116 results for 'cat:"Criminal Procedure" AND cat:"Sentencing"'.
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
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. 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
J. Weingart finds the trial court properly convicted a man of carjacking and terminated his mental health diversion. The man argues the trial court erred in failing to provide notice of hearing before the termination of his mental health diversion. He failed to show that the error kept him from reaching a more favorable result. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Weingart, Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: B326944, Categories: criminal Procedure, sentencing
J. Jenkins vacates the resentencing of defendant to life imprisonment because the district court did not comply with the statute requiring consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors. Further, the district court did not allow any argument on the merits of defendant's motion to reconsider sentence. Vacated in part.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Jenkins, Filed On: February 16, 2024, Case #: 2023-KA-0605, Categories: criminal Procedure, sentencing
J. Schock finds that although defendant completed the deferred judgment and sentence portion for several sexually-based offenses, the lower court properly denied his motion to be removed from Colorado's sex offender registry. He was convicted of assault in the same case and, therefore, is ineligible for removal. The exception that allows for removal from the registry following completion of a deferred sentence requires dismissal of the criminal case, but because defendant's assault conviction was not dismissed, and never will be, the exception does not apply to him. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Schock, Filed On: February 15, 2024, Case #: 2024COA14, Categories: criminal Procedure, sentencing, Sex Offender
J. Bender finds that the lower court improperly sentenced defendant to 45 to 90 days of incarceration for illegally operating a vehicle not equipped with an ignition interlock. Pennsylvania failed to prove that defendant had adequate notice by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation that he was only to drive vehicles that contained such equipment until he obtained an unrestricted license. Reversed.
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court, Judge: Bender, Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: J-S27003-23, Categories: criminal Procedure, sentencing, Vehicle
J. Anderson affirms the defendant's sentence for third- and fourth-degree sexual conduct, finding that the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey and Blakely v. Washington do not alter the paradigm set in Minnesota courts in State v. Ronquist, which limited a requirement of prosecution by indictment for offenses punishable by life imprisonment to offenses so punishable before the application of sentencing enhancements based on prior convictions. That case's reasoning also exempts cases where lifetime conditional release is a possibility. Affirmed.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Anderson, Filed On: February 7, 2024, Case #: A22-0318, Categories: criminal Procedure, sentencing, Sex Offender