7 results for 'cat:"Constitution" AND cat:"Juvenile Law"'.
J. Palafox denies habeas relief to defendant, who argued that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested and charged for murder as an adult despite being only 17 at the time of the offense. Pretrial habeas relief is not available unless the asserted rights would be "undermined if not vindicated before trial," which is not the case here. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Palafox, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00154-CR, Categories: constitution, juvenile Law, Civil Rights
J. Palafox denies habeas relief to defendant, who argued that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested and charged for murder as an adult despite being only 17 at the time. Pretrial habeas relief is not available unless the asserted rights would be “undermined if not vindicated before trial,” which is not the case here. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Palafox, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00159-CR, Categories: constitution, juvenile Law, Civil Rights
J. Fischer finds defendant's constitutional rights were not violated when the adult trial court added a tampering with evidence charge not considered by the juvenile trial court. The charge stemmed from the same actions that formed the basis of the original criminal complaint for murder and assault. Ohio law specifically allows adult courts to consider charges not bound over by a juvenile court, and because evidence presented during defendant's bind-over hearing established he sold the stolen gun used in the shooting to avoid prosecution, the tampering charge was properly added to the eventual indictment. Reversed.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court, Judge: Fischer, Filed On: April 18, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1433, Categories: constitution, juvenile Law, Murder
J. Webb finds the circuit court properly denied defendant's pro se writ of habeas corpus, in which he argues his life sentence, imposed when he was convicted of capital murder at 19 years old, is cruel and unusual punishment. Though he says certain case law should be applied in an individualized manner, arguing there is no neurotypical distinction between a juvenile teenager and nonjuvenile teenager, the sentence is not illegal on its face. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court, Judge: Webb , Filed On: April 11, 2024, Case #: CV-23-552, Categories: constitution, juvenile Law, Murder
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. Cadish finds the district court properly affirmed and adopted the juvenile master's recommendations to impose formal probation conditions on the juvenile. The relevant statute does not create a separation of powers issue because the court's ability to dismiss a petition and refer a juvenile to probation is not a sentencing decision, and so does not encroach on the court's sentencing discretion. Affirmed.
Court: Nevada Supreme Court, Judge: Cadish , Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 86035, Categories: constitution, juvenile Law