22 results for 'cat:"Sentencing" AND cat:"Jurisdiction"'.
J. Swiney finds the lower court properly dismissed defendant’s petition for writ of mandamus on grounds that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and attempted first degree murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed his petition with a chancery court, asking for the judgment to be expunged, as it was not properly endorsed with the date received. Though defendant argues he filed the petition for the court to compel the clerk of the criminal court to expunge what he claims is an illegal sentence, the lower court found that he was effectively challenging the legality of his sentence, which is outside the authority of the trial court; the instant court agrees. Affirmed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals, Judge: Swiney, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: M2023-01016-COA-R3-CV, Categories: Murder, sentencing, jurisdiction
J. Seely finds the trial court improperly denied post sentencing motions for a defendant charged with burglary when he challenged his sentence on the grounds of double jeopardy. The state argues the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to consider a post-sentencing request. The trial court does not have jurisdiction because the case had begun, and the defendant failed to file his post-sentencing motion within the time period allowed to rule on the motions. This case is remanded for further proceedings to dismiss the motions. Reversed.
Court: Connecticut Court Of Appeals, Judge: Seeley, Filed On: April 15, 2024, Case #: AC46463, Categories: Burglary, sentencing, jurisdiction
J. Zahn holds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify defendant's sentence for a felony DUI conviction. A stay pending an appeal that failed did not toll the clock on his modification motion, which came three years after sentencing. His original sentence of six years with one year fixed is reinstated. Vacated.
Court: Idaho Supreme Court, Judge: Zahn, Filed On: April 3, 2024, Case #: 50765-2023, Categories: sentencing, Dui, jurisdiction
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. Duffy finds the trial court erroneously denied defendant's motion for reconsideration of his sentence on the grounds it lacked jurisdiction over the filing. The 90-day deadline for the reconsideration motion began to run on the date the sentencing judgment was entered, not the date it was orally imposed by the court. Additionally, defendant's failure to include evidence not available at the time of his original sentencing was not fatal to the motion because state law imposes no such requirement, and while it may affect the validity of defendant's motion, it did not preclude the court from considering the merits of his claims. Reversed.
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals, Judge: Duffy, Filed On: December 20, 2023, Case #: A-1-CA-37868, Categories: Criminal Procedure, sentencing, jurisdiction
J. Huffman finds that the trial court retained jurisdiction over defendant's resentencing on an attempted home invasion robbery conviction and other counts because his appeal was still pending. However, because he was not present at the resentencing hearing and did not waive his right to be present, a new hearing must be held. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Huffman, Filed On: November 29, 2023, Case #: D081230, Categories: Robbery, sentencing, jurisdiction
Per curiam, the Supreme Court of Ohio finds the lower court properly dismissed the inmate's habeas corpus petition. The trial court's failure to journalize his first resentencing hearing allowed it to maintain jurisdiction over the second resentencing hearing and, therefore, his sentence was lawful and not void. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: November 28, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-4189, Categories: Habeas, sentencing, jurisdiction
Per curiam, the Supreme Court of Ohio finds the lower court properly dismissed the inmate's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Even if his claims regarding the jurisdiction of the trial court in his 2009 case had merit, the prison sentence from his 2007 case would remain in effect and he would not be entitled to immediate release. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: November 8, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-4018, Categories: Habeas, sentencing, jurisdiction
Per curiam, the Supreme Court of Ohio finds the lower court properly dismissed the inmate's petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition because his right to counsel claim regarding his lack of an attorney at sentencing could have been raised on direct appeal and was not a jurisdictional defect that deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to sentence him. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: October 17, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-3742, Categories: sentencing, jurisdiction, Self Representation
J. Wilson finds the court lacks jurisdiction in this appeal from a diverted sentence. Defendant entered a no contest plea to sexual battery and received a one-year diverted sentence. Defendant attempted to reserve a certified question of law as to whether there had been a violation of his rights to a speedy trial and due process, but the state argues that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a diverted sentence. Because the diverted sentence results in no judgments of conviction against him, there is no appeal available to defendant and the instant court has no jurisdiction. Dismissed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Wilson, Filed On: September 29, 2023, Case #: M2022-01626-CCA-R3-CD, Categories: sentencing, Sex Offender, jurisdiction
J. Luck finds that the district court improperly denied defendant's second motion to vacate his life sentence for armed bank robbery and other offenses. The district court lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits of defendant's motion. The U.S. Supreme Court did not announce a new rule of constitutional law that applies to the residual clause in the three-strikes law when it handed down its 2015 ruling related to the Armed Career Criminal Act in Johnson v. United States. Defendant was not sentenced under the Act's residual clause and he does not fall within the scope of the new rule established by Johnson. Vacated.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Luck, Filed On: September 14, 2023, Case #: 20-13365, Categories: sentencing, jurisdiction
J. Eddins finds that the circuit court had jurisdiction over defendant, who was arrested for an assault on his wife, but improperly sentenced him to two consecutive sentences. Although the initial charging documents were filed in district court, the circuit court rightfully had jurisdiction after the district court committed the case to circuit court, even without a refiled complaint in circuit court. The sentencing was improper as the court "offered no rationale for each consecutive sentence. The court focused almost entirely on the criminal incident itself. The court did not distinguish the three offenses, class C felonies carrying a 5-year maximum sentence, and instead treated them as one offense." Vacated in part.
Court: Hawai'i Supreme Court, Judge: Eddins, Filed On: September 13, 2023, Case #: SCWC-21-395, Categories: sentencing, Assault, jurisdiction
J. Yegan finds that the trial court properly denied defendants' petitions to strike prior prison term enhancements. Statute now limits such enhancements, but defendants had already completed their enhanced sentence terms when they filed their petitions, so the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the petitions.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Yegan, Filed On: September 12, 2023, Case #: B322608, Categories: sentencing, jurisdiction
J. Stevens finds the lower court improperly dismissed defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief. Defendant entered into a plea agreement for third-degree murder with an understanding that his 10 to 20 year sentence would run concurrently with his federal sentences. But the lower court lacked jurisdiction to order a concurrent sentence, as federal courts do not have to adhere to the orders of state courts. Defendant did not find out until 2012 that he could not begin serving his federal sentences until his state sentence was completed. While there is no relief available to defendant for breach of contract in that he has completed service of his state sentence, the instant court vacates his sentence while retaining the underlying conviction. Vacated.
Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court, Judge: Stevens, Filed On: August 18, 2023, Case #: 2412EDA2021, Categories: sentencing, Plea, jurisdiction
J. Ortiz finds the lower court properly found defendant guilty of larceny shoplifting. Defendant pleaded guilty to the charges after taking merchandise from a home improvement store without paying for it, returning the merchandise for store credit and spending a portion of the credit. Defendant was sentenced to five years, with three years and six months suspended. Defendant argues the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and erroneously sentenced him under the felony enhancement Code § 18.2-104, but that it was repealed before he was indicted. Because the criminal offense occurred prior to the repeal of the code, the lower court had jurisdiction and properly convicted and sentenced defendant. Affirmed.
Court: Virginia Court Of Appeals, Judge: Ortiz, Filed On: August 8, 2023, Case #: 0672-22-2, Categories: sentencing, Theft, jurisdiction
J. Ramirez finds that the trial court properly declined to resentence defendant, who was convicted of murder, for a firearm enhancement. On a previous remand, defendant was entitled to have the trial court strike a prior serious felony enhancement, but the trial court did not have jurisdiction to also consider the firearm enhancement. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Ramirez, Filed On: July 25, 2023, Case #: E080032, Categories: Murder, sentencing, jurisdiction
J. Miller finds that, although the prosecutor did not ask the victim explicitly whether the rape took place in her marital bedroom, venue was properly established for defendant's trial because other questioning proved the events took place in the county of the trial court. However, because the trial court failed to notify defendant of all statutory requirements when it imposed his indefinite sentence, the case must be remanded for resentencing. Affirmed in part.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Miller, Filed On: June 26, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-2097, Categories: sentencing, Sex Offender, jurisdiction