14 results for 'cat:"Criminal Procedure" AND cat:"Due Process"'.
J. Cradle finds the trial court did not violate the inmate's due process rights when it denied his motion for a continuance during his habeas trial. Although a crucial witness failed to appear, the inmate was able to present numerous exhibits and call other witnesses throughout the three day trial. Additionally, the absent witness had been served with multiple subpoenas and the trial court issued a capias in an attempt to force his appearance, and so there was no legitimate reason for a further delay. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Court Of Appeals, Judge: Cradle, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: AC46237, Categories: criminal Procedure, Habeas, due Process
J. Lipinsky finds the lower court properly denied defendant's petition for postconviction relief from his murder and robbery convictions. The constitutional rule of criminal procedure announced by the Colorado Supreme Court in Margerum v. People that allows a defense team to question a prosecution witness about their probationary status when the witness is on probation at the time of the trial is not a watershed rule that affects bedrock principles and, therefore, it does not apply retroactively. Although defendant could not question the prosecution's lead witness about his own criminal prosecution, such a limitation did not affect the fundamental fairness of the trial or violate defendant's due process rights. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Lipinsky, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 2024COA21, Categories: criminal Procedure, Constitution, due Process
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Gibbons finds that while the government constructively amended defendant's indictment on a murder-for-hire charge when it filed a superseding indictment without required language about death resulting from the crime, defendant's due process rights were not violated. The prosecution repeatedly mentioned the language and its corresponding increase in potential punishments, while defendant made clear throughout the trial he was aware of the crimes with which he was charged. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Gibbons, Filed On: February 9, 2024, Case #: 22-1650, Categories: criminal Procedure, Murder, due Process
J. Easterbrook finds that the lower court properly declined to grant defendant a new trial after the court failed to get defendant's formal consent on record to a remote video sentencing hearing. The failure to obtain consent on the record to appearance by video does not satisfy the plain-error standard and defendant does not contend that he would have refused to appear by video had he been asked. Affirmed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Easterbrook, Filed On: December 13, 2023, Case #: 21-3230, Categories: criminal Procedure, Sentencing, due Process
J. Eisnaugle finds the trial court did not err by imposing $67 in costs in a written cost order, as statutes and precedent do not necessarily require citation to local authority for imposing costs in a written order, and due process is satisfied when there is citation to such authority somewhere else in the record. Defendant's argument that every written cost order requires citation to such authority fails, and her judgment and sentence stand. Affirmed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Eisnaugle, Filed On: December 7, 2023, Case #: 21-2985, Categories: criminal Procedure, due Process
Per curiam, the appellate court dismisses defendant’s appeal. Defendant filed a notice of appeal after the limitations period and did not file a motion for extension. Although he attempted to timely file, and the notice was not timely filed due to no fault of his own, the court of appeals lacks authority to extend the time for perfecting an appeal.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: October 31, 2023, Case #: 12-23-00247-CR, Categories: criminal Procedure, Jurisdiction, due Process
J. LeGrow finds that defendants should not suffer collateral consequences after receiving unconditional pardons if defendants are released from custody after filing timely postconviction motions. The trial court improperly dismissed postconviction claims as moot moot because the collateral consequences of defendant's new conviction operate in the same manner as for a first-time felon. Reversed.
Court: Delaware Supreme Court, Judge: LeGrow, Filed On: October 9, 2023, Case #: 112, 2021, Categories: criminal Procedure, due Process
J. D'Apolito finds the trial court's ultimatum to defendant at the conclusion of the second day of his trial on murder and assault charges violated his due process rights. It did not give him an adequate amount of time to consider whether he wished to testify in his own defense. Additionally, the trial court improperly denied defendant's motion to reopen the case and testify the following day based on its assertion there had been no "change in circumstances," as such a change is not required under Ohio law. Therefore, defendant's convictions will be vacated and the case will be remanded for a new trial. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: D'Apolito, Filed On: July 31, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-2639, Categories: criminal Procedure, Murder, due Process
J. Watts rules that the lower court failed to correctly assess the materiality of evidence in denying a man his petition for writ of actual innocence after he unsuccessfully challenged a murder conviction on direct appeal. The lower court was ordered to conduct a new trial, but before that, the petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, claiming due process violations. Afterward, the petitioner and the state drew up a plea agreement where the petitioner was allowed to use an Alford plea for felony murder in exchange for a suspended sentence and probation. The state also agreed with the petitioner that it violated due process, although a new trial never took place. However, it cannot be determined if the petitioner’s charges should be dismissed based on whether he suffered irreparable prejudice. Therefore, the case should be remanded to the lower court, which should in turn vacate its denial of the petitioner’s motion to dismiss. Vacated.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Watts, Filed On: June 20, 2023, Case #: 20-K-00-006884, Categories: criminal Procedure, Murder, due Process