Court Filings

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed John Paul Ortega’s conviction and life-without-parole sentence for capital murder in the deaths of Iliana Garza and her unborn child. Ortega challenged the sufficiency of the evidence as to the unborn child’s death and argued the jury charge was erroneous for including self-defense in the abstract but not in the application paragraph. The court found the evidence sufficient because Ortega knew Garza was pregnant and a jury could infer he knew killing her was reasonably certain to kill the fetus. The court also found the charge error non-egregious given the evidence and arguments, so the conviction stands.

The Texas Department of Insurance filed an original proceeding in the Seventh Court of Appeals to challenge the denial of its motion to quash a subpoena in an underlying Lubbock County case. While the petition was pending, the Department and the plaintiff (Real Party in Interest, Traci Johnson) resolved their discovery dispute by a Rule 11 agreement, and the Department filed a notice that it intended to withdraw its petition. Because the parties settled and the relator withdrew its challenge, the court dismissed the Department's original proceeding without deciding the subpoena issue on the merits.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals dismissed a pro se appeal filed on behalf of corporate entities because a nonlawyer cannot represent entities in court. After notifying the parties that an attorney must represent the corporations, counsel who filed an amended notice of appeal withdrew and no new attorney entered an appearance or filed a brief. The court concluded the entities failed to comply with directives to obtain counsel and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and failure to follow court orders.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals dismissed Scott Crow’s appeal from his 2015 guilty plea and twenty-year sentence for third-degree felony driving while intoxicated. Crow filed a second pro se notice of appeal nearly ten years after sentencing, which the court found untimely under the appellate rules. The court also relied on the trial-court certification showing this was a plea-bargain case in which Crow waived any right of appeal. Because the notice was untimely and the certification precludes an appeal, the appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals dismissed this appeal on April 9, 2026. Rush Truck Centers of Texas, L.P. initially appealed a trial-court judgment but later obtained full relief when the trial court granted its post-judgment omnibus motion and entered a take-nothing judgment; Rush Truck moved to dismiss its portion of the appeal, which the court granted. The court also dismissed Ronald Joe Andrus, Jr.’s portion of the appeal for want of prosecution and failure to follow court directives after his counsel did not respond to requests, failed to pay filing fees, and failed to request or pay for the clerk’s record.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals dismissed an interlocutory appeal by Robert Berleth and his firm challenging the trial court’s denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss under Texas Rule 91a. The court held it lacked jurisdiction because Berleth, a court‑appointed turnover receiver, is not a "governmental unit" under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §§ 51.014(a)(8) and 101.001(3), so he cannot bring an interlocutory appeal. The court relied on statutory text and precedent distinguishing uniquely governmental organs from privately appointed receivers whose authority is limited to satisfying a specific judgment.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed a Midland County trial court’s final divorce decree awarding spousal maintenance to Aletha Marie Dominguez. Oscar Dominguez argued (1) the maintenance award was unsupported and (2) the decree improperly limited his ability to seek future modification. The appeals court found the evidence, including testimony, financial statements, and the trial court’s findings, supported the determination of Aletha Marie’s minimum reasonable needs ($5,200/month) and that she lacked sufficient property at dissolution. The court also held any perceived restriction on seeking modification was moot or a permissible discretionary periodic-review provision.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed Jason Padilla’s bench-trial convictions for three counts of sexual assault of a child, one count of indecency with a child, and one count of possession of a controlled substance. The court held that testimony about prior minor acts of violence in the household was admissible to explain the victim’s delayed reporting and did not unduly prejudice Padilla. However, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove the seized residue was cocaine (no lab analysis or expert testimony), reversed the possession conviction, rendered an acquittal on that count, and modified one judgment to correct the statutory citation.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court order admitting Kara Watson’s will to probate as a muniment of title. The will was offered about nine years after Kara’s 2014 death; an interested party argued the proponent was in default for failing to probate within the four-year statutory period. After a bench trial the court found the proponent, Kara’s daughter Mary Gale, exercised reasonable diligence and had valid excuses (including caregiving duties, serious health problems, and lack of awareness of the need to probate). The appellate court held the evidence was legally sufficient to support that finding and affirmed.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed Fred Gonzales’s conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and the resulting 25-year sentence. Gonzales argued his trial lawyer was ineffective for not showing him a dash-cam video before he rejected a misdemeanor plea offer and that the trial court erred by refusing a hearing on his motion for new trial. The court found the record did not affirmatively show deficient performance, and Gonzales failed to prove prejudice under the standard for plea-negotiation claims. The court also held the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying a hearing on the motion for new trial.

The Court dismissed Bobbie Hall Wooldridge’s appeal of a guilty plea conviction for possession of methamphetamine because the trial court certified this was a plea-bargain case in which Wooldridge had no right to appeal. Wooldridge pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement and received the agreed three-year sentence. The appellate court found no statutory or procedural basis to continue the appeal, noting the certification was signed by the defendant, defense counsel, and the judge, and that the record supported the certification.

The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and denied Akeel Bin-Bellah’s collateral attack on his guilty plea. Bin-Bellah had pleaded guilty, as part of a global plea bargain, to one count of second-degree assault and three counts of fourth-degree assault for the December 2017 beating of his mother, and expressly stipulated that the counts reflected separate and distinct acts. Division One vacated the three misdemeanors on double-jeopardy grounds, but the Supreme Court held that a knowing, voluntary plea that includes factual admissions to separate acts forecloses a later double-jeopardy challenge. The court reinstated the three fourth-degree convictions and dismissed the personal restraint petition.

The Washington Supreme Court reviewed a Commission on Judicial Conduct finding that pro tem Judge David Ruzumna used a sitting judge’s signature stamp and the King County District Court seal without permission to create a document presented for a county employee parking discount. The Court held, after de novo review, that Ruzumna violated Judicial Conduct Code rules requiring compliance with law, promoting public confidence, and avoiding abuse of judicial prestige, and that his continued untruthful explanations during proceedings compounded the misconduct. The Court adopted the Commission’s recommendation to censure and remove him from judicial office.

The Washington Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and held that a creditor seeking recognition of a foreign-country money judgment under the state’s Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (ch. 6.40A RCW) must, absent general or specific personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor in Washington, show that the debtor has property in Washington. The case arose after an English court entered judgment for Alterna against SpiceJet and Alterna sought recognition in King County. The Court reasoned recognition is not purely ministerial and that constitutional due process requires a jurisdictional nexus for recognition actions when personal jurisdiction is lacking.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal filed by Rikayat Lawal in case number A26D0407, seeking review of a trial court matter assigned LC number 25DD000869. The court issued a short order on April 9, 2026, denying the application for discretionary appeal. No further reasoning or analysis is provided in the document; it is a ministerial denial entry from the Clerk of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal filed by William Melton, II, in case A26D0404 (LC No. 23FM1024) against Jacqueline Boone and denied the application. The order, issued April 9, 2026, is a short procedural disposition that simply refuses permission to pursue an interlocutory or discretionary appeal to this court and does not address the merits of the underlying case.

The Georgia Court of Appeals issued an order on April 9, 2026 denying an emergency motion by Westchester Place Homeowners Association and related parties. The appellants had asked for a supersedeas (stay) of injunctive relief and for the appointment of a receiver while their appeal is pending. The court refused those emergency requests, leaving the lower-court injunctive relief and the absence of a receiver in place pending further proceedings.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Jose Martin Islas's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Islas had previously been convicted and had his convictions affirmed. He filed a motion to correct a void sentence that the trial court denied on October 16, 2025, and a later motion for reconsideration denied December 5, 2025. Islas filed a notice of appeal on December 22, 2025, which the Court found untimely because Georgia law requires a notice of appeal within 30 days of the challenged order and a reconsideration motion does not extend that deadline or create a separate appealable order.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered Maryam Bennett’s emergency motion asking the court to immediately stay enforcement of a lower-court order. After review, the court denied the emergency motion, so no stay was granted and the underlying order remains enforceable. The order is a short administrative disposition reflecting only the denial of the requested emergency relief and does not provide extended reasoning or discussion of the merits.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed Charles Wright’s conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to sexual battery and two counts of endangering children. Wright claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel did not ask the trial court to state the elements of sexual battery during the plea colloquy and did not move to withdraw his plea after Wright made statements at sentencing that he now contends were protests of innocence. The court found counsel’s performance was not deficient and Wright failed to show prejudice: the plea was knowing and voluntary and a withdrawal motion would not have succeeded.

The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed, vacated, and remanded a trial court order that granted R.T.’s petition to seal a 2003 federal conviction. The appeals court held that a state trial court may only order sealing of records that are maintained by Ohio state agencies under R.C. 2953.32, and cannot compel federal agencies to seal or disregard federal conviction records. Because the trial court’s order used broad boilerplate language (directing all official records sealed and directing service on federal and state agencies), the appellate court found the order exceeded the court’s limited authority and remanded for a more specific hearing narrowly identifying which state-maintained records, if any, may be sealed.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed Mark Moore’s conviction for third-degree domestic violence following a bench trial. The case arose from the defendant’s mother reporting that Moore shoved her into a refrigerator door on February 28, 2025. The trial court credited the victim’s testimony, medical records, and photographs over Moore’s denial that he assaulted his mother. On appeal Moore argued the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, but the appeals court found the trial court, as factfinder, reasonably resolved credibility disputes and did not clearly lose its way.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed a 17-to-20 year aggregate prison sentence imposed on defendant-appellant Dameon Kijanski after he pled guilty to multiple felonies arising from a November 29, 2024 shooting of two teens. The trial court ordered three counts to run consecutively (two felonious-assault counts for separate victims and one having-weapons-while-under-disability count) and the remaining counts concurrent. The appeals court held the record supported the required statutory findings for consecutive sentences — including multiple victims and the defendant’s criminal history — and applied the deferential standard of review to affirm.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Arto D. Green III’s postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea and rejected his ineffective-assistance claim. Green had pled guilty to aggravated robbery with a one-year firearm specification and was sentenced under the Reagan Tokes Law to a minimum of seven up to ten years. He later argued he suffered mental-health problems at the time of plea and that counsel failed to investigate or seek transfer to the court’s mental-health docket. The appellate court found the record did not show qualifying mental-health issues or prejudice from counsel’s actions, and no manifest injustice or need for an evidentiary hearing was shown.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence of Augustus G. Frazier, IV for murder, felonious assault, and having weapons while under disability arising from the August 8, 2023 killing of Alexander Eaton. The jury convicted Frazier of murder and related firearm specifications after trial; two weapons counts were tried to the bench. The court held the evidence — eyewitness testimony of a codefendant, corroborating video, GPS data, tattoos, and forensic findings — was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence. The court also rejected claims of improper jury guidance, an improper complicity instruction, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Ohio Court of Appeals (Eighth District) affirmed the convictions of defendant-appellant Cecil Fluker for burglary, menacing by stalking, and intimidation following jury trial. Fluker challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, joinder of indictments, jury instructions, admission of evidence (including jail calls and hearsay), and effectiveness of trial counsel. The court found the jail calls admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, any hearsay error harmless because the declarant testified and was cross-examined, joinder and instructions proper, and trial counsel’s strategic choices reasonable. The convictions were therefore affirmed and the case remanded for execution of sentence.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed Todd Clark’s nine-year aggregate prison sentence for sexual battery and two counts of gross sexual imposition following his guilty pleas. Clark argued the trial court erred by stating a statutory presumption of imprisonment applied to sexual battery. The court found the trial judge misstated the law but that the error did not change the outcome because the judge independently considered required sentencing factors (including the victim’s age, psychological harm, the familial relationship that facilitated the offenses, and Clark’s lengthy criminal history) and expressly rejected community control. The sentence was supported by the record and law.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals reviewed a breach-of-contract suit in which SPM obtained judgment against guarantor Brinker after tenant Romano’s defaulted and vacated leased premises. The court reversed the trial court in part and remanded. It held that the lease did not expressly abrogate the landlord’s duty to mitigate damages, so mitigation was required as a matter of law once SPM retook possession. Because there are disputed facts about whether SPM made reasonable mitigation efforts, the case was sent back for a factfinder to determine mitigation and the correct damages. The court also remanded the unresolved attorney-disqualification motion for the trial court to decide on the merits.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals vacated a domestic-violence civil protection order (DVCPO) that a Cuyahoga County domestic-relations magistrate had entered against G.S. following a full hearing. The court reviewed the record and concluded the petitioner, R.S., failed to present sufficient, credible evidence by a preponderance that she was in danger of domestic violence. Because the appellate court found the evidence inadequate—R.S.’s uncorroborated testimony, impeachment by exhibits, and competing testimony and exhibits from G.S.—the DVCPO was vacated and the case remanded for notification that the order is no longer in effect.

The Cuyahoga County Probate Court appointed an independent, non‑interested attorney as successor trustee of the Gary L. Bryenton Declaration of Trust after the named successor declined and a proposed beneficiary appointment was disputed. Barbara Bryenton had filed a notice appointing herself and her daughter Elisabeth as co‑trustees, but the court struck that notice, found conflicts among beneficiaries (notably Susan’s allegations of bias), and, after a short hearing with no sworn evidence, appointed a neutral trustee. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and that the probate court followed the statutory priority for filling trustee vacancies.