Articles Posted in Criminal Appeals

On Monday, July 14, a Lawrence County man’s conviction in the 2009 murder of a couple who was found shot to death in their home was upheld by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, according to a news article at WLOX 13 News. 66-year-old Charles Arthur Moore was convicted of the shooting deaths of Bailey and Betty Nichols in April of 2013. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Bailey Nichols was Moore’s business property landlord, according to the attorney general’s office. Apparently, Moore had not been paying the rent on his business and owed Nichols $2,000. Nichols and his wife were shot to death in their Lawrence County home after the two men had arranged to meet at the Nichols’ home concerning the rent Moore owed.

Moore was ultimately connected to the crime through tire tread found at the scene, a .32 caliber pistol, and a wallet containing Bailey Nichols’ belongings which were found at Moore’s residence when authorities executed a search warrant.

Soon after being sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, Moore sought to have his conviction reversed on appeal. News reports do not reveal argument or grounds on which Moore or his attorneys based the appeal.

Typically, individuals appeal a conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel, errors made in the trial or court process, improper admission of eyewitness testimony or criminal history, or other factors. Every individual who is charged with a crime has the right to a fair trial, and in some instances mistakes are made that are unfair to the defendant and may affect whether he or she is found guilty. Tragically, some individuals are found guilty of crimes they did not commit; in this case, appealing the conviction is essential.

Continue reading

In May of 2008, Randall Mays, who is now 54 years old, was sentenced to death after being convicted of murdering two Henderson County deputies in Texas, according to the Athens Review. Mays reportedly fired shots that killed the deputies as they responded to a residential disturbance in Payne Springs in May of 2007. The shots fired by May took the lives of HCSO Investigator Paul Habelt and Henderson County Sheriff’s Department Investigator Tony Ogburn. Another deputy was also seriously injured in the shooting.

In September of 2009, the first appeal of Mays’ death sentence was appealed by his attorney. One year later, another appeal was filed claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Mays’ attorneys claimed that the death penalty was unconstitutional because Mays is mentally ill. An individual who is sentenced to death in Texas is entitled to an automatic appeal to the Austin Criminal Appeals Court under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ultimately, the first round of appeals for Mays were rejected and his execution date was scheduled for August 23 of 2011. All of the defendant’s state appeals had been exhausted, but Mays was informed that an appeal to federal court would be the only method of preventing his execution. A stay of execution was granted by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas so that the appeal could proceed, although the U.S. Supreme court had denied his appeal earlier. On Monday, July 7, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused Mays’ appeal of his death sentence.

There are many reasons an individual’s sentence may be appealed, depending on the defendant’s state of residence. While there is no death penalty in the state of Michigan, those sentenced for violent or serious crimes may wish to appeal their sentence or even conviction based on such grounds as errors in the criminal justice system, ineffective assistance of counsel, even wrongful conviction. Judges, attorneys, law enforcement, even jurors can make mistakes which may work to the benefit of the defendant. No matter how serious a crime, all people in the U.S. have the right to a fair trial. Sometimes, the process of trying someone for a criminal offense is anything but fair.

Continue reading

Daniel Allen Hall, a 28-year-old Mt Morris man convicted of sexually assaulting his six-month-old daughter, recently had his life sentence overturned by an appeals court, according to news reports at Mlive.com. Now, Hall has been resentenced to between 25 and 50 years in prison by Genesee Circuit Judge Geoffrey Neithercut, who previously sentenced Hall to life behind bars. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that Neithercut’s life sentence was improper due to the fact that he exceeded the sentencing guidelines but did not explain his reasons for doing so on the record.

Hall did admit to sexually abusing his infant daughter, a crime that Genessee County Prosecutor David Leyton called “heinous.” Hall was sentenced to life in prison in November of 2012. He was charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct, communicating with another individual using the Internet to commit a crime, distributing child sexually abusive materials, and child sexually abusive activity Judge Neithercut told Hall at the time of the sentencing that, “In my 26 years as a judge I have seen dangerous people. I regard you as one of the most dangerous.”

Michigan’s state sentencing guidelines call for up to 15 years in prison, however when a victim is younger than 13 the law requires the defendant be sentenced to a minimum of 25 years for first-degree CSC. Daniel Bremer, Hall’s defense attorney, noted that his client’s new sentence still exceeded the guidelines. Hall plans to appeal his conviction according to Bremer.

Hall’s, wife was convicted by a jury on charges of first-degree CSC after they found she photographed the abuse of the couple’s infant daughter. She was sentenced to 25 to 40 years in prison. Alisha Hall alleged that her husband threatened to hurt her and the baby if she did not agree to participate in the abuse.

Continue reading

Chip Moray Smith, a 43-year-old Golden Valley man who has been through three murder trials in connection the with the 2001 shooting death of Chris Darren Payton, has had his conviction upheld by an Arizona appellate court, according to a news article at the Mohave Valley Daily News.

Smith allegedly shot Payton in the head on the evening of August 12, 2001. Smith was driving in his vehicle with three other individuals when he passed Payton’s truck on Santa Maria Road. He retrieved a 9-mm rifle from his car, struck Peyton with the rifle, then shot him in the head, according to reports. Payton’s truck eventually flipped on its side after rolling up an embankment. Authorities allege that Smith got back into his vehicle, then left the scene without summoning help after circling the block to survey the scene one more time.

Payton was initially thought to have been killed in the truck crash, however the bullet wound was discovered during his autopsy. Smith was charged with first-degree murder. It is believed that he shot Payton because of a debt.

In 2002, Smith’s first trial ended in a mistrial. A second trial resulted in a conviction, however Smith won on appeal when the appellate court overturned his 2003 conviction and remanded the case back to court. Now, he has lost in appealing the verdict of his third murder trial. Smith’s attorney appealed the conviction, arguing that certain evidence should not have been admitted, that his client was deprived of a fair trial due to prosecutor misconduct, that Smith’s conviction should have been vacated by the judge, and that the judge imposed an aggravated sentence that was illegal. The appellate court did not agree.

Smith allegedly committed the murder while on release, so the Court of Appeals did not agree that the judge erred in handing down an aggravated sentence. Panel judges also did not agree that the prosecutor asked leading questions, or failed to disclose a witness’s plea agreement. In the end, the appellate court disagreed with every argument brought forth by the defendant’s appellate attorney.

Continue reading

In 2012, Shawn Tyson was convicted of the April 2011 murders of two British tourists in Newtown, FL. Tyson was sentenced to life in prison for the murders. Earlier this month, Tyson appealed his conviction, claiming that the sentence he was given in 2012 violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Tyson was a juvenile when he was sentenced to life behind bars. He was 16 years old when given a life sentence without the possibility of parole, according to news reports.

Tyson, who lived in Section 8 housing in Newtown, allegedly gunned down two men from Great Britain who were vacationing in Sarasota, James Kouzaris and James Cooper. The two victims had been visiting bars in the Sarasota area along Main Street, when they stumbled into Newtown and were shot by Tyson in what is said to be a botched robbery attempt.

Tyson hopes to have his conviction overturned, however it is doubtful the young man will be released from prison. More likely, according to sources, is that Tyson will get a new sentencing hearing. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a life sentence for juvenile offenders violates the Eighth Amendment. This ruling came just two short months after Tyson was sentenced to life in prison for the murders. State attorneys in the case believe that the defendant should go back to court for resentencing.

The appeal was scheduled to be argued on Wednesday, June 11 at the Second District Court of Appeal in Lakeland. Currently there is no further news regarding developments on the appeal.

Individuals who are convicted of murder, armed robbery, rape, and other offenses that result in substantial time or even life behind bars may have the option to appeal a conviction and/or sentencing. In this case, the fact that the defendant was 16 years old at the time is a critical factor, considering the ruling of the Supreme Court two months later. There are various factors in a criminal case which may support an appeal, including errors that may have been made by police, prosecutors, or even a judge or jurors. In some cases, testimony may be allowed which should not have been allowed, or jurors may be enlightened regarding a defendant’s past criminal history, making them biased.

Continue reading

In 1989, then 20-year-old Matthew Makowski was found guilty of stabbing Pietro “Pete” Puma of Dearborn to death. Makowski was convicted of first-degree felony murder, and sentenced to life in prison. At the time of the murder, Makowski managed a Dearborn health club. He alleged arranged for Puma, who was an employee at the club, to take cash to a bank. Puma went on the errand, not knowing that Makowski had arranged for a robber to take the cash from Puma, which the robber and Makowski would split.

After 20 years in prison, the state parole board recommended that Governor Granholm commute Makowski’s sentence. When he applied for commutation, he was listed as a model prisoner according to court records. In December of 2010, Governor Granholm signed the order to commute the defendant’s sentence and forwarded it to the Secretary of State’s office; it was then affixed with the state seal.

Once Puma’s siblings heard that Makowski’s life sentence had been commuted, they objected. Two days later, the governor decided that she would not commute the sentence; she retrieved the signed document and had it destroyed.

Makowski then enlisted the help of a law professor from the University of Michigan and a former Supreme Court justice. He sued, claiming that the commutation order signed by the governor was final, and could not be reversed. After going through the process at district and appeals courts, it was determined that these courts did not maintain jurisdiction to review commutation decisions made by the governor.

The matter was then turned over to the Michigan Supreme Court. It was decided that the governor could not take back her issuance of commutation. Justice Michael F. Cavanagh wrote that “The Constitution does not provide the Governor the power to revoke an unconditional commutation.”

The victim’s family members were not notified at the time Makowski applied to have his sentence commuted because they had not registered with Michigan’s Crime Victim’s Right Act. Therefore, at the time Governor Granholm ordered Makowski’s sentence commuted, there were no objections taken before the parole board.

Continue reading

On Friday, May 30, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that a Kent County man’s rights were not violated when a judge informed a jury who could not come to a decision on the man’s guilt or innocence of the costs to retry him, according to Mlive.com.

The defendant, 51-year-old Duane Craig, allegedly groped a 9-year-old girl’s private parts in January of 2012. He was tried in June of 2012, when the jury informed Kent County Circuit Judge Donald Johnston that they could not come to a decision; the jury was deadlocked. Johnston then urged members of the jury to continue deliberating and seek resolution in the case, going on to say “It will simply require the consumption of more time and expense to achieve that result.” Johnston explained to the jurors that he doubted that the next group of 12 individuals who would serve as jurors if this jury could not agree on the verdict would be any smarter of more gifted in coming to a conclusion after hearing the same facts and evidence.

After listening to the judge’s statements, the jury found Craig guilty of second-degree criminal sexual conduct the same day. Craig’s defense lawyers requested that the guilty verdict be overturned by the appeals court, claiming that mention of the time and expense of retrying their client by the judge would make members of the jury feel as though they had failed their civic duty and purpose.

Appeals Court judges upheld Craig’s conviction, finding that the judge did not violate the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Prior to 2007, discussing retrial to a jury was not permitted due to a ruling by the Appeals Court; in 2007, the Supreme Court overturned that decision, making it appropriate to discuss retrial with jurors.

Michigan criminal appeals attorneys know how tough it is to win an appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. However, when defendants’ rights are clearly violated or errors made in the criminal justice process, it is the defendant’s right to challenge the outcome. There are in fact innocent people who remain in prison for crimes they did not commit. The criminal justice system is not perfect; defendants have Constitutional rights that must be protected, and police, prosecutors, jurors, even judges, may make mistakes.

Continue reading

In 1990, Debra Milke was convicted of having her son murdered in 1989 in a desert outside of Phoenix.  Milke allegedly had two men shoot her son, who was 4 years old at the time.  After spending more than 20 years in prison on death row, Milke’s conviction was overturned by the Arizona Court of Appeals.  Milke is schedule to be retried on the murder charge in 2015, and is now free on bond.

Milke has maintained the entire time that she is innocent, however at the original trial a police detective, Armando Saldate who is now retired, testified that Milke had confessed the murder to him.  Saldate failed to record the confession, so jurors found Milke guilty of the murder based on Saldate’s allegations.  According to news articles, there was no evidence against Milke other than the detective’s testimony that she confessed to the crime, which she adamantly denies.

Now, prosecutors in the case are asking the state Court of Appeals to reverse a ruling made by Judge Rosa Mroz, who granted the police detective’s request not to testify at Milke’s retrial based on his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.  Prosecutors want the appeals judges to force Saldate to take the stand at Milke’s 2015 retrial.  Saldate fears that he will face charges in the future, as he claims the prosecution has offered no guarantee that charges would not be brought against him if he were to testify at Milke’s retrial. Continue reading