Court Filings

The California Supreme Court held that trial courts may order pretrial detention of noncapital defendants only in the specific circumstances described by article I, section 12 (subdivisions (b) and (c)) of the California Constitution. Where detention is not authorized under section 12, a court may condition release on monetary bail only after an individualized assessment and must set bail in an amount that is reasonable and generally attainable given the defendant’s circumstances. The decision reconciles section 12 with article I, section 28(f)(3), reaffirming that public and victim safety remain primary considerations but do not expand the categories of offenses subject to detention.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed Deair R. Wray’s convictions for murder, felonious assault, and improperly discharging a firearm after a jury trial in Summit County. The court reviewed Wray’s four assignments of error — sufficiency of the evidence, manifest weight, jury-question instruction, and speedy-trial claim — and found no reversible error. The court held the testimony of cooperating witnesses, GPS ankle-monitor data, victim and neighbor testimony, and other evidence permitted the jury to find Wray was the shooter. The court found counsel waived the speedy-trial claim and that credibility disputes did not merit reversal.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Summit County Common Pleas Court's judgment against Dezmond Gainer. Gainer pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea deal to trafficking in cocaine with forfeiture specifications and possession of a fentanyl-related compound; other charges were dismissed. After sentencing to 5 to 7.5 years and forfeiture orders, Gainer obtained leave for a delayed appeal. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no nonfrivolous issues exist and moved to withdraw; Gainer indicated he prefers to raise an ineffective-assistance claim in post-conviction proceedings. The appellate court independently reviewed the record, found no meritorious direct-appeal issues, granted counsel's motion, and affirmed.

The court affirmed Thurmell Maley’s conviction for public indecency after a bench trial where an officer observed her with her pants and underwear pulled down, urinating at a busy bus stop. The officer’s testimony and body-worn camera showed her exposed buttocks in an area with heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic, satisfying the statute’s requirement that the conduct was likely to be viewed by and affront others. Because the trial court’s journal entry mistakenly listed the offense as a third-degree misdemeanor, the case is remanded for a clerical correction to reflect a fourth-degree misdemeanor conviction.

The Ohio First District Court of Appeals affirmed Demarius Jester’s conviction for resisting arrest (R.C. 2921.33(A)). The municipal court struck Jester’s motion to suppress as untimely; the appellate court held that striking the motion did not constitute an abuse of discretion because the motion was filed after the Crim.R. 12(D) deadline and the State’s late disclosure of additional body-worn camera footage occurred after the motion was filed. The court also upheld admission of an officer’s testimony about computer-generated warrant information as non-hearsay evidence of the officer’s belief, and found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

The court affirmed the municipal-court judgments dismissing misdemeanor charges against Darryl Brown because his statutory right to a speedy trial was violated. Brown was arrested November 8, 2024; discovery problems (a missing 9-1-1 call) and the State’s delayed response led to multiple continuances and a motion to compel. The trial court found the State caused significant delay, sanctioned the State, and ultimately dismissed the complaints after calculating that more than 90 days had run. The appellate court held the continuances necessitated by the State’s discovery failures were chargeable to the State and affirmed.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgments against Samantha Huff. Huff had pleaded guilty in three consolidated Richland County cases (drug possession, failure to comply with police, and OVI) and later admitted violations of community control after pleading guilty to a first-degree heroin possession charge. She argued her plea was involuntary because she had professed innocence and the court failed to perform an enhanced inquiry for an Alford plea, and that the probation violation was unsupported. The appellate court found the record showed a knowing, voluntary plea with a factual basis and sufficient evidence to revoke community control, so it affirmed.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio’s orders adopting an independent auditor’s recommendations about the Power-Purchase-Agreement (PPA) Rider for AEP Ohio for 2018–2019. OCC and OMAEG argued the commission erred in finding the PPA Rider costs prudent, violated due process by denying a subpoena for a commission staff member, and applied the wrong standard for auditor independence. The Court held the commission reasonably credited evidence that a must-run strategy for OVEC coal units was prudent when chosen, that denial of the subpoena did not prejudice the parties because other witnesses covered the issues, and that the commission properly found no undue influence on the auditor.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims for specific performance, fraud, and tortious interference and denied the plaintiff's summary judgment motions. The court found that the seller (Gholis) showed it was ready, willing, and able to close by producing a title policy and that the buyer (Scott Randolph, LLC) defaulted by failing to appear at the time-of-the-essence closing, so Gholis may retain the down payment. The court also found Bushwack and Stellberger entitled to dismissal of the fraud and interference claims because key events occurred after the plaintiff sought to terminate the contract.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of Rosario's wrongful-death, fraud, and civil-conspiracy claims against the Town and Village of Mount Kisco. The plaintiff alleged the municipality failed to enforce housing regulations after her adult son died in a basement fire in an illegally converted apartment. The court held the complaint did not plead a special relationship between the municipality and decedent, did not identify a private right of action under the cited statutes, and failed to allege facts showing voluntary assumption of duty, affirmative control, justifiable reliance, or municipal participation in fraud or a conspiracy.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court order granting summary judgment to Lakeview Auto Sales and Service, Inc., and to Herold Motor Cars, Inc. and John C. Herold, and denying RJK Auto Brokers' cross-motion. RJK had purchased nine vehicles from Dream Carz, which never obtained title; RJK then paid Herold Motor to obtain title to eight sold vehicles. The court held the moving defendants showed they had no contract or fraudulent conduct with RJK and that Dream Carz was not an entrustee or a merchant able to pass good title. RJK failed to raise triable issues of fact to avoid dismissal.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's personal-injury claims against homeowner Kim Eichle and certain claims against third-party defendant Joseph Russo. The plaintiff alleged the infant was injured after being punched outside a New Year's Eve party at Eichle's home and asserted causes of action under New York's Dram Shop statutes and premises liability. The court held Eichle showed she neither served visibly intoxicated guests nor furnished alcohol to minors, and that the infant could not identify whether an icy sidewalk caused his fall, so the plaintiff failed to raise triable issues of fact.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Kings County Supreme Court judgment adjudicating the defendant a youthful offender after he pleaded guilty to second-degree criminal possession of a weapon and imposing sentence. The defendant argued that the youthful-offender adjudication violated his Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights, but the appellate court found those constitutional claims unpreserved for review and declined to decide them in the interest of justice. Consequently, the lower court's judgment was affirmed without addressing the merits of the constitutional challenges.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed defendant Jaquan Oden’s conviction for disorderly conduct under Penal Law § 240.20(3) after a jury trial. Oden was acquitted of a separate disorderly conduct count under § 240.20(6) that alleged failure to disperse. The court rejected arguments that the conviction was legally insufficient or against the weight of the evidence because the disputed dispersal order was an element only of the acquitted charge, not the conviction. The court also found defense counsel effective and upheld the denial of a mistrial, concluding the prosecutor’s improper remark was cured by immediate instructions to the jury.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a County Court order designating Daniel Morrison a level three sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Morrison, convicted after jury trial of first‑degree sexual abuse and two counts of second‑degree murder, argued for a lower risk level based on mitigating factors. The court held the argument was unpreserved because he did not request a downward departure at the SORA hearing, and in any event he failed to meet the legal standard for a downward departure from the presumptive level three classification.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the County Court conviction and sentence of Daryl K. Miller for attempted sexual abuse in the first degree after Miller pleaded guilty. The court found Miller knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, and that valid waiver bars review of his claim that the sentence was excessive. Because the appeal waiver was valid, the appellate panel declined to review the sentencing challenge and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the County Court.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the sentence imposed on Mario Lazu after his guilty plea. The defendant appealed only on the ground that the sentence was excessive, but the court concluded he had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal. Because the appeal waiver was valid, the court found it could not consider the challenge to the sentence and therefore affirmed the lower court's June 27, 2023 sentence.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed defendant Clyde Johnson’s convictions for three counts of forcible touching and one count of third-degree sexual abuse after a jury trial. The court found the defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence unpreserved but, in any event, held the evidence sufficient and the verdict not against the weight of the evidence. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct were rejected. The court also concluded the time period alleged in the forcible touching counts gave the defendant fair notice to prepare a defense.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the sentence imposed on Tyshaun Holloway after his guilty plea. Holloway challenged the sentence as excessive, but the court held that he had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, and that valid waiver bars appellate review of his excessiveness claim. Because the waiver was valid, the court declined to consider the merits of the sentencing claim and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Supreme Court, Kings County.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant Lucious Griffin’s convictions following a jury trial for multiple drug and paraphernalia offenses and his sentence. Griffin argued the indictment should be dismissed for violation of his statutory speedy-trial rights because the People’s initial certificate of compliance (COC) omitted certain discovery (including a prisoner movement log and pole camera footage). The court held the initial COC was valid because the People exercised due diligence, promptly disclosed the missing log once discovered, and the defense sought no lesser remedy than dismissal. Several other claims were deemed unpreserved for appeal.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant Kwauhuru Govan’s convictions for second-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping following a jury trial. The court held the evidence was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence, rejected constitutional and prosecutorial-misconduct claims as unpreserved or without merit, and found the defendant received effective assistance of counsel. The court relied on the criminalist’s testimony as independent analysis and declined to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations, thus affirming the trial court’s judgment and sentence.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a February 16, 2024 sentence imposed on Darius Drummond following his guilty plea. Drummond challenged the sentence as excessive, but the court held his appellate waiver was valid and therefore bars review of the sentencing claim. Relying on controlling precedent, the court concluded the waiver foreclosed his appeal and affirmed the judgment without reaching the merits of the excessiveness argument.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant Nelson DeJesus's convictions for two counts of attempted first-degree assault and two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon following a jury trial and sentence. The court rejected the defendant's confrontation-clause challenge to admission of two DNA laboratory files and testimony because the testifying analyst generated and analyzed the relevant DNA profiles. The court also found trial counsel was not ineffective and declined to review other unpreserved issues in the interest of justice.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed four Supreme Court, Kings County judgments convicting Johnnie Corbett after his guilty pleas to various felonies and imposing sentences. The court held Corbett knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal, which bars review of his claim that the sentences were excessive and most ineffective-assistance claims. Corbett's challenge that his pleas were unknowing survived the waiver but was unpreserved and without merit based on the plea allocutions and record. The court therefore affirmed all four judgments.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the defendant Angel Berrios's conviction following his guilty plea to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court, Kings County. The court rejected Berrios's challenge to the denial of his suppression motion because he had validly waived his right to appeal; that waiver bars appellate review of the suppression ruling. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed the judgment without reaching the merits of the suppression claim.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order (after reargument) granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' personal injury complaint. The court held the defendants had shown, as a matter of law, that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102(d) and that the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of causation because their expert did not rebut defendants' evidence that the injuries were preexisting and degenerative. The court affirmed on the alternative ground of lack of causation, though it noted some triable issues as to certain injury categories before resolving causation against the plaintiffs.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order granting Lalezarian Properties, LLC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's amended complaint in a slip-and-fall personal injury action. The plaintiff, a security guard who slipped on ice in an underground garage, sued the alleged property owner. The court held that Lalezarian showed it did not own, manage, operate, or control the property and thus cannot be liable for the hazardous condition, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court therefore properly granted the defendant's motion upon reargument.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court order denying Margaret Liu’s motion to vacate a 2018 default judgment awarding Shau Chung Hu $1,480,636.50 in a hybrid proceeding seeking, among other relief, ownership and rescission relating to Lowbet Realty Corp. The Court held Liu’s CPLR 5015(a)(1) motion was untimely because it was made more than one year after service of the judgment, and that her claimed excuse—lack of personal service of the petition—failed because she had filed a notice of appearance and never challenged jurisdiction. The court also rejected relief under CPLR 317 because Liu had appeared in the action.

The Appellate Division affirmed a Family Court order modifying custody and access in related Family Court Act articles 6 and 8 proceedings. After a hearing and an in-camera interview with the child, the Family Court found the father committed assault in the third degree and menacing in the second and third degrees against the child, awarded the mother final decision-making authority, limited the father's parenting time to therapeutic supervised access, denied the father's cross-petition to change custody, and issued a two-year order of protection for the child. The appellate court found no deprivation of the father's right to counsel and found no reversible error.

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Family Court order resolving where a child should attend school. The parents, who share joint legal custody and alternate weekly parenting time, could not agree on school district enrollment. After a hearing, Family Court granted the father's petition to enroll the child in the South Huntington Union Free School District and denied the mother's petition to enroll the child in the Hauppauge Union Free School District. The appellate court found the Family Court's best-interests determination had a sound and substantial basis, citing the child's benefit from a diverse environment and likely residential stability with the father.