6 results for 'cat:"Sentencing" AND cat:"Sex Offender" AND cat:"Due Process"'.
J. Hixon finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for incest, rape, sexual battery, aggravated assault and aggravated rape. He abused his minor daughter for approximately four years until she told her school guidance counselor about the abuse. Defendant argues there was not enough evidence for his conviction and says his right right to a fair trial and due process were violated. He failed to take reasonable action to object at trial or to establish a clear and unequivocal rule of law was in fact violated. Affirmed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Hixon, Filed On: May 13, 2024, Case #: W2023-00693-CCA-R3-CD, Categories: sentencing, sex Offender, due Process
J. Watkins finds that the trial court properly sentenced defendant following his guilty plea to obscene internet contact with a child, sexual exploitation of children and electronically furnishing obscene material to minors. The trial court did not commit any error by denying defendant the opportunity to present additional mitigation evidence at the resentencing hearing which occurred on remand after the appeals court's previous decision. Defendant had already presented mitigation evidence at his earlier sentencing hearing. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Watkins, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: A23A1484, Categories: sentencing, sex Offender, due Process
J. Pirtle finds the county court properly denied defendant's motion to continue his sentencing hearing. Defendant was convicted for possession and attempted possession of visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct. Though the court did not order a psychosexual evaluation, and defendant contends the presentence assessments were insufficient, nothing in the record indicates the evaluative method used was improper. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Pirtle , Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: A-23-664, Categories: sentencing, sex Offender, due Process
J. Groban finds that the state failed to give defendant fair notice it would ask for an enhanced One Strike 25-years-to-life sentence for a sex offense count. The express pleading requirement of the One Strike law entitled him to know the specific facts the prosecution would rely on to support a sentencing enhancement. Late notification that the victim's young age would support the enhancement violated his due process rights, so the trial court must resentence him to 15 years to life. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Groban, Filed On: February 5, 2024, Case #: S258376, Categories: sentencing, sex Offender, due Process
J. Goldman finds that the trial court properly denied defendant's claim that the application of aggravating factors to his sex offense charges violated his due process rights. The legislature delegated to the Judicial Council the authority to determine which sentencing factors are aggravators, and that delegation is not a violation of the separation of powers. The use of qualitative terms to determine whether circumstances are aggravators does not make the use of the factors unconstitutionally vague. And the facts supporting the aggravators do not need to be detailed in the preliminary hearing.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goldman, Filed On: November 13, 2023, Case #: A166159, Categories: sentencing, sex Offender, 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. Hiraoka finds the circuit court improperly dismissed one of defendant’s claims for wrongful conviction and imprisonment, as he had previously successfully appealed two sexual assault indictments due to a procedural error. Defendant was essentially deemed “actually innocent” of an assault against his wife and is therefore able to pursue his claims. For a separate assault, a trial court dismissed the indictment but not the conviction, barring him from his claims for this case. Vacated in part.
Court: Hawai'i Court Of Appeals, Judge: Hiraoka, Filed On: October 16, 2023, Case #: CAAP-21-531, Categories: sentencing, sex Offender, due Process