Cases

Opinion issued November 3, 2011. In The Court of

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Mar 19 2015, 9:34 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Philip R. Skodinski Gregory F. Z

WIGGINS, Justice. On appeal, for the first time, the defendant raised the issue that the court's use of the Iowa Risk Revised risk assessment tool (IRR) in sentencing the defendant violated his due process rights. The defendant also claimed the court used an unproven or unprosecuted offense when it sentenced him. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals reve

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

OPINION AND ORDER KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: - John Gorman brings claims for discrimination and retaliation1 under both the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws, as well as a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, naming as Defendants his former employer, Covidien Sales, LLC (“Covidien”), and his former supervisor, Dale Kelly. Defenda

704 S.E.2d 39 (2010) STATE of North Carolina v. Javon CAPERS, Defendant. No. COA09-1613. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. December 21, 2010. *40 Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Derrick C. Mertz, for the State. Marilyn G. Ozer, Chapel Hill, for defendant-appellant. GEER, Judge. De

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 17–0589 Filed December 14, 2018 STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, vs. MONTEZ JAVON LAMONT GUISE, Appellant. On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Colleen D. Weiland, Judge. The State seeks further review of a court of appeals decision reversing the sentence of the defendant. DECISION OF COURT

[Cite as State v. Howze, 2013-Ohio-4800.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Nos. 13AP-386 Plaintiff-Appellee, : (C.P.C. No. 11CR-11-5831) 13AP-387 v.

[Cite as State v. Fields, 2020-Ohio-4740.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 107971 v. : KURTIS FIELDS, :

SHELDON, J. The defendant, Cordaryl Silva, appeals from the judgment of conviction for murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), 1 which was rendered against him after a jury trial. The defendant appeals on two grounds: (1) that the trial court improperly denied his request for self-representation

PARKER, Justice. The State petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision reversing Sean Travis Howard’s criminal conviction based on the trial court’s failure to charge the jury on manslaughter as a lesser offense to capital murder, the offense with which Howard was charged. See Howard v. State, 85 So.3d 1048 (Ala.Crim.App.2009). We granted certiorari review to cons

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANTRON JAVON BRODIE, Defendant. No. COA04-308 North Carolina Court of Appeals. Filed June 21, 2005. This case not for publication Wayne County No. 02 CRS 57143, 02 CRS 57144, 02 CRS 57145. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Clinton C. Hicks, for the State. Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assis

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division. Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.

866 N.E.2d 867 (2007) Michael RUTHERFORD, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. No. 49A04-0608-CR-462. Court of Appeals of Indiana. May 25, 2007. *869 Patricia Caress McMath, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant. Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Richard C. Webster, Deputy Attorney Gene

[Cite as State v. Young, 2022-Ohio-3132.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant, : No. 110973 v. : KIARAN YOUNG,

457 S.E.2d 862 (1995) 340 N.C. 301 STATE of North Carolina v. Randall JACKSON. No. 95A94. Supreme Court of North Carolina. June 2, 1995. *865 Michael F. Easley, Atty. Gen. by Debra C. Graves, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. Nora Henry Hargrove, Wilmington, for defendant-appellant. LAKE, Just

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) v. ) Crim. ID. No. 2310008139 ) JAVON TURNER ) Submitted: October 13, 2025 Decided: January 12, 2025 Upon Javon Turner’s Motion for Postconviction Relief,

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs November 4, 2003 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JARVIS WILLIAMS and JOHN WILLIAMS Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 01-08323-34 Joseph Dailey, Judge No. W2002-03010-CCA-R3-CD - Filed December 23, 2003 Defendant Jarvis Williams was convicted of seven counts of especially

OLSZEWSKI, J.: ¶ 1 The Commonwealth appeals from an order granting appellee’s motion to sup*714press physical evidence.1 After a careful review of the relevant case law and the record, we reverse. ¶ 2 The evidence at the suppression hearing revealed the following facts. At approximately 3:00 a.m. on Saturday, June 8, 199

*817 Opinion SCHALLER, J. This court recently observed that “[t]he sad fact is that there is a difference between parental love and parental competence.” In re Christina M., 90 Conn. App. 565, 575, 877 A.2d 941, cert. granted on other grounds, 276 Conn. 903, 884 A.2d 1024 (2005). In the present case, we again are required to u