Join!  |   Find Us  |   Contact Us  |   Search  |   Home
Services Online Catalog Research Tools CLE News About the Library
Search our online catalog for print and electronic legal resources.

Daily Case Update Archive

As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State First District Court of Appeals, and the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  You can read the latest summaries or archived summaries from 2005 or 2006.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Members-Only discussion list.  Not a member?  Join today!

January 29, 2008

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States
 

TOPICS:
- Sentencing Guidelines
- Writ of habeas corpus
 

Ohio Supreme Court
 
No Opinions.
 
First District Court of Appeals
[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 
No Opinions.
 
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Ohio Cases
 
No Opinions.
 
U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases
 
USA v. Vowell & USA v. Pratt (January 29, 2008) (Appeal from W.D. TN)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0051p-06.pdf
-  Co-Defendants/Appellants Katherine Sue Pratt (“Pratt”) and Walter Franklin Vowell (“Vowell”) appeal the sentences imposed by the district court after they pleaded guilty to coercing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of that conduct and possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and 2252(a)(4)(B) respectively. The district court sentenced Pratt to 240 months on count one and 120 months on count two, to be served concurrently, followed by a lifetime of supervised release. It sentenced Vowell to 540 months on count one and 240 months on count two, to run consecutively, for a total of 65 years in federal prison, followed by a lifetime of supervised release. Both Vowell and Pratt filed timely appeals, challenging the procedural and substantive reasonableness of their respective sentences. Pratt also claims that the district court plainly erred by failing to notify her of its intention to sentence her above the Guidelines range. Because we conclude that both sentences were reasonable, and that Pratt had adequate notice of the district court’s intention to sentence her above the Guidelines range, we AFFIRM both sentences.
 
Wilson v. Parker (January 29, 2008) (Appeal from E.D. KY)
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0052p-06.pdf
-  Gregory Wilson appeals a district court order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Wilson raised twenty-four claims in his petition, the district court granted him a certificate of appealability as to eight claims, and this court later expanded the certificate to include a portion of one other claim. In brief, the claims before this court are: invalid waiver of Wilson’s right to counsel, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, Brady violations, failure to grant Wilson a separate trial from his co-defendant, due process violation due to admission of hair-matching evidence, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, denial of a state-court forum in which to raise the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, and failure to disclose information relating to an affair between Wilson’s co-defendant and a judge (not the trial judge) of the state court in which his trial was conducted. In expanding the certificate of appealability, we also agreed to hear Wilson’s claim that his state trial judge should have recused himself, to the extent that claim relates to Wilson’s claim that his state trial was prejudiced because of an alleged affair between his co-defendant and a different judge. After reviewing all of Wilson’s claims, we hold that none of them meets the standard required for a grant of the writ. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of the writ.
 
WebCite Citation
  OR
Keyword Search:

Daily Case Updates