Court Filings

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Summit County Common Pleas Court’s denial of Jackie Robinson’s May 2, 2025 filing, which the trial court properly treated as an untimely petition for post-conviction relief. Robinson challenged his 1976 burglary conviction and related sentencing issues, but he filed decades after the statutory window for direct appeal and post-conviction relief had closed. Because he did not show that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts underlying his claims or that a new, retroactive right applied, the court concluded the trial court lacked authority to entertain the petition and therefore denied relief.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed Charles Link’s convictions and sentence for six counts of rape and seven counts of gross sexual imposition (GSI). A jury convicted Link after testimony from two victims, C.D. and K.N., family members who described repeated inappropriate touching and sexual acts occurring over years while in Link’s relatives’ home. Link argued ineffective assistance of counsel, that some convictions should have merged, and that evidence was insufficient as to K.N. The court rejected each argument, finding trial strategy reasonable, separate daytime touching supported GSI distinct from nighttime rapes, and sufficient evidence to convict on the K.N. count.

The Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Summit County Common Pleas Court’s denial of Chad Jay Cobb’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his 2013 guilty pleas to multiple serious charges, including aggravated murder. Cobb claimed his plea was involuntary because a domestic relations attorney and defense counsel told him he would lose parental rights if the case was not resolved within a year, and he argued ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion: the court rejected Cobb’s credibility, noted lack of attorney testimony or affidavits supporting his claims, and emphasized the long delay in seeking relief.

The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed Shirley Mears Davis's original petition for a writ of prohibition. The court held that the petition could not proceed because a criminal defendant generally may not proceed pro se while represented by counsel, citing Logan v. State. The dismissal was per curiam, with concurrence from the three judges, and the opinion notes the decision is not final until any timely motion under the appellate rules is resolved.

The First District Court of Appeal dismissed Timothy A. Parker's appeal as moot. Parker sought relief (jail credit against a sentence) but completed the sentence while the appeal was pending, so there is no longer a live controversy for the court to resolve. The panel cited Toomer v. State, which holds that an appeal seeking jail credit may be dismissed as moot when the sentence is fully served during the appeal. The dismissal was per curiam and the opinion was not final until any timely motion under Florida appellate rules is resolved.

The State appealed a county court decision in Sarasota County involving defendant Bryan Leonard Redding, Jr. The District Court of Appeal reviewed the matter and, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The opinion is brief, provides no extended reasoning in the published text, and simply affirms the county court's decision. All three panel judges concurred. No further elaboration or factual background is provided in the opinion as presented.

The State appealed an order suppressing evidence obtained after a traffic stop of Christopher Brady, who was facing a violation-of-probation proceeding. The Second District concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the trial court suppressed evidence but did not dismiss the affidavit charging the violation of probation, and orders suppressing evidence in a probation-revocation context are nonfinal and not appealable under the rules cited. The court dismissed the appeal, explaining that suppression in a violation-of-probation proceeding is not a suppression "before trial" subject to interlocutory State appeal and that judicial labor remains because the affidavit was not dismissed.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam decision affirming the lower court's judgment in a criminal appeal. The appellate panel, consisting of three judges, reviewed the appeal from the Sarasota County Circuit Court and concluded that the trial court's decision should be upheld. No detailed reasoning, factual background, or legal analysis appears in the published entry beyond the single-word disposition "Affirmed." The decision is subject to revision prior to official publication.

The appellate court reviewed a criminal appeal by Kenneth James Kendrick from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County and, after considering the record, affirmed the lower court's decision. The opinion was delivered per curiam by the Second District Court of Appeal of Florida on May 6, 2026, and no written opinion explaining the reasoning was published with the order. The appellate panel consisting of Judges Villanti, Khouzam, and Labrit concurred. The judgment of the trial court therefore stands as affirmed.

The Second District Court of Appeal of Florida reviewed an appeal by Deshaunte Jabar Delancy from a Sarasota County circuit court criminal matter. The appellate court, in a brief per curiam opinion, affirmed the lower court's decision. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning is included in the document; the judgment of the trial court therefore stands as reviewed under the applicable rule for appeals from final judgments in criminal cases.

The appellate court reviewed an appeal by Jermaine Roshell Conaway from a Manatee County circuit court decision and summarily affirmed the lower court's ruling. The opinion is per curiam, issued May 6, 2026, and the panel (Silberman, Villanti, and Atkinson, JJ.) concurred. No written opinion or extended reasoning appears in the provided text beyond the single-word disposition "Affirmed." The judgment of the circuit court therefore stands as decided below.

The State appealed a county court order that granted Ariel Paul’s motions to suppress evidence in a DUI case after the prosecution failed to produce three subpoenaed officers for a suppression hearing. At the first hearing one officer testified and the court continued the matter, instructing the remaining officers to appear; the State did not contact those officers and they did not appear at the continued hearing. The trial court denied the State’s request for further continuance and granted suppression. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion because the State failed to show due diligence in securing the witnesses.

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s summary denial of Enrique Jesus Someillan’s postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Someillan filed the motion more than 30 years after his judgment and sentence became final and failed to plead any of the limited exceptions to Florida’s two-year filing deadline. The court noted the State demonstrated prejudice from the delay: the trial lawyer is deceased, investigative files were destroyed, and key witnesses are unavailable, and Someillan already benefited from his plea terms. Because the motion was untimely and barred, the denial was affirmed.

The Third District Court of Appeal reversed Eduardo Alfredo Medrano-Chavez’s convictions and sentences for sexual activity with a child by a person in familial or custodial authority and lewd and lascivious molestation, and remanded for a new trial. The court held the trial judge abused discretion by allowing a detective to testify that, based on his experience, the alleged victim’s demeanor in an out-of-court interview seemed “genuine,” which impermissibly bolstered her credibility. Because the victim’s credibility was central and there was no physical corroboration, the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the Bronx County Supreme Court judgment entered December 20, 2022, in the criminal case against Jose Cabrera. The appeal challenged the conviction and/or sentence, but the appellate court found the sentence was not excessive after briefing and oral argument. The court issued a brief decision and order affirming the judgment and referred appellant's counsel to the court's Rule 606.5 regarding appellate counsel obligations or procedures.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Bronx County conviction and sentence. Defendant Kshawn Bowers pleaded guilty to petit larceny and was sentenced to three years' probation. The court held his appellate waiver was valid and therefore foreclosed review of his excessive-sentence claim, and it found no basis to reduce the sentence. The court declined to reach a preserved constitutional challenge to a probation condition in the interest of justice but, alternatively, rejected that challenge on the merits. It upheld a nonconstitutional challenge to the same probation condition as reasonably related to rehabilitation.

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed defendant Melshawn Johnson's conviction following a jury trial for second-degree assault and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon and affirmed his 6-year aggregate sentence. The court rejected preserved and unpreserved evidentiary challenges, finding pretrial-hearing and limiting-instruction claims waived or harmless where the challenged testimony provided relationship context, had minimal prejudice, and the conviction rested on overwhelming evidence (grand jury testimony, video, medical and DNA evidence). The court also declined to reach most ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal and held that no jury charge on the lesser reckless third-degree assault was warranted.

The First Department affirmed defendant Emanuel Ford’s conviction and four-year sentence for second-degree criminal possession of a weapon following his guilty plea. The court upheld the denial of Ford’s motion to dismiss the indictment for preindictment delay, finding the roughly 3½-year delay was justified because prosecutors lacked sufficient evidence initially to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt. When new evidence (a recovered gun linked to an associate and an officer familiar enough to identify Ford on surveillance) became available, the People properly pursued charges. The court found no bad faith or demonstrable prejudice from the delay.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a judgment convicting Thomas Nicholas, who had pleaded guilty to first-degree criminal possession of stolen property and was sentenced to 1 to 3 years. The court declined to review Nicholas's claim that his plea was involuntary based on an allegedly inaccurate description of his potential sentence because he failed to preserve the issue, and it also declined to reach ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal since those require facts outside the record. As an alternative, the court found the plea voluntary on the totality of the circumstances and that counsel’s assistance, insofar as the record shows, met legal standards.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed defendant Dominique Parrott’s appeal from a 2019 judgment convicting him, following a guilty plea, of second-degree burglary and second-degree criminal trespass and sentencing him to 3½ years in prison plus five years’ postrelease supervision (PRS) on the burglary conviction and a concurrent one-year term on the trespass conviction. The court held that Parrott did not validly waive his right to appeal because the record did not show he fully appreciated the consequences of the waiver, but it nevertheless found no basis to reduce the five-year PRS term. The court vacated the trespass conviction and otherwise affirmed the judgment.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Lucas County Common Pleas Court’s denial of Tito Parks’s motion to suppress evidence discovered after a 2024 traffic stop. Parks was stopped for an alleged window-tint violation; during the stop the officer ran Parks’s information and requested a drug-detection canine. Parks refused to exit the vehicle and was arrested for failing to obey police orders; a subsequent search of the vehicle revealed a firearm. The appeals court held the stop was valid, the officer did not unreasonably prolong the detention while awaiting dispatch/computer checks and the K-9, and the search incident to arrest was lawful.

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Sandusky County Common Pleas Court judgment convicting James R. Baker, Jr. of multiple offenses arising from a head-on crash on September 4, 2022. The panel rejected Baker’s challenges to the weight of the evidence, denial of his motion to suppress hospital-drawn blood and related test results, denial of his recusal motion, and ineffective assistance claims. The court found credible testimony that Baker operated the truck while intoxicated, that hospital and crime-lab blood testing complied with statutory and administrative requirements, and that Baker failed to show judicial bias or counsel deficiency that would require reversal.

The First Department affirmed defendant Avis Ruiz's 2017 conviction following a guilty plea to attempted second-degree rape and a sentence of six months' jail plus ten years' probation. The court found Ruiz's challenge to the plea unpreserved and declined to review it in the interest of justice because nothing in the plea colloquy negated an element of the offense or suggested a defense. The court modified the judgment to specify that the jail term and the probationary period run concurrently, as conceded by the People and required by controlling authority and statute.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the judgment of conviction entered by the Bronx County Supreme Court against defendant Elio Puntiel-Ruck. The defendant appealed his sentence; the appellate court reviewed the record, considered the arguments of counsel, and concluded that the sentence imposed was not excessive. The court therefore denied relief and left the trial court's judgment intact. The decision is a short, unanimous order affirming the conviction and sentence.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Licking County Common Pleas judgment convicting Kortlan J. Hess of multiple drug and weapons offenses after he pleaded guilty. The trial court imposed an aggregate 15-to-19 year prison term, ordering certain sentences consecutive. On appeal Hess argued the court plainly erred in imposing consecutive sentences because the statutory findings were unsupported. The appeals court held the record — including the sealed presentence investigation and the court's on-the-record statements about Hess’s extensive criminal history and that offenses occurred while he was under supervision — supported the consecutive-sentence findings, so the judgment was affirmed.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's sentence of an aggregate 108-month prison term (three consecutive 36-month terms for third-degree felonies, plus concurrent misdemeanor jail terms) imposed after Alberta Grant pleaded guilty. The court reviewed whether the consecutive and maximum sentences were supported by the record and applicable Ohio sentencing statutes. It concluded the trial court complied with R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12, and 2929.14(C)(4), made the required findings at the sentencing hearing, incorporated them into the entry, and the record contains evidence supporting those findings.

The Appellate Division, First Department reviewed appeals by Isaiah Sullivan challenging three convictions and the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court, New York County. After oral argument, the appellate court unanimously found the sentences were not excessive and affirmed the judgments entered June 18, 2025. The court issued a brief decision and order affirming the lower-court judgments without altering the sentences, and it referred defense counsel to the court's Rule 606.5 for post-decision procedures.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Jason Tate's conviction and sentence after he pleaded no contest to multiple drug and weapons charges. Tate argued his trial counsel was ineffective for pursuing a meritless suppression motion, misapplying discovery rules which he says led to withdrawal of a 20-year plea offer, and failing to advise acceptance of that plea. The appellate court found the suppression motion was a reasonable tactical effort despite failing, and that Tate failed to show prejudice from any alleged discovery error or that the trial court would have accepted a plea producing a lesser sentence. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed defendant Irving Talavera’s 2019 criminal judgment following his appeal challenging his sentence. The court heard argument, reviewed the record, and concluded the sentence was not excessive, so it upheld the trial court’s judgment. The opinion is short, provides no extended analysis, and ends by referring appellant’s counsel to the court’s local rule § 606.5.

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and directed the trial court to vacate its denial of pretrial mental health diversion for Vincent Tourville, who pleaded no contest to felony corporal injury to a spouse after the trial court refused diversion but offered probation with the same treatment. The appellate court held that once a defendant is found eligible and suitable for diversion and does not pose an unreasonable risk of committing a statutory “super strike,” forcing a plea to obtain identical community treatment contradicts the statute’s purpose to treat mental disorders outside the criminal system. The court found the trial court abused its discretion by denying diversion based on public- and victim-safety concerns despite having found Tourville did not pose an unreasonable risk under the statute.