45 results for 'cat:"Sex Offender" AND cat:"Due Process"'.
J. Womack finds the circuit court properly denied the petition for habeas corpus. Defendant argues his rape conviction is illegal, claiming there are inconsistencies in the judgment and commitment order, as well as in the docket entries. The alleged inconsistences consist only of discrepancies in the offense date. Docket entries recorded by various court clerks have no bearing on the facial legality of a judgment or jurisdiction. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court, Judge: Womack , Filed On: May 9, 2024, Case #: CV-23-720, Categories: Habeas, sex Offender, due Process
Per curiam, the Vermont Supreme Court finds that the lower court properly held the defendant without bond pending trial for sexual assault without consent. Defendant’s confession that he did try to penetrate his live-in girlfriend’s anus and her sworn statements were enough evidence to hold him without bond. He argues that his due process was violated when the weight of the evidence hearing was delayed, but he did not preserve that objection for review. Affirmed.
Court: Vermont Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: April 30, 2024, Case #: 24-AP-098, Categories: sex Offender, Bail, due Process
J. Holloway finds the lower court properly denied defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief. Defendant was convicted of aggravated statutory rape for engaging in sexual relations with a then 16-year-old girl, and was sentenced to 12 years incarceration. Defendant’s enhanced sentence as a Range III career offender is reasonable as the lower court took into account his seven prior felony convictions. Defendant’s argument of violation of due process is waived, as it was not brought up on lower court proceedings, and his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails, as the instant court finds no deficiency in his representation. Affirmed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Holloway, Filed On: April 15, 2024, Case #: M2023-00320-CCA-R3-PC, Categories: Ineffective Assistance, sex Offender, due Process
J. Miller finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of aggravated child molestation and child molestation. Sufficient evidence was presented to support defendant's convictions, including defendant's own admission to his wife that he had sex with one victim. The trial court correctly denied defendant's motion for a new trial. Defendant failed to vigorously assert his right to appeal and cannot show that he was prejudiced by the 20-year delay between his convictions and the resolution of his motion for a new trial. Three pro se filings made by defendant between 2005 and 2009 did not specifically claim that his due process rights were violated by the delay. Defendant did not first assert a due process violation until 2022. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Miller, Filed On: April 9, 2024, Case #: A24A0344, Categories: sex Offender, due Process, Child Victims
J. Hull finds the trial court properly sustained Governor Newsom's demurrer to defendant's petition seeking to compel the processing of his applications for clemency or commutation. Defendant does not have a due process right that would require that the applications are processed in a particular time frame. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Hull, Filed On: April 8, 2024, Case #: C096274, Categories: sex Offender, 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. Musseman finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for lewd and indecent acts with a child. Defendant alleges insufficient representation for counsel's alleged failure to move to quash for the state's not putting on evidence at the preliminary hearing of the required element the victim was under the age of 16. Necessary evidence was presented at trial, and defendant fails to show defense counsel's failure to seek a motion to quash at the preliminary hearing impacted the outcome. Affirmed.
Court: Oklahoma Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Musseman , Filed On: March 21, 2024, Case #: F-2022-367, Categories: sex Offender, due Process, Child Victims
J. Murphy finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for four counts of first-degree sexual assault, amended from the original charge of rape. Defendant's ex-wife's minor daughter asserted he raped her multiple times between the ages of 14 and 17. Sufficient evidence supports the conviction. Though defendant moved to strike the amended information or for a continuance, saying the information was filed giving him inadequate notice, the amendment was made after defendant divorced the mother and moved out of the residence, changing the nature of the relationship. This was known to the defense since the pendency of the case, and the court properly denied the motion. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Murphy , Filed On: March 13, 2024, Case #: CR-23-131, Categories: sex Offender, due Process, Child Victims
J. Gremillion finds the lower court improperly accepted defendant’s guilty plea. Defendant pleaded guilty via an Alford plea, and was convicted of raping his step-daughter for which he received a sentence of 20 years hard labor without the possibility of probation, parole or suspension of sentence. On appeal, defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to support his guilty plea so the lower court should never have accepted it. The instant court agrees the lower court failed to find sufficient factual basis for accepting defendant’s plea, and remands the matter for an evidentiary hearing to determine if there is sufficient evidence to support the guilty plea and to determine if it was knowingly and voluntarily given.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Gremillion, Filed On: March 13, 2024, Case #: 23-681, Categories: Evidence, sex Offender, due Process
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. Moore finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for first-degree sexual assault of a child. Defendant's stepdaughter, his wife's niece and his own biological niece alleged he improperly touched and exposed himself to them, eventually leading to acts of digital penetration and oral sex. Forensic interviews and other evidence support the convictions. The charges were properly joined due to relatedness and occurrence over a period of time. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Moore , Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: A-23-138, Categories: sex Offender, due Process, Child Victims
J. Pirtle finds the county court properly denied defendant's motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant was charged with 15 counts pertaining to the sexual abuse of his 15- and 11-year-old daughters and 13-year-old son. He pleaded no-contest to six of the charges. Postconviction claims of ineffective assistance and court errors are procedurally barred because they were or could have been litigated on direct appeal. Defendant has also failed to demonstrate the judge showed any bias by his ruling on his own alleged error. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Pirtle , Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: A-23-428, Categories: Evidence, sex Offender, due Process
J. Herndon finds the trial court improperly declared a mistrial. Defendant, charged with multiple offenses based on an alleged sexual assault, asserted his right to confrontation was violated after the alleged victim cut off contact with the court and failed to appear. Defendant sought dismissal, and the record does not show he consented to the declaration of mistrial. Reversed.
Court: Nevada Supreme Court, Judge: Herndon , Filed On: February 27, 2024, Case #: 85695, Categories: sex Offender, due Process
J. Cannataro finds that the appellate division properly held that defendant could be assigned a sex offender classification level before prison release even though he was confined elsewhere at the time due to his deteriorating mental state. A competency hearing was not needed first because the process for classifying defendants offers sufficient due process safeguards. Affirmed.
Court: New York Court Of Appeals, Judge: Cannataro, Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: 10, Categories: Competence, sex Offender, 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. 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
[Consolidated] J. Wright finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for sexual assault of a child and continuous sexual abuse of a young child. Officers investigated defendant after receiving an anonymous report he was living with two underage girls. Police discovered he had been engaged in sexual a relationship with a14-year-old, and with a 16-year-old who was pregnant with his child. Defendant represented himself at trial and claimed the girls lied about their ages. The victims did not testify at trial and defendant had no right to confrontation. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Wright , Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: 09-23-00117-CR, Categories: sex Offender, due Process, Child Victims
J. Webb finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for two counts of rape, sentencing him to life in prison. Defendant was convicted for raping his granddaughters repeatedly between 1993 and 2003, when the girls were under the ages of 14, and claims the conviction is barred by the statute of limitations. The crimes were reported well after their commission. Charges would be time-barred only if the crimes had been reported before the General Assembly amended the relevant section of law extending the period of limitations. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court, Judge: Webb , Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: CR-23-265, Categories: sex Offender, due Process, Child Victims
J. Harrison finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for the sexual assault of his minor daughter and her minor friend. All evidence and testimony involving defendant's ongoing "grooming" of the children support the conviction. Though trial counsel has filed a no-merit brief and requested to withdraw, his brief did not address the adverse ruling that, before sentencing but after the finding of guilt, defendant was not allowed to see his children. Rebriefing is ordered and counsel's motion to withdraw is denied.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Harrison , Filed On: January 17, 2024, Case #: CR-23-119, Categories: sex Offender, due Process, Child Victims
J. Groves finds the bill of particulars produced for defendant by the state was not so threadbare as to violate his due process rights. It contained information about all the sexual assaults that made up the indictment and as clear a timeframe as possible, given the age of the victim at the time of the assaults. Meanwhile, the trial court's decision to admit victim-impact statements from several witnesses did not violate defendant's fair trial rights because the testimony was elicited only in relation to the victim's disclosure of the abuse and did not improperly inflame the jury. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Groves, Filed On: December 28, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-4793, Categories: Fair Trial, sex Offender, due Process
J. Bamattre-Manoukian finds that the trial court properly admitted evidence found after defendant was required to use his fingerprint to unlock his phone. Two electronic communications search warrants supported the compulsion, and regardless of the warrants, the evidence showing he had sexually abused several minors met the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The search did not violate his right against self-incrimination because he was not compelled to provide a combination or other contents of his mind, and because the use of his fingerprint was not a testimonial act. Even if the state's expert testimony about the responses typical of childhood sexual abuse victims was impermissible, the error was harmless. And his due process rights were not violated by an instruction that the jury could rely on proof established of any charged offense to show his predisposition to commit the other charged offenses. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Bamattre-Manoukian, Filed On: December 22, 2023, Case #: H049957, Categories: Search, sex Offender, due Process
J. Osowik finds the deletion of the contents of one of the victim's phones did not violate defendant's due process rights. He failed to explain how any of the data could have been used as exculpatory evidence, especially considering the only piece of data known to be on the device was a confession that would have hindered defendant's case. Meanwhile, the use of various insults during closing arguments by the prosecution, including calling defendant a maniac, sexual predator and monster, did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct. They were used sparingly throughout the hour-long remarks, while there was also abundant evidence of defendant's guilt, including victim testimony, DNA samples and text messages. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Osowik, Filed On: December 22, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-4683, Categories: sex Offender, due Process, Child Victims
J. D'Auria finds defendant's due process rights were not violated by the trial court's decision to allow testimony from his daughter about prior sexual conduct that never resulted in a criminal indictment. The testimony was properly disclosed to defendant and his attorneys and was properly used as propensity evidence during his trial on sexual assault charges. Additionally, even though a large period of time had passed between the conduct involving his daughter and the current victims, defendant was incarcerated for a significant portion of that time, which allowed the court to admit the evidence, especially considering the similarities between the incidents. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court, Judge: D'Auria, Filed On: November 27, 2023, Case #: SC20740, Categories: sex Offender, due Process, Child Victims
J. Rivera finds that the appellate division improperly required defendant to register as a sex offender after he was convicted of robbery and unlawfully imprisoning a child for stealing money from his aunt at gunpoint while his 10-year-old cousin was present. Defendant posed no sexual threat, and designating him a sex offender violated due process without furthering the legislative intent of the sex offender law. Reversed.
Court: New York Court Of Appeals, Judge: Rivera, Filed On: November 21, 2023, Case #: 83, Categories: Robbery, sex Offender, due Process
J. Graves finds the district court improperly revoked defendant's supervised release. Although defendant's criminal mischief charge was dismissed, revocation was pursued, which denied him his right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses without good cause. Reversed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Graves , Filed On: November 17, 2023, Case #: 23-20381, Categories: sex Offender, due Process, Child Victims
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. Gustafson holds that the Youth Court exceeded its authority by imposing additional terms to a juvenile's original disposition when he turned 18. A Youth Court may not modify an existing disposition, issue a new disposition or impose additional conditions, such as sexual offender registration and an added term of commitment, without pleadings and proving that the original disposition was violated. Reversed.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: Gustafson, Filed On: November 7, 2023, Case #: DA 22-0089, Categories: Juvenile Law, sex Offender, due Process
J. Goethals finds that the trial court's decision to allow jurors to wear face masks and practice social distancing due to Covid-19 did not prejudice defendant as he stood trial for molesting his girlfriend's daughter. Also, any prejudice caused by the jury's awareness that he was in custody was cured by a trial court admonition. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Goethals, Filed On: October 17, 2023, Case #: G061280, Categories: Jury, sex Offender, 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. Warren finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of murder and rape and correctly denied his motion for a new trial. Sufficient evidence was presented to support defendant's convictions. The trial court correctly denied defendant's motion for a continuance. Defendant's counsel was given time to interview witnesses during the proceedings and the trial court made the court's IT staff available to help with any technical issues. The trial court correctly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment because the 11-year delay between the crimes and defendant's arrest was not deliberate or designed to give the state a tactical advantage. Defendant failed to show that his trial counsel performed deficiently. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Supreme Court, Judge: Warren, Filed On: October 11, 2023, Case #: S23A0678, Categories: Murder, sex Offender, due Process