{"count":93668,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0xMy44NzQ1MTUmcz00NzUyMzUxJnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDgtMjMmcD0y&q=METHOD+OF+CONFINEMENT&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6312766/in-re-the-continued-confinement-or-discharge-of-charles-b/","attorney":"APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Mental Hygiene Legal Service (Emmett J. Creahan and Stephen C. Clark of counsel), for respondent. Eric T. Schneider-man, Attorney General (Sean B. Virklev of counsel), for petitioner.","caseName":"In re the Continued Confinement or Discharge of Charles B.","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of the Continued Confinement or Discharge of Charles B., from Central New York Psychiatric Center Pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law Article 10","citation":["33 Misc. 3d 769"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":6312766,"court":"New York Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"N.Y. Sup. Ct.","court_id":"nysupct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-09-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62943926,"judge":"Fahey","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-02-26T22:15:16.838994Z","date_created":"2022-02-05T19:49:16.315058Z","score":{"bm25":35.67483}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[5529477,5529895,6047185,9426191],"download_url":null,"id":6181167,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T18:47:39.184713Z","date_created":"2022-02-05T19:49:16.329610Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION OF THE COURT\nJoseph E. Fahey, J.\nThe respondent, Charles B., was civilly committed under Mental Hygiene Law article 10 on July 17, 2009. On April 19, 2010, upon the respondent’s annual right to examination and to petition the court for discharge pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09, Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, was assigned as counsel for the respondent.</","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6181167],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6235019/state-of-tennessee-v-stephen-jacob-mckinney/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Stephen Jacob McKinney","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6235019,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-01-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"E2020-01730-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":62597344,"judge":"Judge D. Kelly Thomas, Jr.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T08:44:35.299449Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T23:10:31.442737Z","score":{"bm25":28.975157}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8291,"cites":[1057573,1057668,1057793,1670534,1713739],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/stephen_mckinney_opinion.pdf","id":6101887,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/01/13/state_of_tennessee_v._stephen_jacob_mckinney.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T18:29:23.177646Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T23:10:31.456669Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"27e06e7c5422ff187b94e4b7dcc985790fe4f8a0","snippet":"                                                                                         01/13/2022\n\n\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                         AT KNOXVILLE\n                               October 27, 2021 Session\n\n         STATE OF TENNESSEE v. STEPHEN JACOB MCKINNEY\n\n                Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County\n                    No. 308197 Thomas C. Greenholtz, Judge\n                     ___________________________________\n\n          ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6101887],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Defendant, Stephen Jacob McKinney, pled guilty in the Hamilton County Criminal Court to vehicular homicide by intoxication, a Class B felony, in exchange for an eightyear sentence with the method and manner of service to be left to the trial court's determination. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court concluded that the Defendant was ineligible for probation pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40- 35-303(a), which includes vehicular homicide by intoxication as one of the conviction offenses for which probation is not available. The trial court, therefore, sentenced the Defendant as a Range I, standard offender to eight years in the Department of Correction at thirty percent release eligibility. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred by not construing Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-303(a) in conjunction with Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-213(b)(2)(B), which provides that a defendant convicted of a first offense vehicular homicide by intoxication must serve a mandatory minimum sentence of forty-eight hours of incarceration before release from confinement on probation. The Defendant contends that the statutes are not in conflict if the release from confinement in the vehicular homicide statute is interpreted as release on parole. Based on our review, we conclude that the clearly worded intent of the legislature, as expressed in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-303(a), was to remove vehicular homicide by intoxication as an offense for which probation is available. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7809521/advisory-opinion-to-the-attorney-general-re-limiting-cruel-inhumane/","attorney":"Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Louis F. Hubener III, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner., Stephen H. Grimes and Susan L. Kelsey of Holland & Knight, Tallahassee, FL, for Floridians for Humane Farms.","caseName":"Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Limiting Cruel & Inhumane Confinement of Pigs During Pregnancy","caseNameFull":"ADVISORY OPINION TO the ATTORNEY GENERAL RE LIMITING CRUEL AND INHUMANE CONFINEMENT OF PIGS DURING PREGNANCY","citation":["815 So. 2d 597","27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 71","2002 Fla. LEXIS 29","2002 WL 58560"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7809521,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2002-01-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. SC01-1367","docket_id":64814834,"judge":"Anstead, Harding, Lewis, Pariente, Quince, Shaw, Wells","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T15:49:57.068107Z","date_created":"2022-07-30T20:18:09.847409Z","score":{"bm25":21.61894}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7750498,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T13:27:49.508213Z","date_created":"2022-07-30T20:18:09.852185Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPER CURIAM.\nPursuant to section 15.21, Florida Statutes (2001), the Secretary of State submitted to the Attorney General an initiative petition which sought to amend the Florida Constitution to limit the cruel and'inhumane confinement of pigs during pregnancy. In turn, the Attorney General petitioned this Court for an advisory opinion relative to the validity of this initiative petition (hereinafter “proposed amendment”) acc","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7750498,7750499],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10830730/state-of-tennessee-v-jennifer-leigh-sexton/","attorney":"","caseName":"STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JENNIFER LEIGH SEXTON","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10830730,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":"SA","dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2026-03-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"E2024-01729-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":73123322,"judge":"Judge John W. Campbell, Sr.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-03-31T21:15:10.526124Z","date_created":"2026-03-31T21:15:09.964462Z","score":{"bm25":20.511366}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1043879,1043970,1057558,1060446,1060966,1060973,1081009,1082966,1518420,1674551,1747577,2165796,2337234,2395627,2464056,2545347,2679601,4108644,9427680,9523210,9524165,9524431,9652515,9666910,9677807,9777687,9778217],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/Majority%20Opinion%20-%202026-03-31%20-%20STATE%20OF%20TENNESSEE%20v.%20JENNIFER%20LEIGH%20SEXTON%20-%20E2024-01729-CCA-R3-CD.pdf","id":11297510,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2026/03/31/state_of_tennessee_v._jennifer_leigh_sexton.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-03-31T21:15:35.160570Z","date_created":"2026-03-31T21:15:09.980505Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f76a3762737148d921c42244487040972637047f","snippet":"                                                                                             03/31/2026\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                         AT KNOXVILLE\n                                 January 21, 2026 Session\n\n           STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JENNIFER LEIGH SEXTON\n\n                   Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County\n                          No. 120353 G. Scott Green, Judge\n                      ___________________________________\n\n     ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11297510],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Defendant, Jennifer Leigh Sexton, was convicted in the Knox County Criminal Courtof vehicular homicide by recklessness, a Class C felony; initiating a false report, a Class Dfelony; driving on a suspended license, a Class B misdemeanor; and following too closely,a Class C misdemeanor, and received an effective sentence of ten years in confinement.On appeal, the Defendant claims that (1) the trial court abused its discretion by admittingtestimony from the State's expert because the expert's method of data collection wasunreliable, (2) the trial court erred by failing to provide the Defendant's requested specialjury instructions, and (3) the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction of initiatinga false report. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2233461/new-concept-confinement-technology-feeders-inc-v-kuecker/","attorney":"Paul A. Skjervold, Skjervold Law Office, Shorewood, for appellant., John M. Sheran, Farrish, Johnson, Maschka & Hottinger, Mankato, for respondents.","caseName":"New Concept Confinement Technology Feeders, Inc. v. Kuecker","caseNameFull":"NEW CONCEPT CONFINEMENT TECHNOLOGY FEEDERS, INC., Appellant, v. Dr. R.D. KUECKER, Respondent, Dr. R.J. Diemer, Et Al., Defendants","citation":["364 N.W.2d 450","1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 3949"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":2233461,"court":"Court of Appeals of Minnesota","court_citation_string":"Minn. Ct. App.","court_id":"minnctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1985-03-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CX-84-1634","docket_id":2083243,"judge":"Popovich-, Popovich, Parker, Foley","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T09:56:46.031745Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T21:47:03.620121Z","score":{"bm25":17.898762}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":7642,"cites":[1246365,1576939,1799992,2206283],"download_url":null,"id":2233461,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T18:24:30.100589Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:45:05.113206Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e22881783a212419208411131837aff548e5d873","snippet":"\n364 N.W.2d 450 (1985)\nNEW CONCEPT CONFINEMENT TECHNOLOGY FEEDERS, INC., Appellant,\nv.\nDr. R.D. KUECKER, Respondent,\nDr. R.J. Diemer, et al., Defendants.\nNo. CX-84-1634.\nCourt of Appeals of Minnesota.\nMarch 19, 1985.\nReview Denied May 31, 1985.\n*451 Paul A. Skjervold, Skjervold Law Office, Shorewood, for appel","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2233461],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10155157/the-people-of-the-state-of-colorado-v-rodney-dewayne-mcdonald/","attorney":"","caseName":"The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Rodney Dewayne MCDONALD","caseNameFull":"","citation":["531 P.3d 420","2023 COA 23"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10155157,"court":"Colorado Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Colo. Ct. App.","court_id":"coloctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-03-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals No. 21CA0750","docket_id":68977494,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-10-22T17:33:19.157450Z","date_created":"2024-10-22T17:03:56.410050Z","score":{"bm25":16.98881}},"neutralCite":"2023 COA 23","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[118399,136998,1192052,1354430,2466680,2571584,2594239,2595020,2598170,4171048,4452819,4456707,5152430,5153260,5177605,6533269,9220317,9431581,9433487,9434666,9787103,9808711,9812697,9821253,9822733,9842108,9875674,10480904],"download_url":"https://colorado.vlex.io/vid/people-v-mcdonald-953325935/content","id":10621755,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2023/03/09/the_people_of_the_state_of_colorado_v._rodney_dewayne_mcdonald_1.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-02T23:44:38.955104Z","date_created":"2024-10-22T17:03:56.446134Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"405c0c0061bb5c7a4e0b77736aefb1a693af56ef","snippet":"\n \n \n \n\n531 P.3d 420\n2023 COA 23\nThe PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,\nv.Rodney Dewayne MCDONALD, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt of Appeals No. 21CA0750 \nColorado Court of Appeals, Division VII.\n","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10621755],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10014303/the-people-of-the-state-of-colorado-v-rodney-dewayne-mcdonald/","attorney":"","caseName":"The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Rodney Dewayne MCDONALD","caseNameFull":"","citation":["531 P.3d 420","2023 COA 23"],"citeCount":1105,"cluster_id":10014303,"court":"Colorado Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Colo. Ct. App.","court_id":"coloctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-03-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals No. 21CA0750","docket_id":68977494,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-07-25T17:04:21.177611Z","date_created":"2024-07-25T17:04:19.738339Z","score":{"bm25":16.89684}},"neutralCite":"2023 COA 23","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[118399,136998,1192052,1354430,2466680,2571584,2594239,2595020,2598170,4171048,4452819,4456707,5152430,5153260,5177605,6533269,9220317,9431581,9433487,9434666,9787103,9808711,9812697,9821253,9822733,9842108,9875674,10621755],"download_url":"https://colorado.vlex.io/vid/people-v-mcdonald-953325935/content","id":10480904,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2023/03/09/the_people_of_the_state_of_colorado_v._rodney_dewayne_mcdonald.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-02T18:14:15.666392Z","date_created":"2024-07-25T17:04:19.756358Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"de5a888e81dcded5ff2447dea3da73c5352fbea2","snippet":"531 P.3d 4202023 COA 23The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Rodney Dewayne MCDONALD, Defendant-Appellant.Court of Appeals No. 21CA0750Colorado Court of Appeals, Division VII.Announced March 9, 2023Rehearing Denied April 27, 2023Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Jessica E. Ross, Senior Assistant Attorney Gene","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10480904],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4746117/state-v-nusser/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. Nusser","caseNameFull":"","citation":["197 Conn. App. 76"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4746117,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-04-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC41937","docket_id":17077143,"judge":"Lavine; Prescott; Harper","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:46:37.178712Z","date_created":"2020-04-17T12:02:45.347517Z","score":{"bm25":16.59394}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1946517,2684618,2684619,4452684,7864448],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP197/197AP228.pdf","id":4526464,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/04/21/state_v._nusser.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T20:49:07.957914Z","date_created":"2020-04-17T12:02:45.351813Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"51c21a11857905b01c9732dc6b19230f08f094bf","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Informations charging the defendant, in the first case, with the crimes of larceny in the first degree, burglary in the third degree, and criminal mischief in the third degree, and, in the second case, with seventeen counts each of the crimes of criminal violation of a restraining order and harassment in the second degree, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Danbury, where the defendant was presented to the court, Hon. Susan Reynolds, judge trial referee, on a plea of guilty to larceny in the first degree, burglary in the third degree, and one count of criminal violation of a restrain- ing order, and the court rendered judgments in accor- dance with the pleas; thereafter, the court denied the defendant's motion for presentence confinement credit, and the defendant appealed to this court. Improper form of judgment; judgment directed. Deborah G. Stevenson, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant). Melissa L. Streeto, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Stephen J. Sedensky, state's attorney, and Warren Murray, supervisory assis- tant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4526464],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The defendant, who had been convicted, on guilty pleas, of the crimes of larceny in the first degree, burglary in the third degree, and criminal violation of a restraining order, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court denying his second motion for presentence confinement credit. The court had granted the defendant's first motion for presen- tence confinement credit and, thereafter, issued a revised mittimus. Subsequently, the defendant filed a second motion for presentence con- finement credit and, at the hearing on that motion, defense counsel informed the court that the Department of Correction had found the revised mittimus problematic and would not credit the defendant's sen- tence. The court denied the defendant's second motion, and this appeal followed. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the court abused its discretion in denying his second motion for presentence confinement credit, that his sentence was illegal because it breached his plea agree- ment with the state, and that the failure of the department to implement the revised mittimus resulted in structural error and fundamental unfairness in the sentencing process. Held that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the defendant's second motion for presentence confinement credit: a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, rather than a motion directed at the sentencing court, is the proper method to challenge the application of presentence confinement credit; the defendant never argued that there was an illegal sentence, illegal disposition, or that the sentence was imposed in an illegal manner, and he did not argue or present evidence demonstrating that his second motion fell within the narrow grant of jurisdiction provided by the applicable rule of practice (§ 43-22). Argued January 6—officially released April 21, 2020"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4675431/state-v-riddick/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. Riddick","caseNameFull":"","citation":["194 Conn. App. 243"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":4675431,"court":"Connecticut Appellate Court","court_citation_string":"Conn. App. Ct.","court_id":"connappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-11-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC41803","docket_id":16421248,"judge":"DiPentima; Keller; Prescott","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:48:13.283559Z","date_created":"2019-11-04T13:02:32.835790Z","score":{"bm25":16.47672}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1946517],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP194/194AP20.pdf","id":4452684,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/11/05/state_v._riddick.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-04T16:48:13.296666Z","date_created":"2019-11-04T13:02:32.840448Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"fad714e7b1aedfe0c2d59a93dda7a80e0ab82d9d","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Substitute information, in the first case, charging the defendant with the crimes of attempt to commit robbery in the first degree and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, and substitute information, in the second case, charging the defendant with the crime of sale of narcotics, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury, where the defendant was presented to the court, Damiani, J., on pleas of guilty; judgments of guilty in accordance with the pleas; there- after, the court, Hon. Ronald D. Fasano, judge trial referee, denied the defendant's motion to correct a judg- ment mittimus, and the defendant appealed to this court. Improper form of judgment; judgment directed. Jerome Riddick, self-represented, the appellant (defendant) filed a brief. Nancy L. Walker, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state's attor- ney, and Patrick Griffin, state's attorney, for the appel- lee (state).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4452684],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The defendant, who had been convicted, on guilty pleas, of the crimes of attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree and sale of narcotics, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to correct a judgment mittimus. He claimed that the court improperly denied his motion on the ground that he was not entitled to the presentence confine- ment credit he claimed. Held that because a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, rather than a motion directed at the sentencing court, is the proper method to challenge the Commissioner of Correction's applica- tion of presentence confinement credit, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant's motion and, therefore, should have dismissed it rather than denied it. Argued October 7—officially released November 5, 2019"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9490560/matter-of-palmer-v-town-of-new-windsor-zoning-bd-of-appeals/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Palmer v. Town of New Windsor Zoning Bd. of Appeals","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 NY Slip Op 01812"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9490560,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-04-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Index No. 9284/19","docket_id":68405054,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-21T17:49:59.414601Z","date_created":"2024-04-03T19:16:19.977587Z","score":{"bm25":15.313367}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2228831,5691212,5786971,5841847,6054117,6099808,6226469,9398646],"download_url":"http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2024/2024_01812.htm","id":9957173,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/04/03/matter_of_palmer_v._town_of_new_windsor_zoning_bd._of_appeals.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-29T12:04:17.815798Z","date_created":"2024-04-03T19:16:19.988631Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5c604f67148153beda4981388edc82e38cb881f1","snippet":"\n\nMatter of Palmer v Town of New Windsor Zoning Bd. of Appeals (2024 NY Slip Op 01812)\n\n\n\n\n\nMatter of Palmer v Town of New Windsor Zoning Bd. of Appeals\n\n\n2024 NY Slip Op 01812\n\n\nDecided on April 3, 2024\n\n\nAppellate Division, Second Department\n\n\n\nPublished","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9957173],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10362705/state-of-tennessee-v-charles-jordan-ii/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Charles Jordan, II","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10362705,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-03-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"W2024-01178-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":69780168,"judge":"Judge John W. Campbell, Sr.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-03-24T19:14:41.544808Z","date_created":"2025-03-24T19:14:41.492528Z","score":{"bm25":14.709244}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1043920,1043936,2647203],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/JordanCharlesIIOPN.pdf","id":10829293,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/03/24/state_of_tennessee_v._charles_jordan_ii.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-03T20:39:43.990449Z","date_created":"2025-03-24T19:14:41.499418Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"75f9d32b792a1ef84fa6f80d040c37a53e91b7d2","snippet":"                                                                                          03/24/2025\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                          AT JACKSON\n                                 March 4, 2025 Session\n\n              STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHARLES JORDAN, II\n\n                   Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dyer County\n                     No. 23-CR-83       Mark L. Hayes, Judge\n                     ___________________________________\n\n            ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10829293],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Defendant, Charles Jordan, II, pled guilty in the Dyer County Circuit Court to possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony crime of violence and possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he was to receive an effective ten-year sentence with the trial court to determine the manner of service. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered that he serve the sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the trial court erred by denying his request for alternative sentencing. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10347014/state-of-tennessee-v-eric-wayne-herndon/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Eric Wayne Herndon","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10347014,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-02-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"W2024-00657-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":69686792,"judge":"Judge Matthew J. Wilson","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-02-27T20:36:16.406142Z","date_created":"2025-02-27T20:15:03.601315Z","score":{"bm25":14.648743}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[108538,110138,1043997,1044002,1044025,1057558,1057596,1060945,1082862,2443840,2450122,2464098,4178360,4320502,5065055],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/HerndonEricWayneOPN.pdf","id":10813602,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/02/27/state_of_tennessee_v._eric_wayne_herndon.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T19:10:26.891325Z","date_created":"2025-02-27T20:15:03.607450Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"5a10980384630239753660c53860113632b86607","snippet":"                                                                                           02/27/2025\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                          AT JACKSON\n                         Assigned on Briefs January 14, 2025\n\n            STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ERIC WAYNE HERNDON\n\n                  Appeal from the Circuit Court for Gibson County\n                       No. H-10786 Clayburn Peeples, Judge\n                     ___________________________________\n\n        ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10813602],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"A Gibson County jury convicted Defendant, Eric Wayne Herndon, of violation of an order of protection and aggravated stalking. Defendant received an effective sentence of two years' confinement. On appeal, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for violation of an order of protection and aggravated stalking. After review, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Defendant's conviction for violation of an order of protection, and we reverse that judgment and dismiss that conviction accordingly. We also conclude the evidence was insufficient to sustain Defendant's conviction for aggravated stalking, but we determine that the proof was sufficient to support the lesser-included offense of stalking, which was charged to the jury. Accordingly, we reverse Defendant's conviction for aggravated stalking, and we remand the case to the trial court for entry of an amended judgment reflecting a conviction for stalking and for resentencing on this modified conviction."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4606947/sidney-a-berry-v-state-of-indiana/","attorney":"Attorney for Appellant: Anthony S. Churchward, Anthony S. Churchward, P.C., Fort Wayne, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Angela Sanchez, Assistant Section Chief, Caryn N. Szyper, Evan M. Comer, Deputy Attorneys General, Indianapolis, Indiana","caseName":"Sidney A. Berry v. State of Indiana","caseNameFull":"Sidney A. BERRY, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.","citation":["121 N.E.3d 633"],"citeCount":9,"cluster_id":4606947,"court":"Indiana Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ind. Ct. App.","court_id":"indctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-04-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals Case 18A-CR-1769","docket_id":14875090,"judge":"Mathias","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:32:41.832964Z","date_created":"2019-04-04T16:04:12.657705Z","score":{"bm25":14.384409}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[107465,107729,852229,852827,852949,853408,2029886,2118401,2229197,2241239,2244953],"download_url":"http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/04041901pdm.pdf","id":4384200,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/04/04/sidney_a._berry_v._state_of_indiana.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:15:05.078803Z","date_created":"2019-04-04T16:04:12.663995Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6d394d6b354361efaaee273465fa5f041da2da30","snippet":"\n\n\n  Mathias, Judge.\n \n\n  [1] This matter presents on interlocutory appeal from the Allen Superior Court's denial of Berry's motion to suppress evidence he argues was obtained through an unlawful and unreasonable search and seizure.\n  \n   1\n  \n\n\n  [2] We affirm.\n \n\n\n   Facts and Procedural History\n  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4384200],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10336410/1000-friends-of-oregon-v-city-of-portland/","attorney":"","caseName":"1000 Friends of Oregon v. City of Portland","caseNameFull":"","citation":["566 P.3d 1","338 Or. App. 123"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10336410,"court":"Court of Appeals of Oregon","court_citation_string":"Or. Ct. App.","court_id":"orctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-02-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A185656","docket_id":69656178,"judge":"Hellman","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:00:06.450374Z","date_created":"2025-02-20T16:17:27.685206Z","score":{"bm25":14.312319}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2570466],"download_url":"https://ojd.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p17027coll5/id/38019/download","id":10802998,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/02/20/1000_friends_of_oregon_v._city_of_portland.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:00:06.774137Z","date_created":"2025-02-20T16:17:27.697218Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2fa005f95a6bb6462eba7d46cc4a72855fd98ef6","snippet":"No. 125              February 20, 2025                 123\n\n          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE\n                  STATE OF OREGON\n\n               1000 FRIENDS OF OREGON,\n                Neighbors for Clean Air, and\n          Northwest Environmental Defense Center,\n                        Petitioners,\n                             v.\n                  CITY OF PORTLAND,\n               Faster Permits, and ProLogis,\n                       Respondents.\n                Land Use Board of Appeals\n  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10802998],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10319810/matter-of-salley-v-mcguinness/","attorney":"","caseName":"Matter of Salley v. McGuinness","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 NY Slip Op 00360"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10319810,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-01-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CV-24-0593","docket_id":69569495,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-23T16:16:18.272587Z","date_created":"2025-01-23T16:16:14.887111Z","score":{"bm25":14.281655}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[9908003],"download_url":"http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_00360.htm","id":10786398,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2025/01/23/matter_of_salley_v._mcguinness.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-06T17:32:19.359884Z","date_created":"2025-01-23T16:16:14.896783Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"879db25bd6cb23c5b22495b418d5a9db44567bac","snippet":"\n\nMatter of Salley v McGuinness (2025 NY Slip Op 00360)\n\n\n\n\n\nMatter of Salley v McGuinness\n\n\n2025 NY Slip Op 00360\n\n\nDecided on January 23, 2025\n\n\nAppellate Division, Third Department\n\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciar","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10786398],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9488791/state-of-tennessee-v-tina-batten/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Tina Batten","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9488791,"court":"Court of Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Ct. App.","court_id":"tennctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-03-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"M2023-00323-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":68384796,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:28:40.646059Z","date_created":"2024-03-28T15:15:03.039979Z","score":{"bm25":14.251319}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1082668,2385231],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/Majority%20Opinion%20-%20M2023-00323-CCA-R3-CD.pdf","id":9955404,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/03/28/state_of_tennessee_v._tina_batten.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:33:47.286748Z","date_created":"2024-03-28T15:15:03.041977Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"36bac36c410043bbfd4032baf8297bc776b18141","snippet":"                                                                                             03/28/2024\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                         AT NASHVILLE\n                           Assigned on Briefs March 13, 2024\n\n                    STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TINA BATTEN\n\n                 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sequatchie County\n                    No. 2022-CR-78 Bradley Sherman, Judge\n                      ___________________________________\n\n ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9955404],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Tina Batten, Defendant, entered a best interest plea to aggravated assault and possession of a firearm while under the influence in exchange for a total effective sentence of five years with the length and manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied judicial diversion and ordered Defendant to a sentence of split confinement on the basis that granting diversion would depreciate the severity of the offenses and would have a detrimental effect on deterrence. Because the trial court failed to consider the proper factors in rendering its decision to deny diversion and failed to weigh those factors, we reverse and remand the case to the trial court for reconsideration. On remand, the trial court should utilize the factors set forth in Parker and Electroplating, weigh the factors against each other, and place an explanation of its ruling on the record."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10125470/state-of-tennessee-v-ricky-rex-corlew/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Ricky Rex Corlew","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10125470,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-09-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"E2023-00831-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":69200156,"judge":"Judge Camille R. McMullen","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-09-26T20:11:29.717572Z","date_created":"2024-09-26T20:11:29.639302Z","score":{"bm25":14.10805}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8286,"cites":[110138,1053684,2431765],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/Majority%20Opinion%20-%202024-09-26%20-%20State%20of%20Tennessee%20v.%20Ricky%20Rex%20Corlew%20-%20E2023-00831-CCA-R3-CD.pdf","id":10592071,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/09/26/state_of_tennessee_v._ricky_rex_corlew.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T01:53:32.470127Z","date_created":"2024-09-26T20:11:29.650161Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ba8eb8fb8a976c73d9a8fe99dda7f99f0d3089ac","snippet":"                                                                                        09/26/2024\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                         AT KNOXVILLE\n                       Assigned on Briefs September 24, 2024\n\n              STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RICKY REX CORLEW\n\n                Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hancock County\n                    No. 22CR044        Alex E. Pearson, Judge\n                     ___________________________________\n\n       ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10592071],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"A Hancock County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant, Ricky Rex Corlew, ascharged of allowing a dog to run at large causing serious bodily injury, a Class E felony.See Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-8-408(b), (g)(4) (Supp. 2021). Following a sentencing hearing,the trial court ordered Corlew to serve two years in confinement and to pay the $3000 fineset by the jury. On appeal, Corlew argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain hisconviction because it supported his affirmative defense that he exercised reasonable carein attempting to confine or control his dog. After review, we affirm the judgment of thetrial court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9451128/state-of-tennessee-v-darious-gory/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Darious Gory","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9451128,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-12-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"W2023-00062-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":68079921,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:19:44.019808Z","date_created":"2023-12-12T04:07:59.952365Z","score":{"bm25":13.9953375}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[100951,111404,1057701,1060573,1506546,1666337,1762008,2361031,2437843,9523123,9523141,9769404],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/GoryDariousOPN.pdf","id":9908953,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/12/11/state_of_tennessee_v._darious_gory.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:21:38.396584Z","date_created":"2023-12-12T04:07:59.987381Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3a10ad3a1800f1ae67fe2ad83e5c2dda2765b5b1","snippet":"                                                                                          12/11/2023\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                          AT JACKSON\n                          Assigned on Briefs October 3, 2023\n\n                  STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DARIOUS GORY\n\n                 Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County\n                   No. 20-02078, C2003558 Chris Craft, Judge\n                     ___________________________________\n\n       ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9908953],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant of rape of a child for which he received a sentence of 60 years' confinement as a career offender. On appeal, the defendant claims the trial court erred in allowing the State, over the defendant's objection, to dismiss the second count of the indictment, aggravated sexual battery, at the close of its proof. Additionally, the defendant asserts that the demonstrative aid used by the prosecutor during jury voir dire constituted misconduct. The State insists that \"it is within the State's prerogative\" to dismiss count two and that by failing to object, the defendant has waived his claim relating to the State's voir dire. Upon our review of the record, the applicable law, and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9451961/state-of-tennessee-v-guillermo-zapata/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Guillermo Zapata","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9451961,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-12-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"W2023-00111-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":68087310,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:19:57.195138Z","date_created":"2023-12-14T01:08:35.337944Z","score":{"bm25":13.989896}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[108420,108590,110138,1043846,1057558,1058603,1060321,1060523,1075681,1080212,1081009,1082966,1441546,1518420,1628439,1652648,1673650,1674551,1677313,1723519,1724190,1736624,1747577,1753160,1757503,2399733,2416587,2456987,2464056,3216903,5068767,9772741],"download_url":"https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/ZapataGuillermoOPN.pdf","id":9909786,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/12/13/state_of_tennessee_v._guillermo_zapata.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:21:44.756306Z","date_created":"2023-12-14T01:08:35.341309Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"fa8c55f80c0b6acfb71540ca2c1c4223a2f9e5f7","snippet":"                                                                                          12/13/2023\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                          AT JACKSON\n                        Assigned on Briefs November 7, 2023\n\n              STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GUILLERMO ZAPATA\n\n                 Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County\n                    No. 12-04926       Paula L. Skahan, Judge\n                     ___________________________________\n\n       ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9909786],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Defendant, Guillermo Zapata, was convicted in the Shelby County Criminal Court of two counts of aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court merged the convictions and sentenced him to seven years, two months, and twelve days in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions, that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment based on due process and speedy trial grounds, and that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight. Based upon our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4752351/state-of-tennessee-v-richard-l-jerger-jr/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Tennessee v. Richard L. Jerger, Jr.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4752351,"court":"Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Crim. App.","court_id":"tenncrimapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-05-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"E2019-00429-CCA-R3-CD","docket_id":17139164,"judge":"Judge Thomas T. Woodall","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:14:49.777406Z","date_created":"2020-05-07T22:11:26.041334Z","score":{"bm25":13.874515}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8296,"cites":[1060502,1530366,1681933,1788314,2409174],"download_url":"http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/richard_jerger_jr._cca_opinion.pdf","id":4532698,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/05/07/state_of_tennessee_v._richard_l._jerger_jr..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:57:54.173103Z","date_created":"2020-05-07T22:11:26.050462Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0ef239dd053221a4c28573e3652aed822d575c85","snippet":"                                                                                         05/07/2020\n        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                         AT KNOXVILLE\n                       Assigned on Briefs November 20, 2019\n\n            STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RICHARD L. JERGER, JR.\n\n                 Appeal from the Criminal Court for Bradley County\n                    No. 16CR176D       Sandra Donaghy, Judge\n                     ___________________________________\n\n   ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4532698],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Defendant, Richard L. Jerger, Jr., appeals the order of the Bradley County Criminal Court revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his six-year sentence in confinement. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court."}]}