The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed Carl Morey’s conviction for theft by taking from his general contractor, rejecting multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims and finding that limited victim-impact testimony during the guilt phase was harmless error.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court dismissed a pro se appellant’s appeal from an order quashing a deposition subpoena and granting a protective order because the appellant deliberately failed to file the hearing transcript under Rule 10(b)(1). The Court addressed the narrow exception allowing transcript-free appeals on pure legal questions but found a one-page order saying only “for reasons stated on the record” insufficient to permit meaningful review.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed a defense verdict in a motor vehicle negligence case, rejecting all eleven error claims by the plaintiffs. Significant holdings address: the admissibility of a dismissed defendant’s video deposition under Rule 32; authentication of bare Google Earth photographs by lay witnesses with personal knowledge; the narrow scope of the empty chair doctrine as limited to identifiable available witnesses; and the adequacy of a verdict sheet that used “was negligent” language in a comparative fault framework.
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed convictions for domestic violence strangulation and harassment because the trial court failed to reread constitutional jury instructions—including the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt—as part of its oral charge to the jury at the close of evidence, applying State v. Shine, 375 Or 112 (2026), and holding the error was plain, not harmless, and warranted discretionary correction even without a trial-level objection.
The Oregon Court of Appeals remanded for resentencing after holding that the trial court violated the Sixth Amendment by imposing a true-life sentence under ORS 163.107(2)(b) based solely on its own factual findings, confirming that a constitutionally valid LWOP sentence for first-degree murder requires jury-found enhancement facts submitted through the Blakely-remedy procedure of ORS 136.760–136.792.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a prescriptive easement over a rural pathway that had been used for ingress and egress since the 1950s, holding that the required twenty-year period need not immediately precede the dispute and that an easement already vested by adverse use cannot be destroyed by a later permission grant to a third party.
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a pro se mandamus petition, holding that the trial court erred by denying a motion to disqualify the assigned judge without any judge challenging the movant’s good faith — a prerequisite under ORS 14.260(1) before the motion may be denied.
The Court of Appeals of Georgia dismissed a criminal appeal, holding that a motion challenging the sufficiency of an indictment after a guilty plea is not a proper void-sentence claim and cannot support a direct appeal.
The Fourth DCA affirms a foreclosure judgment and dismisses a challenge to a Rule 1.540(b) denial for untimeliness, holding that each denial order triggers its own independent 30-day appeal deadline.
The Fourth DCA holds that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion filed before resentencing is complete, as finality for 3.850 purposes occurs only after resentencing.
The Fourth DCA holds that a pre-judgment denial of attorney’s fees merges into the final judgment and must be challenged in the initial appeal—failure to do so permanently waives the issue.
The First District held that imposing consecutive sentences on two firearm specifications was erroneous where the underlying felonies arose from the same act or transaction, but found no plain error because the defendant received an agreed sentence and failed to object below.
The Fifth District reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that aggravated vehicular assault (OVI-based) and vehicular assault (recklessness-based) are allied offenses of similar import that must merge under R.C. 2941.25 when committed against the same victim.
The Georgia Court of Appeals partially reversed a child custody modification order, holding that the trial court could not alter legal custody — including decision-making authority over religion and extracurricular activities — after expressly finding no material change in circumstances, while affirming changes to parenting time.
The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress, holding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless seizure of a computer suspected of containing child sexual exploitation material where the defendant repeatedly entered and exited his room under the guise of searching for a hard drive.
The Seventh Court of Appeals held that a California company’s domestication of a default judgment in Texas does not confer specific personal jurisdiction for counterclaims arising from pre-domestication California conduct, and that remote employment of a Texas resident does not establish general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.
The Tenth District affirmed the denial of a contempt motion in a divorce case, holding that failure to file timely objections to a magistrate’s decision and failure to provide the hearing transcript to the appellate court were fatal procedural defects.
The Fifth District affirmed the juvenile court’s decision to transfer jurisdiction of a 16-year-old charged with aggravated robbery and felonious assault to adult court, finding the amenability determination was supported by competent, credible evidence.
The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the transfer of a juvenile murder case to juvenile court, holding that the State’s ex parte 90-day extension of the 180-day indictment deadline under OCGA section 17-7-50.1(a) was invalid because the State failed to provide notice, hold a hearing, or demonstrate good cause as the statute requires.
The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed armed robbery convictions, holding that a witness’s text messages to law enforcement were admissible as identification statements, booking photos showing tattoos were properly admitted to prove identity, and trial counsel was not ineffective.
The Twelfth District affirmed an award of $2,400 per month in indefinite spousal support to a disabled wife who had been a homemaker for most of a 17-year marriage, finding the magistrate properly weighed the R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) factors.
The Twelfth District held that grand theft of a motor vehicle and attempted grand theft of a firearm found in the vehicle’s glove box are not allied offenses requiring merger, because the defendant’s act of removing the gun from the car and keeping it in her bedroom reflected a separate animus.
The Eleventh District affirmed an OVI conviction following a guilty plea, holding that Crim.R. 11(E) for petty offenses requires only that the defendant be told a guilty plea is a complete admission of guilt, not the full constitutional rights colloquy required for serious offenses.
The Ninth District affirmed most aspects of a divorce decree but reversed the trial court’s property-division offset, finding that the court improperly double-counted certain expenses and failed to credit the husband for overpayments made under the temporary orders.