124 results for 'cat:"Criminal Procedure" AND cat:"Sentencing"'.
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. Beck finds that the lower court improperly sentenced defendant following his guilty plea to driving under the influence of alcohol. His DUI conviction should not be treated as his third offense in 10 years for sentencing purposes based on his prior conviction in Ohio, for physical control of a vehicle while under the influence, that was improperly classified as substantially similar to Pennsylvania’s offense of a DUI. Vacated.
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court, Judge: Beck, Filed On: May 9, 2024, Case #: J-A06036-24, Categories: criminal Procedure, sentencing, Dui
J. Mead finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant following a jury trial for “hunting a deer after having killed one,” as well as unlawful possession of wild animals. On appeal, he fails to show that the charge for possession of wild animals was barred under double jeopardy principles. Additionally, the matter is remanded for reconsideration of a stay order. The lower court had “the authority to order the original stay” and should decide whether to reinstate it. Affirmed.
Court: Maine Supreme Court, Judge: Mead, Filed On: May 7, 2024, Case #: 2024ME33, Categories: criminal Procedure, sentencing, Double Jeopardy
J. Kellum finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant on multiple counts of voyeurism but improperly sentenced him. The lower court did not err by admitting evidence of certain Internet searches that were extracted from defendant's phone. The court notes that the probationary terms of the split sentences are unlawful, however, and the matter is remanded for another sentencing hearing. Affirmed in part.
Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Kellum, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: CR-2023-0008, Categories: criminal Procedure, Probation, sentencing
J. Stevens affirms the trial court’s sentencing of defendant to 30 years in prison after a jury convicted him of armed robbery of a store. The trial court had no duty to inquire about whether there was a conflict of interest between the defendant and his defense attorney, who had recently been elected county district attorney. At trial, defendant’s counsel told the jury: “I’m the DA-elect. I’m the one that is going to be sitting in this chair come 2023.” On appeal, the defendant fails to specify any conflict of interest with his counsel even though he was not yet the county’s prosecutor. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Stevens, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: 06-23-171-CR, Categories: criminal Procedure, Robbery, sentencing
J. McCool finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant for murder, attempted murder and discharging a firearm into an unoccupied vehicle. On appeal, defendant contends that the lower court erred when it denied his motion for acquittal. The court notes that his arguments regarding eyewitness testimony go to the “weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency.” The case must still be remanded, however, to address a sentencing error. Affirmed in part.
Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: McCool, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: CR-2023-0278, Categories: criminal Procedure, Murder, sentencing
J. Stevens finds that the lower court properly sentenced defendant for shooting and killing his neighbor’s two German Shepherd dogs who were on his property, barking at and chasing deer he raised. The deer were fenced, and the dogs were interacting with the deer on the outside of the fence, so the killings were not protected by a legal defense that permits the killing of dogs in the process of killing or wounding other domestic animals. Affirmed.
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court, Judge: Stevens, Filed On: May 2, 2024, Case #: J-S08038-24, Categories: criminal Procedure, sentencing, Animal Cruelty
J. McKeague finds the trial court properly applied a career offender enhancement to defendant's sentence because his previous Ohio robbery conviction qualifies as a crime of violence. Under this court's previous ruling, Ohio robbery is not considered "generic" robbery under federal sentencing guidelines, but meets the criteria for generic extortion, which always involves the use of force; therefore, the enhancement was properly applied. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: McKeague, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 23-3466, Categories: criminal Procedure, Robbery, sentencing
J. Menetrez finds that the trial court improperly denied defendant's motion to quash the state's subpoena seeking his case file in preparation for a resentencing hearing. The trial court must apply the factors in the appeal court's "Facebook Inc. v. Superior Court" opinion, which apply to subpoenas issued by both the defense and prosecution. That standard is used to determine if good cause exists to seek a defendant's entire case file, including medical and mental health records. Vacated.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Menetrez, Filed On: March 1, 2024, Case #: E081770, Categories: criminal Procedure, sentencing, Sex Offender
J. Poochigian finds that the trial court improperly redesignated defendant's murder conviction as a burglary conviction in response to his resentencing petition, and must redesignate it as an attempted robbery conviction. Robbery, not burglary, was the underlying felony of his felony-murder conviction. Reversed
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Poochigian, Filed On: February 26, 2024, Case #: F086065, Categories: criminal Procedure, Murder, sentencing