39 results for 'cat:"Sentencing" 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. Easter finds the lower court improperly dismissed defendant’s motion for a new trial. Defendant was convicted on multiple drug-related offenses, including the sale and delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, and received an effective 33 year sentence. The Governor of Tennessee subsequently partially granted defendant executive clemency, his sentences for the sale and delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school were commuted and he immediately became eligible for parole on those counts. The lower court found defendant ineligible for resentencing based on his commutation order and dismissed the pending motion for new trial. The instant court finds defendant was denied his day in court for his motion for resentencing and the lower court should have continued with the scheduled evidentiary hearing. The matter is remanded for a hearing. Reversed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Easter, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: E2023-00149-CCA-R3-CD, Categories: Drug Offender, sentencing, due Process
J. Aarons finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant based on his guilty plea to attempted assault for striking a neighbor in the head with a hammer. While the time between the crime and indictment had been protracted, due process was not violated because the neighbor hesitated in pressing charges until he was interviewed in connection with the suspicious death of defendant's wife, with whom the neighbor had a brief extramarital affair. An enhanced sentence was properly imposed since defendant failed to adhere to conditions requiring honest answers to presentence report questions. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Aarons, Filed On: April 11, 2024, Case #: CR-22-2067, Categories: sentencing, Assault, due Process
J. Castillo finds the trial court properly denied defendant's petition for resentencing on a second degree murder conviction. He claimed his due process rights were violated because he was not present at the proceeding where his petition was denied. But he was present at a previous hearing that functioned as the statutory resentencing hearing, when the parties were able to submit additional evidence and both parties agreed to submit the matter to the trial court. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Castillo, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: D081369, Categories: Murder, sentencing, 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. 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. Golemon finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for possession with intent to deliver and manufacture a controlled substance. Although he was arraigned outside the presence of the jury, and in front of the sworn jury, defendant did not appear at his trial. The court sentenced him to 25 years in prison outside his presence. Defendant failed to explain his absence and did not file a motion for new trial or supplement the record with evidence explaining his absence. The appeals court defers to the trial court’s voluntariness determination. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Golemon , Filed On: February 21, 2024, Case #: 09-23-00106-CR, Categories: Drug Offender, sentencing, 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. Higginson finds the trial court improperly sentenced defendant for his guilty plea conviction on charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute meth. Though defendant completed pretrial drug treatment, he also tested positive for drugs and was arrested for possession. The government breached the plea agreement clause promising to recommend a reduction for acceptance of responsibility as a penalty for his breach of the pretrial release conditions. Though the sentence was within guidelines, the government has failed to rebut the presumption that its breach affected the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. Vacated.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Higginson , Filed On: February 6, 2024, Case #: 22-50872, Categories: Drug Offender, sentencing, 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. Soto finds a lower court did not err in sentencing defendant to life in the shooting death of another person. Defendant argued his rights were infringed by comments made during the trial, including by a cop who testified during guilt-innocence that the shooting was “absolutely not” justified, but even if this opinion testimony was improperly admitted, it “does not result in constitutional error,” not least because defendant did not timely object to it, and the jury rejected defendant’s mitigating arguments despite receiving proper instructions. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00115-CR, Categories: sentencing, due Process, Jury Instructions
Per curiam, the circuit finds the district court properly convicted and sentenced defendant by guilty plea for conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Defendant, the mayor of her city, inflated costs for construction projects and paid herself kickbacks from loan funds. There is no conflict in an apparent discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of sentencing and restitution, and the written order. It does not place a greater burden on defendant, for joint-and-several liability as to the $280,000 restitution amount presumes her codefendants could, in theory, pay portions of the amount and lessen her total liability. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: January 12, 2024, Case #: 22-40301, Categories: Fraud, sentencing, due Process
J. Pratt finds the trial court wrongfully considered defendant's lawful possession of firearms when sentencing him to 87 months in prison for charges related to selling more than 25 pounds of marijuana, even though defendant was not charged with any gun crimes. According to statements made at sentencing, the judge may have relied on defendant's constitutional right to lawful firearm possession when sentencing him, and that is prohibited by due process. Defendant's sentences are vacated, and the case is remanded for re-sentencing under a different judge.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Pratt, Filed On: January 12, 2024, Case #: 22-0703, Categories: Drug Offender, sentencing, due Process
J. Harper finds the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the state's request to extend his confinement in a mental institution. His refusal to engage with treatment providers and his belief the sexual assaults that led to his confinement were not wrong made him a danger to the public at large and prevented his release. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Court Of Appeals, Judge: Harper, Filed On: December 15, 2023, Case #: AC45444, Categories: sentencing, due Process
J. Easterbrook finds that the lower court properly declined to grant defendant a new trial after the court failed to get defendant's formal consent on record to a remote video sentencing hearing. The failure to obtain consent on the record to appearance by video does not satisfy the plain-error standard and defendant does not contend that he would have refused to appear by video had he been asked. Affirmed.
Court: 7th Circuit, Judge: Easterbrook, Filed On: December 13, 2023, Case #: 21-3230, Categories: Criminal Procedure, sentencing, due Process
J. Richman finds the trial court failed to make required findings when it upheld the no-contact provision in defendant's sentence on domestic violence crimes. The provision infringed on his constitutional right to parental association and, therefore, necessitated findings it could not be accomplished by less restrictive means. Although the violent nature of defendant's crimes qualified as compelling circumstances to continue the no-contact provision involving his daughter, the court failed to consider whether remote communications would allow for contact between the parties without jeopardizing the safety of the child. Reversed.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Richman, Filed On: December 7, 2023, Case #: 2023COA117, Categories: Constitution, sentencing, due Process
J. Pagan finds the trial court properly sentenced defendant to 90 months in prison for first-degree robbery. Although other circumstances “lessen the seriousness of defendant’s offense, it was sufficiently grave such that we cannot conclude that the legislatively prescribed sentence for the offense contravenes” the Constitution. Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Pagan, Filed On: December 6, 2023, Case #: A176879, Categories: Robbery, sentencing, 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
J. Wiseman finds the trial court improperly denied defendant’s petition for resentencing from his guilty plea conviction for attempted murder. The stated factual basis demonstrates that defendant stabbed the victim with the intent to kill during a gang-related fight, though defendant did not stipulate to the factual basis or otherwise admit the truth of the facts recited by the prosecution. The trial court improperly engaged in factfinding at the prima facie stage and erred in denying defendant’s petition without issuing an order to show cause and holding an evidentiary hearing. Reversed and remanded.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Wiseman, Filed On: October 25, 2023, Case #: C096982, Categories: Murder, sentencing, due Process
J. Goethals finds that the trial court improperly denied defendant's petition to be resentenced on three first degree murder convictions in light of changes to felony murder and implied malice murder law. He did not waive his due process right to be present at the evidentiary hearing and is entitled to be present at a new evidentiary hearing so he may offer testimony or evidence in response to the state's presentation. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goethals, Filed On: October 17, 2023, Case #: G061191, Categories: Murder, sentencing, due Process
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
J. Lagesen finds the post-conviction court properly denied relief to defendant in a way that does not violate his due process rights. “No source of federal law…requires the state to allow a petitioner to challenge convictions, no matter how old, on the ground that they were rendered by nonunanimous verdicts.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Lagesen, Filed On: October 4, 2023, Case #: A177644, Categories: sentencing, due Process
J. Womack finds the trial court improperly convicted defendant for murder, imposing a life sentence. Upon briefing, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued an order for a status report regarding the relevance of a conventionally filed physical disk submitted as an exhibit even though it contained no files. The parties jointly advocated remanding the case. The Arkansas Supreme Court expresses its responsibility to scrutinize the record for errors in cases resulting in life-imprisonment sentences. Remanded to settle the record.
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court, Judge: Womack, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: CR-23-1, Categories: Murder, sentencing, due Process
J. Wright finds the trial court properly assessed $937 in court costs for defendant's conviction of possession of less than 1 gram of meth. Though the trial court did not orally pronounce a $500 fine, and so could not include it in the final judgment, the same rule does not apply to taxable costs, which are not part of the punishment. Defendant has not shown that the court erred by rendering a judgment including $937 in taxable costs. The $500 fine is deleted. Affirmed as modified.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Wright , Filed On: September 20, 2023, Case #: 09-22-00198-CR, Categories: Drug Offender, sentencing, due Process
J. Ikuta affirms in part and vacates in part a sentence imposed on defendant after she alleged that her due process rights were violated when the district court failed to pronounce certain discretionary conditions of supervised release in her presence. A district court must orally pronounce all discretionary conditions of supervised release, even if those conditions were considered "standard." Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of knowingly and intentionally importing 500 grams or more of cocaine and methamphetamine into the United States. The panel vacated only the conditions of defendant’s supervised release that were referred to as the “standard conditions” in the written sentence but were not orally pronounced. Affirmed in part.
Court: 9th Circuit, Judge: Ikuta, Filed On: September 13, 2023, Case #: 21-50129, Categories: Drug Offender, sentencing, due Process
[Consolidated] J. Horton finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for two counts of aggravated robbery, sentencing him to concurrent 15-year terms in prison. The record contains “uncontradicted testimony” that shows defendant “was on marijuana, percocets, and promethazine” when the robberies occurred. Defendant has failed to preserve other evidentiary and due process issues. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Horton , Filed On: September 13, 2023, Case #: 09-22-00096-CR, Categories: Robbery, sentencing, due Process
J. Robie finds that the trial court properly relied on the record, forgoing live testimony, before denying defendant's petition for resentencing for second degree murder. She received adequate due process during the resentencing hearing, which was held to the reasonable doubt standard. Her participation in the hearing was voluntary and the hearing did not determine guilt or carry a risk of additional punishment. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Robie, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: C093672, Categories: Murder, sentencing, due Process
J. Lyle finds the trial court improperly denied defendant’s petition for relief from his indeterminate sentence of 200 to 600 years. His petition for relief was first made when he was 18 and on trial for the murder of a police officer during a street altercation. Defendant is now 65; the record shows that the sentencing judge did not consider later-changed youthful offender factors in determining the sentence. The appeals court notes that the sentencing court could not have predicted the future of sentencing standards for youthful offenders. Reversed and remanded.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Lyle, Filed On: August 18, 2023, Case #: 1-21-1241, Categories: Murder, sentencing, due Process
J. Mayle finds the trial court properly considered the presentence investigative report, which included police reports and witness statements of defendant's other criminal conduct, before it imposed a sentence. Defendant was given ample time to review and object to the report but chose not to do so, while his attorney was also afforded the opportunity to speak at length before sentencing. Additionally, the trial court did not violate defendant's due process rights when it considered a letter from the victim's mother during sentencing. Although that letter was not disclosed to the defense, it contained no new information and merely confirmed that defendant planned the shooting. Affirmed in part.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Mayle, Filed On: August 18, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-2903, Categories: sentencing, Manslaughter, due Process