Court Filings

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 dismissed appellant Giovani Aveleno Kitts’s criminal appeal after he filed a motion to dismiss that complied with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). The motion was signed by Kitts and his counsel, and the court granted it, ending appellate review. The opinion is a short per curiam dismissal with no discussion of the merits and is not for publication.

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 Fourth Court of Appeals granted the parties' joint motion to set aside the trial court's final judgment and remanded the case for entry of a judgment consistent with the parties' settlement agreement. The appellate court vacated the existing judgment without addressing the merits and directed the trial court to render the agreed judgment. Because the settlement did not allocate appellate costs, the court taxed costs of appeal against the appellants.

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed EFT Express SA de CV's appeal from a Webb County district court for want of prosecution because the clerk's record was not filed and the appellant failed to pay the fee required for preparing the record. The appellate court notified the appellant and ordered a written explanation, but the appellant did not respond by the deadline. Citing the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court dismissed the appeal and taxed appellate costs against the appellant.

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 dismissed Capital Fund I, LLC’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court had entered a default judgment against Capital Fund but expressly labeled it interlocutory. The plaintiff then obtained a severance order moving the entire dispute against Capital Fund (both defaulted and still-pending claims) into a new cause. The appellate court concluded that severing the entire case did not convert the interlocutory default judgment into a final, appealable judgment, so the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

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 reviewed Antonio Lee Grey’s appeal after the trial court revoked his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of attempted assault of a family/household member with a prior conviction, and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. The State conceded the sentence was illegal because attempted assault (as an attempt to a third-degree felony) is a state jail felony with a statutory maximum of two years. The court held the sentence exceeded the authorized range, reversed the punishment portion of the judgment, remanded for a new punishment hearing within the proper statutory range, and otherwise affirmed the conviction.

The court reviewed an appeal from a final judgment in which plaintiffs (Decedent’s children) sought a declaratory judgment voiding a lien affidavit filed by appellant Agueda and attorneys’ fees; Blanca intervened claiming a homestead interest in the property. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part: it affirmed the trial court’s power over its interlocutory order, vacated the trial court’s merits declarations about Blanca’s homestead and the declaration voiding the lien, reversed the award of attorneys’ fees against Blanca (rendering judgment she owes nothing), and reversed and remanded the fee award as to Agueda for further proceedings on the fees claim.

The Fourth Court of Appeals dismissed appellant A.C.'s attempted appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A.C., proceeding pro se, filed an application for a protective order and appealed after the trial court orally denied relief; the court later signed an order denying a temporary protective order and modifying visitation. Because A.C. acknowledged that related proceedings (a foreign custody/support registration from Ohio and a suit affecting the parent-child relationship) remain pending, the appellate court concluded the order was interlocutory and not immediately appealable under Texas law, and A.C. did not respond to a show-cause order.

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 Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed McGarvey-Wilkins’s appeal from a Georgia State-Wide Business Court order denying her request to proceed as an indigent. The appellant repeatedly failed to file a compliant affidavit of indigency, pay the filing fee, or provide an adequate certificate of service despite the Court’s orders to do so. Because she did not file a timely initial brief and did not show good cause for the defaults required by Court of Appeals Rule 23(a), the Court dismissed the appeal for noncompliance with procedural rules.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an Application for Discretionary Appeal filed by Catherine Corkren in case A26D0426 concerning LC No. 19CV0611. After review, the court issued a short administrative order denying the application. The document contains no substantive opinion explaining the court's reasoning beyond the single-word disposition denying the request for discretionary review.

The Georgia Court of Appeals issued a short order denying the appellant's motion made under Court of Appeals Rule 40(b) in case A26E0180, Fontes v. Bloom. The order contains no extended explanation or factual findings — it simply states the motion is denied and is certified as an official extract of the court minutes. There is no discussion of the grounds for denial or any further relief granted.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Kyle Ramsey’s direct appeal of a twelve-month protective order granted to Kristina Ramsey under Georgia’s Family Violence Act for lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that appeals in domestic relations and Family Violence Act matters must be pursued by filing an application for discretionary appeal in the appellate court rather than by a trial-court notice of appeal. Because Kyle did not follow the mandatory discretionary-appeal procedure, the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals denied Andrea Plummer’s emergency motion seeking a stay of enforcement while her application for discretionary appeal is considered. The court issued a short order on April 15, 2026, declining to pause enforcement of the underlying judgment or order pending further appellate review. No extended reasoning or citation of law appears in the order; it is a procedural disposition denying temporary relief requested by the movant.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Kaelyn Smith’s felony-murder judgment because the trial court failed to complete statutorily required notice and form under Ohio’s violent-offender law (Sierah’s Law, R.C. 2903.41 et seq.) before sentencing. Smith had pleaded guilty to felony murder with a firearm specification; the parties and judge discussed the violent-offender form and defense counsel waived reading the paperwork, but the record does not contain an executed form or an affirmative on-the-record advisement. Because the trial court did not provide the required pre-sentencing notice, the appellate court found plain error and ordered further proceedings for proper notice and signature.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals reviewed a summary judgment the Summit County Common Pleas Court granted to defendants Mike and Janine Brustoski against plaintiff Nahas Construction. The trial court deemed Nahas’s responses to requests for admission admitted after Nahas missed the discovery deadline, and then granted summary judgment finding Nahas breached the construction contract and the Brustoskis were justified in withholding final payment. The appeals court affirmed that breach was established by the admitted facts but reversed as to the damages award, finding the Brustoskis failed to present competent evidence of the amount of damages and remanded for a determination of damages.

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 First District Court of Appeals reversed the municipal court's denial of a victim's request for restitution and remanded for a restitution hearing. Defendant Adam Winkle had pleaded guilty/no contest to several driving-related offenses after side‑swiping multiple cars while intoxicated. Victim M.L. submitted a victim impact statement with documentation that she paid a $500 insurance deductible for damage to her vehicle. The appellate court held the trial court erred in refusing restitution based on the existence of insurance and directed a hearing to determine restitution for the deductible.

The court reviewed Cierra Snow’s appeal of her domestic-violence conviction for punching her ten-year-old daughter after an argument. The appeals court held that Snow’s use of force was not reasonable parental discipline because she presented no evidence to meet her burden and the video showed a harmful blow. The court affirmed the conviction and rejected Snow’s argument that she should have been charged only under the child-endangering statute. However, the court found the trial court failed to credit Snow for one day of jail time and remanded solely to correct that sentencing credit.

The First District Court of Appeals reversed Patricia Hauser’s municipal-court conviction for theft and discharged her. Hauser pleaded no contest after the State recited facts that she left a bar without paying a $69.33 tab when her credit card was declined. The appellate court held the State’s explanation of circumstances affirmatively showed the bar owner consented to her possession of the drinks when he served them, which negated an essential element of the charged theft offense. Because the explanation could not support the conviction under R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), the court reversed and discharged Hauser.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals denied Alan Harris Jr.’s App.R. 26(B) application to reopen his 2025 direct appeal. Harris argued appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising challenges to his sentence and plea, and he filed a late supplemental claim that his plea was involuntary because of alleged deficiencies outside the record. The court found the supplement untimely, held that the plea waived many challenges (including failure to file a suppression motion), and determined the plea colloquy and sentencing record did not show reversible error. The application to reopen was denied for lack of merit and timeliness.

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.