17 results for 'cat:"Sex Offender" AND cat:"Jurisdiction"'.
J. May finds that defendant was improperly convicted of child molesting. The juvenile court lost jurisdiction over defendant and his criminal actions when he turned 21, and the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to try him for conduct that occurred when he was a minor. The gap in jurisdiction has been addressed in a new law, but fairness precludes retroactive application to defendant. Reversed.
Court: Indiana Court Of Appeals, Judge: May, Filed On: May 10, 2024, Case #: 23A-CR-330, Categories: Juvenile Law, sex Offender, jurisdiction
J. Riedmann finds the district court properly denied defendant's motion to transfer his case to the juvenile court. Sufficient evidence supports allegations against the 16-year-old involving his sexual abuse of children, including one younger than 1 year old. Defendant's prior involvement with the juvenile court system, the allegations being made within three months of his return home, the severity of the allegations and the public’s need for protection makes retention in the district court proper. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Riedmann , Filed On: April 23, 2024, Case #: A-23-880, Categories: Juvenile Law, sex Offender, jurisdiction
J. Bradford finds the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant was charged with failure to register as a sex or violent offender after he returned to Indiana, where the offense had taken place. Defendant had previously transferred his parole from Indiana to Florida, where he is required to register for life, signing a form acknowledging residency in another state would require registration there as well. The requirement to re-register in Indiana does not impose an additional criminal penalty. Affirmed.
Court: Indiana Court Of Appeals, Judge: Bradford, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 23A-CR-1339, Categories: sex Offender, jurisdiction, Child Victims
J. Vaidik finds that the trial court improperly required defendant to register as a sex offender in Indiana because moving back to Indiana after moving to a state that requires registration for a sexual misconduct conviction did not require that he register as a sex offender in Indiana. Reversed.
Court: Indiana Court Of Appeals, Judge: Vaidik, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: 23A-MI-2545, Categories: sex Offender, jurisdiction
J. Boyle finds the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to exclude a video interview of the victim conducted by a child advocacy group employee. The interview was not conducted to collect evidence for a criminal prosecution; rather, the interview was used to assess the victim's safety, determine if the perpetrator of the alleged assault was still a threat to her, and to determine the extent of any physical injuries. Meanwhile, even though the single count of gross sexual imposition for which defendant was convicted was based on conduct that occurred outside the county in which the trial court is based, it retained jurisdiction over the charge because the act was part of a course of criminal conduct consistent with the other four counts of the indictment, all of which took place inside the county. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Boyle, Filed On: February 15, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-571, Categories: Evidence, sex Offender, 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. Ross affirms the defendant's criminal sexual conduct conviction. The state presented sufficient evidence to support the venue of the defendant's trial, namely the county from which his victim had recently run away and later returned rather than the intended destination of her flight. The defendant's argument that the child intended to reside outside of her home county is irrelevant and "rests largely on conjecture." A postconviction court also properly rejected the defendant's arguments that the state violated his due-process rights by failing to disclose juvenile-protection orders and that the court did so by refusing to appoint advisory counsel. Affirmed.
Court: Minnesota Court Of Appeals, Judge: Ross, Filed On: January 29, 2024, Case #: A22-0054, Categories: sex Offender, jurisdiction
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. Kemp finds the circuit court properly dismissed the prisoner’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking entitlement to parole. The issue has been addressed by the Arkansas Supreme Court in a prior order affirming the circuit court’s denial of the same type of petition. Because petitioner pleaded guilty to rape committed in 1996, certain Arkansas Code applies addressing violent offender eligibility upon reaching regular eligibility, but only after a minimum age of 55. Though petitioner is 55, his eligibility is not within the purview of the trial court. Thus, no reference to the parole-eligibility statutes is listed in his judgment and commitment order. It is settled that the determination of eligibility is solely up to the corrections division, which has determined that the petitioner’s eligibility date is in 2037. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court, Judge: Kemp, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: CV-22-792, Categories: Parole, sex Offender, 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
J. Nalbandian finds the lower court properly dismissed the former inmate's habeas petition because the lifetime electronic monitoring and registration requirements imposed as a result of his sexually-based offenses do not restrict his movements significantly enough to render him in custody. While the restrictions are certainly burdensome, they qualify only as collateral consequences of his convictions and cannot be used to establish jurisdiction for a habeas claim. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Nalbandian, Filed On: June 23, 2023, Case #: 22-1301, Categories: Habeas, sex Offender, jurisdiction
J. Miller-Lerman finds the district court properly overruled the sexual assault defendant's motion to transfer his case to juvenile court. The juvenile probation supervisor testified there was often the need for supervision after program completion, and that defendant had come into the juvenile system near the age of 18. There was sufficient evidence to support the court’s emphasis on the short timeframe for defendant's juvenile treatment, appropriate evidence for retaining jurisdiction, and there was no abuse of discretion in considering these timing factors. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Miller-Lerman, Filed On: June 16, 2023, Case #: S-23-096, Categories: Juvenile Law, sex Offender, jurisdiction