury’s verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the drug packaging, officer testimony about trafficking indicators, and Atchley’s own admission about sharing supported the trafficking conviction.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Richland County Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division judgment that denied Heidi Back’s objections to a magistrate’s child support decision. The magistrate had designated Back the child-support obligor and ordered monthly support of $221.50. Back argued she was rushed at the July 24, 2025 hearing and prevented from presenting evidence about her inability to work and financial situation. The appellate court found she was sworn, had the chance to testify, was asked at the close if she had more to present, and did not provide the additional evidence at the hearing, so the trial court did not err in adopting the magistrate’s decision.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Timothy A. Smith’s aggregate 88-month prison sentence imposed by the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas. Smith had pleaded guilty to weapons under disability, two counts of gross sexual imposition, and one count of retaliation as part of a plea agreement. On appeal he argued the trial court gave only cursory consideration to statutory sentencing factors. The appellate court held the trial court expressly considered the purposes of sentencing and listed the specific factors from R.C. 2929.12 it applied, sentenced within the statutory ranges, and therefore the sentence was not contrary to law.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Charles Flaherty’s convictions and sentences after review of multiple claims. The court rejected Flaherty’s challenges to evidentiary rulings, denials of pretrial motions asserting self-defense immunity and speedy trial violations, and the claim that the trial court failed to conduct a Faretta hearing. The appellate court also upheld sentences for two counts of attempted second-degree murder, finding no reversible error, but noted the defendant may still raise an improper reclassification sentencing claim in a post-conviction proceeding.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court judgment denying The Retail Property Trust’s request to have its Brea Mall property reassessed under Revenue and Taxation Code section 170(a)(1) based on COVID-19 related closures and restricted access. The assessor summarily denied the trust’s calamity applications, the Assessment Appeals Board upheld that denial, and the trial court concluded as a matter of law that section 170(a)(1) requires physical damage to property (direct or indirect) before reassessment relief is available. The appellate court agreed, finding neither government closure orders nor the virus itself constitute the required physical damage.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Josue Antonio Gurrola’s conviction for first-degree sexual assault of a child. Gurrola argued on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony from a clinical supervisor at a children’s advocacy center about the victim’s therapy, symptoms, and feelings during the guilt-innocence phase. The appeals court concluded Gurrola failed to preserve that complaint because he did not make contemporaneous, sufficiently specific objections at each contested point or obtain a running objection, so the court declined to address the merits and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeals of the Seventh District of Texas affirmed Tara Zoe Rios’s conviction for driving while intoxicated with a child passenger. Rios asserted she wanted to represent herself at a pretrial hearing but also demanded trial proceed that day; the visiting judge declined to allow self-representation that day and offered either to proceed to trial with appointed counsel or revisit self-representation later. Rios chose to proceed with counsel and went to trial, where she was convicted. The court held the trial judge did not abuse discretion and Rios effectively waived self-representation; assessed fines and costs were waived for indigence.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences of Justin Wayne Ortego, who was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a young child and three counts of indecency by contact based largely on text-message evidence recovered by his estranged wife and testimony from the victim. Ortego argued the phone evidence should have been suppressed and that the trial court erred by denying requests to have two defense witnesses testify remotely by Zoom. The court upheld the denial of suppression and concluded there is no general statutory, rule-based, or constitutional right to admit live remote testimony absent a specific statutory exception or proper procedure, so exclusion did not constitute reversible error.

The Court of Appeals of the First District of Texas affirmed the convictions of Justin Wayne Ortego for continuous sexual abuse of a young child and three counts of indecency by contact. Ortego challenged (1) denial of his motion to suppress text-message evidence his former partner, Jennifer, retrieved from his phone and (2) the trial court’s refusal to allow two defense witnesses to testify remotely via Zoom. The court held the phone-search evidence was admissible and that no statutory, rule-based, or constitutional right compelled admission of live remote testimony here, so exclusion was within the trial court’s discretion.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant Justin Wayne Ortego’s convictions for continuous sexual abuse of a young child and three counts of indecency by contact, and the trial court’s sentence (life plus three 20-year terms). The defendant challenged (1) denial of his motion to suppress evidence his wife found on his phone and (2) denial of his requests to have two defense witnesses testify remotely by Zoom. The court held the wife’s search did not trigger suppression and that trial courts have no general, enforceable right to admit live remote testimony absent a rule or statute, so denying Zoom testimony was not an abuse of discretion.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of Justin Wayne Ortego for continuous sexual abuse of a child and three counts of indecency by contact. Ortego challenged (1) the denial of his motion to suppress evidence his wife found on his phone and the trial court’s refusal to give an Article 38.23 jury instruction, and (2) the denial of his requests to have two defense witnesses testify remotely by Zoom. The court held the phone-search evidence was admissible and that there is no general statutory, rule-based, or constitutional right to require live remote testimony in criminal trials absent a specific statutory exception or agreement of the parties, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reviewed Jordan Potts’s conviction for murder and the Anders brief filed by his appointed counsel asserting the appeal is frivolous. After independent review of the full record and noting Potts received notice and the chance to file a pro se response (he did not), the court concluded there are no arguable grounds for reversal. The court affirmed the trial-court judgment sentencing Potts to 45 years, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and directed counsel to notify Potts of the result and file proof of that notice.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order terminating the father’s parental rights to his six-year-old son, Z.A.A., and leaving the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) as sole managing conservator. DFPS sought termination so the child’s maternal great-grandfather, who had provided long-term stable care and planned to adopt, could become permanent conservator. The court found by clear-and-convincing evidence that DFPS made reasonable efforts to reunify the child with father and that termination was in the child’s best interest given father’s repeated incarcerations, criminal history, lack of contact, and the child’s improved stability in the great-grandfather’s home.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in a trespass to try title suit. Houston International Management & Trade, Inc. (HIM) claimed ownership of 23 commercial lots by adverse possession, but a jury found HIM had not possessed the property peaceably and adversely for the statutory period and instead found a verbal management agreement existed between HIM and the record owners (the Peacock parties). The court held there was some evidence supporting the jury’s findings, rejected HIM’s challenges to JNOV, new trial claims, and factual-sufficiency complaints, and affirmed the hold that the Peacock parties own the properties.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed Marcelino Rebollar’s convictions and sentences. After a jury convicted Rebollar of two counts of aggravated child molestation and one count of child molestation, he appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for one aggravated-child-molestation count, trial counsel’s effectiveness for not requesting a lesser-attempt charge, and the constitutionality of consecutive life sentences. The court found the evidence sufficient, concluded counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy and not shown to be deficient, and held the sentencing claim was unpreserved because it was not raised at sentencing. The convictions and sentences were affirmed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. The appeal challenged (1) the municipal court’s grant of leave to amend a counterclaim and transfer to common pleas court, (2) the common pleas court’s grant of additional time under Civ.R. 56(F) for discovery, and (3) denial of plaintiff-appellant Castro’s motion for summary judgment. The appellate court held the municipal court properly transferred the case because the amended counterclaim exceeded its $15,000 jurisdictional limit, the trial court did not abuse discretion in granting a Civ.R. 56(F) continuance, and genuine disputes of material fact (about the terms and performance of an oral agreement concerning sewer-line work) precluded summary judgment.

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Fulton County Common Pleas Court’s June 5, 2025 judgments sentencing James Pontious to an aggregate 24-month prison term. Pontious was convicted after a bench trial of tampering with evidence for submitting an Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous meeting sign-in sheet he knew to be false and intended to mislead his probation officer. The appeals court rejected arguments that trial errors, discovery violations, admission of testimony, insufficiency and weight of the evidence, and Miranda problems required reversal, finding any evidentiary errors harmless and the proof sufficient and not against the manifest weight.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Perry County Domestic Relations Court’s ruling that the pending divorce action abated when the husband (plaintiff) died before any adjudication on the merits. The couple originally filed for dissolution with a separation agreement, the matter was converted to divorce, but no evidentiary hearing or decree occurred before the husband’s death. Because no judicial decision existed that could be journalized after death, the appeals court held the trial court lacked authority to continue the divorce and properly closed the case.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order allowing the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to enter private properties under California’s precondemnation entry statutes to conduct environmental, cultural, and geological investigations for the Delta Conveyance Project. The court held that those statutes authorize any public entity that is authorized to acquire property by eminent domain to perform such testing without first satisfying separate Water Code “project approval” provisions that apply to commencing a classic condemnation. The court relied on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Property Reserve I, finding the statutes constitutionally adequate.

The Court of Appeal affirmed a trial-court order awarding attorney’s fees to respondent Ponani Sukumar after the court dismissed appellant Afshin Zand’s cross-complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. Zand argued the anti-SLAPP ruling and subsequent fee awards were void or procedurally defective, but the appellate panel held those contentions were meritless, largely barred by law of the case or forfeited, and improper collateral attacks. The panel also found the appeal frivolous and imposed $10,000 in sanctions payable to the clerk, granted Sukumar appellate fees under section 425.16(c)(1) to be fixed on remand, and remanded to determine certain fee amounts.