Court Filings

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an Application for Discretionary Appeal in the criminal case captioned TZVI YEHUDA STRAUSS v. THE STATE (LC No. 25CR00175) and issued a short order on April 16, 2026. The court denied the application for discretionary appeal, meaning it declined to review the lower court's decision. No written opinion or reasoning is included in the order; the denial is a discretionary procedural ruling rather than a substantive decision on the merits.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Scott Bolles’s appeal of a trial court award of attorney fees to GEICO Indemnity Company because the appellant failed to pursue the required discretionary-review procedure. Under Georgia law, orders granting fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 must be appealed by application for discretionary review; ordinary appeals are not permitted. Because Bolles did not follow that jurisdictional procedure, the Court concluded it lacked authority to hear the case and dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits of the fee award.

The Court of Appeals dismissed two direct appeals challenging a trial court’s award of $5,005 in attorney fees and a contempt finding in a domestic relations case because the appellants did not follow the required discretionary-review procedure. The trial court had apportioned the fee award between the father (Randy Harling, Jr.) and his former counsel (Bataski Bailey). The Court of Appeals held it lacked jurisdiction because Georgia law requires an application for discretionary review to appeal orders in domestic relations matters and awards under OCGA § 9-15-14. Noncompliance with that procedure is jurisdictional, so the appeals were dismissed on April 16, 2026.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed Dwayne Eugene Jackson’s direct appeal of his March 2026 guilty plea and 20-year sentence because the appeal was not filed under the state’s newly amended discretionary review procedure required for guilty pleas entered on or after May 14, 2025. The court explained that OCGA § 5-6-35 now requires such appeals to begin by application for discretionary review and that failure to follow that procedure is jurisdictional. Because Jackson did not comply, the court concluded it lacks jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed an interlocutory application filed by Fulton County Sheriff Patrick Labat seeking review of a trial court order that denied his summary-judgment immunity defense in a lawsuit by Ralph Gershom challenging a sheriff's deed. The court concluded the superior-court order is directly appealable under new OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(15), effective July 1, 2025, so an interlocutory application was unnecessary. Because Sheriff Labat already filed a notice of appeal docketed as Case No. A26A1678, the Court dismissed the duplicative application as superfluous and directed further filings to proceed under the existing appeal number.

The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order that had granted Ricky Thompson an out-of-time appeal from his convictions for involuntary manslaughter and aggravated assault. The court found the trial court lacked authority under the statutory deadline in OCGA § 5-6-39.1 because Thompson filed his motion 114 days after the time to appeal expired, exceeding the statute’s 100-day window. The panel remanded with directions to dismiss the out-of-time appeal motion and noted that any remedy must be pursued by habeas corpus under existing precedent.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed Tyler Stafford’s convictions and sentences after he pleaded guilty in three Cuyahoga County cases, including a third-degree count for having weapons while under disability under R.C. 2923.13(A)(2). Stafford argued the statute was facially unconstitutional based on this court’s prior Philpotts decision and that counsel was ineffective for advising the plea. The court held Philpotts had been stayed by the Ohio Supreme Court when Stafford pled, so the statute remained valid; and the record did not show counsel was deficient or that Stafford suffered prejudice. The convictions and aggregate sentence were affirmed.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed Lorinzo Sampson’s total 36-month prison sentence after he pled guilty to attempted having weapons while under disability in two separate cases. The court rejected Sampson’s claims that the trial judge was biased, that the sentence was unlawful, and that he was improperly denied the right to hire counsel. The court found the judge’s courtroom comments and scheduling decisions did not demonstrate bias, that the record shows the court considered sentencing statutes and explained its reasons, and that the denial of a last-minute continuance to hire new counsel was a permissible exercise of discretion.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of Marlon Lewis’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle after a traffic stop. Police smelled burnt marijuana, Lewis admitted he had smoked in the car earlier, and an officer then searched the reachable area and found used blunts and a bag containing a firearm. The appellate court concluded that, given Ohio law at the time, smoking marijuana in a vehicle did not constitute a statutory criminal offense for a driver, so there was no probable cause to justify the warrantless search under the automobile exception.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Kenneth Humphries Jr.’s 2025 misdemeanor domestic-violence conviction. Humphries had been indicted in 2025 for offenses arising from an August 2020 incident; his trial counsel moved to dismiss for preindictment delay but did not argue the two-year statute of limitations for misdemeanors. The State conceded counsel’s failure to raise the statute-of-limitations defense was ineffective assistance. The appellate court agreed with the concession, found the conviction must be reversed, and remanded for further proceedings, rendering the weight-of-evidence claim moot.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Tajul Islam’s motion to continue a domestic-relations hearing and related rulings. Islam’s counsel was unavailable due to a criminal trial and Islam argued this denied him counsel and due process when the hearing proceeded in his absence. The appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the late continuance request, that no constitutional right to counsel existed in this civil contempt/post-decree proceeding, and that Islam failed to show cumulative error or timely objections. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights and awarding permanent custody of twin infants A.N. and L.N. to Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (CCDCFS). The agency had sought permanent custody in its original complaint after the children were removed at birth because of Mother’s unresolved mental-health problems, inconsistent engagement with services, and prior involuntary termination of parental rights to older siblings. The appellate court found the juvenile court’s findings supported by clear and convincing evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The Ohio appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of the City of Euclid’s motion to dismiss a negligence complaint. Frederico sued the city after a tree fell from private property onto his car, alleging the city owned and failed to maintain the tree. The appellate panel held that under Ohio law the city is generally immune from tort liability unless an exception applies, and the complaint did not plead facts showing the tree was an “obstruction” on the roadway as required to overcome immunity. Because the complaint could not state a viable exception, dismissal was required.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s award of attorney fees to Citywide RX after Citywide prevailed on contract claims against multiple nursing-home defendants, including Selfridge Leasing. Citywide sought $434,252.95 in fees (primarily for a New York law firm plus local counsel); the trial court found Citywide the prevailing party under the contract’s fee provision, reviewed affidavits and itemized bills, and held the rates and hours reasonable. On appeal Selfridge argued the fees were excessive and duplicative, but the court rejected new arguments raised for the first time on appeal and found no genuine issue of material fact.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s November 20, 2025 denial of Letwan E. Cherry’s motion to vacate his six-to-nine year prison sentence for trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound. Cherry argued his sentence was void under Apprendi/Alleyne and Ohio authorities, but the appellate court held his sentence was an authorized indefinite term within the statutory range and that judicial factfinding to select a minimum within that range does not violate the Sixth Amendment. Several other challenges raised on appeal were tied to a later post-sentencing motion and thus were not properly before the court.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals reviewed Joseph Toth’s guilty pleas and sentence for two first-degree drug felonies. The court affirmed Toth’s prison terms but reversed the trial court’s orders imposing mandatory fines and directing sale of his 2018 Cadillac to pay those fines. The appellate court held the trial court lacked statutory authority to order forfeiture/sale because no forfeiture specification or civil forfeiture proceeding was invoked, and the court failed to give the required oral Reagan Tokes advisements at sentencing. The case is remanded for re-sentencing limited to providing the required advisements and correcting the fines/vehicle order.

The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Pike County Common Pleas Court's denial of a motion to set aside a sheriff's sale of real property sold for delinquent taxes. Gary Damron argued he (and other known heirs) did not receive proper notice because the Notice of Sale was sent by email to his then-attorney during the holiday period rather than by regular mail. The appellate court held service on Damron's attorney by e-mail complied with Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(f), was complete upon transmission, and was reasonably calculated to provide notice, so the trial court did not err in denying the motion to set aside the sale.

The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed Walter Jackson’s convictions and sentence following his March 2023 jury trial and May 15, 2023 sentencing in Scioto County Common Pleas Court. Jackson was convicted on a 12-count indictment (drug trafficking/possession, weapons offenses, and related counts with firearm specifications). He raised five assignments of error including ineffective assistance, absence from trial, failure to merge allied offenses, improper consecutive sentences, and insufficiency/manifest-weight challenges. The court found the record supported the convictions and the consecutive sentences, and that the evidence (including circumstantial evidence and forensic lab results) was sufficient and not against the manifest weight.

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that historical cell site location information (CSLI) involves technical and specialized knowledge and therefore must be presented to a jury by a qualified expert under N.J.R.E. 702. The case arose from defendant Jule Hannah’s murder conviction where a detective testified as a lay witness mapping cell towers from phone records; the Appellate Division had reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed that reversal. The Court found CSLI interpretation goes beyond ordinary juror knowledge, that the detective’s lay testimony and the prosecutor’s closing remarks risked misleading the jury, and that limiting instructions were insufficient to cure the error.

The Appellate Division reversed part of Supreme Court’s dismissal of investors’ securities claims arising from inflated mutual-fund valuations. Plaintiffs alleged that Infinity Q’s CIO manipulated a Bloomberg pricing service, producing false NAVs in the mutual fund’s December 31, 2019 registration statement. The court held that defendant Potter cannot escape strict liability under Section 11 by a disclaimer and that plaintiffs adequately pleaded agency such that IQCM may be vicariously liable under Section 11. The court also found plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded Section 15 control-person claims against Bonderman LP and Potter as to IQCM, but not as to the Mutual Fund or the Trust.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Supreme Court's April 24, 2024 order denying Feifei Gu's motions to vacate a prior July 28, 2023 dismissal and for sanctions, while noting the court had effectively granted leave to reargue and then adhered to its prior dismissal. The court found the complaint was properly dismissed because Gu failed to file the mandatory notice of claim under General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i before suing the District Attorney's Office and two prosecutors, a defect that deprives the court of jurisdiction. The court also rejected Gu's fraud and misconduct claims as conclusory and unsupported.

The First Department dismissed as moot an appeal by a father challenging a Supreme Court Bronx County temporary custody order that gave physical custody to the mother and visitation to the father. The court granted the father's appellate counsel's motion to withdraw under Anders v. California after concluding there were no nonfrivolous issues to raise. The panel held the temporary visitation order was not an appealable final disposition under the Family Court Act and, in any event, the temporary order expired and has been superseded by later custody and visitation orders that were not appealed, rendering this appeal moot.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Supreme Court's order granting plaintiff Lloyd's partial summary judgment that defendant Southwest Marine must defend Lloyd's insured, Arsenal Scaffold Inc., as an additional insured in an underlying personal-injury action and reimburse Lloyd's defense costs. The court held that facts known to defendant created a reasonable possibility of coverage, so the duty to defend was triggered even though defendant's named insured (JGR Services) was not a direct defendant in the underlying suit. The court rejected Southwest Marine's contrary arguments and affirmed the denial of its cross-motion for summary judgment.

The First Department reversed Supreme Court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss a fraudulent inducement complaint and granted the motion. Plaintiff claimed defendant lied about tenants and rents when selling Manhattan property, but documentary evidence in the closing binder (schedule 8.1(k)) and the purchase agreement terms (including a merger clause and an "as is" purchase) conclusively refuted reliance. The court also held that, even absent those documents, the complaint failed to plead all elements of fraudulent inducement with sufficient particularity, so dismissal was required.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Robert F. Whitbeck Jr.'s convictions for multiple sexual and related offenses after a jury trial. Whitbeck was convicted of third-degree rape, first-degree criminal sexual act, first-degree attempted rape, criminal obstruction of breathing, second-degree unlawful imprisonment, and criminal contempt, and sentenced to aggregate prison terms and postrelease supervision. The court held the guilty verdicts were not against the weight of the evidence, deferring to the jury's credibility findings given the victim's testimony, corroborating observations by the victim's daughter, and defendant's text messages that included apparent admissions. Claims of trial error and ineffective assistance were rejected as either unpreserved or unsupported by the record.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Nsikak K. Okure’s conviction and sentence after he pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide and leaving the scene of an incident without reporting. Okure entered a plea agreement specifying concurrent prison terms (no less than 7–21 to no more than 8–24 years for the homicide count and 2⅓–7 years concurrent for leaving the scene) and waived his right to appeal. The court rejected his sole claim—that the within-agreement sentence was harsh—holding that his valid, unchallenged appeal waiver bars review of that challenge.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant David Host’s conviction and 25-years-to-life sentence after he pleaded guilty to first-degree murder for a break-in that resulted in two deaths. Host had waived appeal rights, but the court considered his preserved claim that the plea was involuntary. The court found his claim unpreserved because he did not make a postallocution motion and that no statements during the plea proceeding raised significant doubt about voluntariness. Even on the record, the court concluded mental-health history did not undermine the plea, and the appellate waiver bars a challenge to sentence severity.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed defendant Jonathan Guerin’s 2019 convictions and prison sentence following his guilty plea to multiple driving-related offenses arising from an April 2018 incident. The court held that challenges to the voluntariness of the plea and to counsel’s effectiveness were unpreserved because defendant did not move to withdraw his plea after allocution, and no statements during the plea colloquy triggered the narrow exception to preservation. The court also found the excessiveness claim moot because defendant has reached his sentence's maximum expiration and is incarcerated on a separate conviction.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed County Court's denial of defendant Alex M. Ferrer's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his burglary convictions. Ferrer argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to his being fitted with a concealed stun cuff and the presence of SERT officers during trial. After a hearing County Court credited trial counsel's testimony that he was not informed of the device and found counsel's strategy reasonable because the cuff was not visible, alternatives would have been more obvious restraints, and Ferrer was not chilled from testifying. The appellate court deferred to those credibility findings and affirmed.

The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed Amanda C. Diaz's convictions for aggravated driving while intoxicated with a child passenger, driving while intoxicated, and endangering the welfare of a child. The court reviewed a weight-of-the-evidence challenge and rejected it, finding the jury reasonably credited testimony from two off-duty paramedics and state troopers who observed disorientation, failed field sobriety testing, and admissions of alcohol use over the defendant's sister's contrary testimony. The court also held that a hearsay statement from the child, elicited at trial, was cured by prompt curative instructions and was harmless given the other evidence of guilt.