9 results for 'cat:"Murder" AND cat:"Jurisdiction"'.
J. Stewart finds that the appeals court erroneously determined the trial court lacked jurisdiction over defendant's murder case. Although the juvenile court did not find probable cause to bind over the murder charge to adult court, the complicity to commit murder charge, which was properly bound over, was based on the same set of facts and gave the adult court jurisdiction over all the charges. Additionally, the appeals court erroneously suppressed statements made by defendant to police without an attorney because the interview took place before any criminal proceedings and before the right to counsel attached; furthermore, defendant waived his right to counsel after being read his Miranda rights. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court, Judge: Stewart, Filed On: May 9, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1752, Categories: Juvenile Law, murder, jurisdiction
J. Swiney finds the lower court properly dismissed defendant’s petition for writ of mandamus on grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and attempted first degree murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed his petition with a chancery court, asking for the judgment to be expunged, as it was not properly endorsed with the date received. Though defendant argues he filed the petition for the court to compel the clerk of the criminal court to expunge what he claims is an illegal sentence, the lower court found that he was effectively challenging the legality of his sentence, which is outside the authority of the trial court; the instant court agrees. Affirmed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals, Judge: Swiney, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: M2023-01016-COA-R3-CV, Categories: murder, Sentencing, jurisdiction
[Consolidated.] Per curiam, the circuit finds that even though defendants did not travel outside the state of Michigan or make phone calls to anyone outside the state during the commission of their murder-for-hire crimes, the use of cell phones, considered instrumentalities of interstate commerce, allowed the government to charge and convict them under the federal murder-for-hire statute. Meanwhile, although more than 15 months passed between defendants' arrest and their subsequent trial, the delay did not violate their right to a speedy trial. The delay was caused, in large part, by an overcrowded docket that stemmed from the Covid-19 pandemic and extensions requested by their own attorneys to handle the large amount of discovery and the potential death penalty implications of their crimes. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: November 9, 2023, Case #: 22-1698, Categories: murder, Speedy Trial, jurisdiction
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. Ramirez finds that the trial court properly declined to resentence defendant, who was convicted of murder, for a firearm enhancement. On a previous remand, defendant was entitled to have the trial court strike a prior serious felony enhancement, but the trial court did not have jurisdiction to also consider the firearm enhancement. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Ramirez, Filed On: July 25, 2023, Case #: E080032, Categories: murder, Sentencing, jurisdiction
J. Chutich affirms the district court's denial of a postconviction relief request brought by a prisoner with outstanding convictions for first-degree premeditated murder and second-degree intentional murder. While good cause exists to extend a deadline to file the prisoner's notice of appeal, and thus the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear his case, the district court did not abuse its discretion by summarily denying the prisoner's claims, which fail on the merits. Affirmed.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Chutich, Filed On: June 28, 2023, Case #: A22-1817, Categories: Confrontation, murder, jurisdiction