232 results for 'cat:"Murder" AND cat:"Sentencing"'.
J. Hellman finds the post-conviction court properly denied defendant's claim that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial under the due process clause due to conflicting witness statements. “Any inconsistency is the result of [the witness’s] mistaken recollection of his trial testimony, not because [they] had new evidence to provide.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Hellman, Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: A179156, Categories: Evidence, murder, sentencing
J. Fearing finds that the lower court improperly convicted defendant over his involvement in a shooting. The lower court allowed several instances of racist interferences to taint the trial against defendant, including allowing the prosecutor to raise questions about border security. Even defendant's sentence was influenced by the state seeking a sentence increase based on defendant's alleged request to seek membership in a Latino gang. Under state law, whenever "racism interferes in a fair trial," the convictions must be vacated and a new trial is needed. Reversed.
Court: Washington Court Of Appeals, Judge: Fearing, Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: 39087-0-III, Categories: murder, sentencing, Gangs
J. Thissen affirms the district court's denial of the prisoner's motion to correct his sentence for first-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder convictions. The issue raised in the motion, namely the prisoner's assertion that custody credit should be applied to the first of his two consecutive sentences, has already been decided in this case. The motion is therefore barred by the law of the case doctrine. Affirmed.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Thissen, Filed On: February 21, 2024, Case #: A23-1100, Categories: murder, sentencing
J. Boggs finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of murder and other offenses. Sufficient evidence was presented to support defendant's convictions. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling defendant's objection to the introduction of jail phone call recordings in which defendant tried to influence witnesses and the introduction of a GBI agent's expert testimony on gang terminology in the recordings. However, the trial court incorrectly failed to merge defendant's burglary and home invasion convictions. Defendant's armed robbery and theft by taking convictions also should have merged. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Supreme Court, Judge: Boggs, Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: S23A1096, Categories: murder, sentencing
J. McConnell finds the trial court improperly convicted a man for premeditated attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder and shooting at an occupied vehicle stemming from a gang-related drive-by shooting. The man argues the court erred by allowing the lead investigator to give an improper opinion testimony, because he was not qualified to testify that the man fired a ghost gun, striking the decedent. The jury likely relied on this prejudicial evidentiary error. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: McConnell, Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: D080114, Categories: murder, sentencing, Conspiracy
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. Stevenson finds that the sharing of office space by defendant’s attorney and the attorney of one of his codefendants during their trial on murder charges, absent any other allegations, does not constitute a conflict of interest requiring a new trial. Meanwhile, the imposition of consecutive sentences for firearm specifications was not improper and was mandated by Ohio Supreme Court precedent, given that defendant was convicted of both aggravated murder and aggravated robbery. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Stevenson, Filed On: February 14, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-543, Categories: Ineffective Assistance, murder, sentencing
J. May finds the trial court properly sentenced a man to life in prison for one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder that he committed as a juvenile. The man argues the consecutive life sentences are a violation of his civil rights and the state responded by stating the consecutive sentences are constitutional because he will have two judicial reviews after 25 years. Therefore, he could be released after 50 years, and this is not a violation.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: May, Filed On: February 14, 2024, Case #: 4D2022-0876, Categories: murder, sentencing
J. McCool finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant for attempted murder and discharging a firearm into an occupied automobile, but it improperly sentenced him on the firearm conviction. Because discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle is a Class B felony, his sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on that conviction was unlawful. Accordingly, the matter is remanded for a new sentencing hearing. Affirmed in part.
Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: McCool, Filed On: February 9, 2024, Case #: CR-2022-0934, Categories: Firearms, murder, sentencing
J. Clark finds that the lower court properly denied defendant's request for resentencing on his conviction for stabbing his girlfriend to death in the home they shared. Defendant sought review of his indeterminate sentence of 25 years-to-life for murder following state passage of the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act, but he failed to provide sufficient proof of ongoing abuse perpetrated by the girlfriend or that he was a victim defending himself in her death. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Clark, Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: 113572, Categories: murder, sentencing, Domestic Violence
J. Gallagher finds the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to separate his assault and murder charges into two trials. The evidence for each of the sets of charges was simple and direct, while the crimes also occurred on separate dates at separate locations, which prevented any chance of confusion by the jury. However, the trial court erroneously failed to consider defendant's age of 17 at the time he committed the offenses, and so defendant's sentence of life in prison with parole eligibility after 63 years will be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. Affirmed in part.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Gallagher, Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-467, Categories: Juvenile Law, murder, sentencing
J. Perret finds that defendant was improperly sentenced for armed robbery and attempted first degree murder and given "illegally lenient sentences" for those convictions. The evidence does not show that defendant "is so exceptional as to justify a departure from the minimum mandated sentences" under the habitual offender statute. Vacated in part.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Perret, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: KA-23-460, Categories: murder, Robbery, sentencing
J. Streeter holds that the juvenile court had jurisdiction to modify a juvenile's commitment for attempted murder to a maximum term of confinement of 22-years-to-life. The juvenile court met the requirements for good cause and was making a diligent effort to comply with a new statute. Also, the juvenile's equal protection rights were not violated by the juvenile court's refusal to apply his precommitment credits to his baseline term. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Streeter, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: A166408, Categories: Juvenile Law, murder, sentencing
J. Lanier finds that defendant was properly convicted and sentenced on counts of murder, feticide and attempted murder stemming from a drive-by shooting of a home that resulted in the death of an occupant and her unborn child. Defendant's motion to continue was correctly denied since there was no prejudice because of the delayed discovery. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Lanier, Filed On: January 30, 2024, Case #: 2023KA0360, Categories: murder, sentencing, Discovery
J. Miller holds that the trial court must revisit defendant's petition for resentencing on a felony murder conviction. The state failed to show that he would be convicted of felony murder in light of changes to the felony murder law. The evidence does not support a finding that he either intended to kill or acted with reckless indifference for human life when his accomplice stabbed and killed their robbery victim. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Miller, Filed On: January 30, 2024, Case #: A162356, Categories: murder, Robbery, sentencing
J. Raggi finds that the district court properly resentenced defendant on remand following vacation of the death sentence he received for the "brutal" murders of three people. Because the death penalty was not subsequently pursued, the "mandate rule" required a total sentence of life imprisonment due to defendant's conviction of murder in aid of racketeering and of murder in connection with conspiracy to traffic crack cocaine. Meanwhile, double jeopardy claims lacked merit as concerning sentences imposed for drug-related murder and drug conspiracy. Affirmed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Raggi, Filed On: January 29, 2024, Case #: 21-2763, Categories: Drug Offender, murder, sentencing
J. Steigmann finds that the lower court properly denied defendant's motion for leave to file a successive postconviction petition alleging his 60-year sentence was disproportionate to his crimes. The petition fails to adequately allege that defendant's murder sentence would have been different had the court explicitly considered his youth (age 20) at sentencing. Affirmed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Steigmann, Filed On: January 29, 2024, Case #: 230298, Categories: murder, sentencing
[Consolidated.] J. Mackey finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of murder, conspiracy and weapon possession in a murder-for-hire scheme to collect on a life insurance policy because circumstantial evidence established defendant agreed to drive codefendant from Delaware to New York, met with the insurance beneficiary before the murder, accompanied defendant to the victim's apartment, and drove him back to Delaware. However, his sentence should be modified by setting weapon counts to run concurrently to murder and conspiracy counts to result in an aggregate term of 25 years to life. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Mackey, Filed On: January 25, 2024, Case #: 110698, Categories: murder, sentencing, Conspiracy
Per curiam, the circuit finds that the district court properly sentenced defendant to life plus 20 years and a $500 special assessment for racketeering and murder in aid of racketeering. Defendant argued the plain meaning of the criminal statute permitted a fine instead of life imprisonment on the latter count, but precedent dictates a mandatory minimum life sentence, as lawmakers would not likely intend to impose a fine without prison time. Affirmed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: January 25, 2024, Case #: 21-2487-cr, Categories: murder, sentencing, Racketeering
J. Yegan finds that the trial court properly denied defendant's second petition for resentencing on two murder convictions. This court previously held that defendant is not entitled to resentencing relief because both his first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder convictions involved the same victim and were not the result of the now impermissible natural and probable consequences theory. The law of the case was established in proceedings on his first petition for resentencing. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Yegan, Filed On: January 22, 2024, Case #: B324567, Categories: murder, sentencing
Per curiam, the Supreme Court of Kansas finds a lower court properly convicted a defendant for capital murder after he killed four people, including a 18-month-old toddler. The defendant, who submitted eight versions of his offenses, argued that his sentence is unreasonable based on his claims that only one of his crimes was considered "heinous, atrocious, and cruel." However, the state presented sufficient evidence in court that it did not have to show that all of the killings were heinous in order to obtain a conviction. Affirmed.
Court: Kansas Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: January 19, 2024, Case #: 115,964, Categories: Firearms, murder, sentencing
J. Chamberlin finds the lower court properly convicted defendant on two counts of first-degree murder for a drive-by shooting that killed a man and a woman in their vehicle. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison for the murders with an additional five years for each count for a firearm enhancement. The instant court finds the firearm enhancement was improperly applied because a greater minimum sentence is already applied with the life sentence for murder. Portions of the sentencing related to the firearm enhancement should be vacated, but no error was found in any other aspects of sentencing. Reversed in part.
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court, Judge: Chamberlin, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: 2022-KA-00696-SCT, Categories: Firearms, murder, sentencing
J. Pena finds that it was error for the resentencing court to redesignate defendant's attempted murder of a police officer convictions as assaults with a firearm on a police officer, which are lesser included offenses of the attempted murder charges. Resentencing due to changes to the felony murder statute is limited to the robbery counts for which defendant was charged and convicted. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Pena, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: F085131, Categories: murder, Robbery, sentencing
J. Peterson finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of murder, aggravated assault and firearm offenses. Any error the trial court committed by denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from his phone was harmless in light of the strong evidence of defendant's guilt. The trial court correctly admitted testimony by a detective stating that defendant refused to submit to gunshot residue testing. The trial court also correctly resentenced defendant to life without parole under a recidivist statute. Defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's allegedly deficient performance. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Supreme Court, Judge: Peterson, Filed On: January 17, 2024, Case #: S23A1159, Categories: Ineffective Assistance, murder, sentencing
J. Budd reverses a sentence of life without parole for a defendant convicted of murder. The defendant was 18 when he committed the crime and 18-to-20-year-olds — emerging adults — are more neurologically similar to 17-year-olds than to people age 22 and older. So even though an 18-year-old is an adult, a statute determining that sentencing juveniles to life without parole constitutes cruel and unusual punishment also applies to emerging adults. Vacated.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court, Judge: Budd, Filed On: January 11, 2024, Case #: SJC-11693, Categories: Juvenile Law, murder, sentencing
J. Budd affirms the defendant’s conviction of murder and denies his motion for a new trial, but remands his case for resentencing. There was sufficient evidence to support his conviction but it is not constitutional for him to be imprisoned for life without possibility of parole because he was only 19 at the time of the crime. Affirmed.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court, Judge: Budd, Filed On: January 11, 2024, Case #: SJC-09265, Categories: Constitution, murder, sentencing