|
|
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.
|
Daily Case Updates
|