Articles Posted in Criminal Appeals

In 2003, James Eugene Grissom was imprisoned after being convicted on a rape charge; the rape allegedly occurred in 2001. In August of 2012, newly discovered evidence in the case led to the Michigan Supreme Court granting relief to Mr. Grissom, who had appealed for a new trial. According to the State Appellate Defender’s Office website, the alleged victim was found to have made several false rape allegations, and Grissom was granted a new trial. The case against the defendant was dismissed on November 19, 2012, and Grissom walked free after spending nine years in prison for a crime it appears he did not commit.

Circuit Judge Cynthia Lane dismissed the charges against Grissom, who looked around briefly and for the first time in nearly 10 years saw no fences confining him and wore no shackles. The Port Huron man said in regards to his release, “I didn’t think it would be this long.”

At the time of Grissom’s trial in 2003, the other rape allegations which had been made by the alleged victim, Sara Ylen, were not known by either the prosecution or defense. While the identity of victims involved in sex crimes are often not revealed, Ylen had come forward and approached the Times Herald to share her story.

Grissom was found guilty on two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct at trial, and sentenced by a jury to 15 to 35 years in prison. However, Ms. Ylen’s credibility came into play after she allegedly told family members, friends, and the police that she had been raped numerous times. Ylen also claimed that after the alleged rape by Grissom, she was kidnapped and raped in California during that same year. However, while Ylen reported the attack to police soon after, she failed to include details that she was allegedly raped during the incident until more than a year later.

Grissom’s appeals lawyer Christine Pagac said that her client should be granted a new trial because of new evidence which clearly made Ylen appear as though she was not credible, following the false claim that she was kidnapped and raped in California.

Ultimately, the case against Grissom was dropped this past November and he has now been set free to go on about his life.

Michigan sex crime defense attorneys know that these types of situations are extremely common, and that many innocent people sit behind bars because they have been wrongly accused. While we may never know if Ms. Ylen was sexually violated by Mr. Grissom, it is apparent that she was not credible and seemed to create drama.

Continue reading

In 2004, Bobby Ferguson allegedly assaulted and beat an employee with a pistol after suspecting that the employee was having an affair with Ferguson’s wife. The employee, Kennedy Thomas, was left with permanent and severe health issues according to news reports, which state Thomas now has permanent brain damage and head pain, making him disabled and unable to work.

Thomas sued Ferguson over the incident in 2007, saying that after getting involved in an argument about Ferguson’s wife, he was struck in the head with a pistol. Ferguson said that he believed he used an ashtray in the assault, and that he did not use a gun. He also stated that he did not believe Thomas was seriously injured, and that Thomas’s doctors were deceived regarding his medical condition.

Eventually Thomas was awarded $2.6 million by a jury, but that amount was reduced later to approximately $860,000 by Wayne Circuit Judge Wendy Baxter, the judge who heard the case.

Ferguson eventually pleaded guilty to assault, but appealed the verdict after the civil award left him owing Thomas such a substantial amount of money. His reasons for appealing included that a doctor who testified in the original trial was not qualified, that the verdict was flawed for countless reasons, and that Kennedy Thomas’s lawyer did not play fair. The Michigan Court of Appeals did not go for it, and ultimately tossed out Ferguson’s appeal.

Thomas filed a cross-appeal, and was awarded an additional $400,000 by the panel who found that he was entitled to some of the expenses which the judge had denied initially. Ultimately, Ferguson’s appeal efforts have left him owing more compensation to Thomas rather than less.

Individuals who have been convicted of a crime are not always guilty of the crime they are accused of; additionally, defense lawyers may fail to provide an effective defense. Michigan criminal appeals attorneys know how to determine if your rights may have been violated, if your sentence was excessive in comparison to the offense committed, and other factors that may make you eligible for an appeal.

Continue reading

Earlier this month, the Michigan Court of Appeals overturned a conviction against Kazem Hammoud, who was arrested for driving on a suspended license after he failed to signal that he was making a right-hand turn.

Hammoud was stopped by Dearborn police, and told the officer that his license had been suspended. However, prosecutors at trial failed to produce evidence that proved Hammoud had been formally notified of the license suspension. This resulted in the Michigan Court of Appeals throwing out the charge; Hammoud cannot be charged again for the same offense. The defendant had previously been sentenced by the district court to 24 months probation, and ordered to serve the first 30 days in jail.

Although Hammoud admittedly told the police officer who pulled him over that his license had been suspended, he argued to the appeals court that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to prove that he had been properly notified according to MCL 257.212. The appeals court agreed with Hammoud, due to lack of evidence that the defendant was notified of suspension of his license by the secretary of state via personal delivery, or through first-class United States mail.

Case files show that the appeals court found that “although the evidence showed the defendant had actual knowledge of the suspension, evidence of the defendant’s actual knowledge alone does not satisfy the element of notice required by MCL 257.904(1).” Essentially, prosecutors in the case did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hammoud received official notice of the suspension.

Continue reading

In a decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals made on December 20th, Darryl Willard Cain, the defendant-appellant, had his argument that convictions for carjacking and unlawfully driving away in a motor vehicle violated both the Michigan and United States Constitutions rejected. Cain claimed that the conviction violated double jeopardy clauses; the court found that convictions for both offenses did not offend the double jeopardy clause.

The incident occurred in Detroit in June of 2010. According to court documents, Cain carjacked the victim, Courtney Spires, as he was sitting at a red light in his mother’s 1995 gold Saturn. Spires claimed that Cain came up to his driver’s side window, pointed a gun and demanded that he get out of the car. Cain also demanded the victim take off his Timberland boots and pants, which Cain also allegedly stole along with a cell phone and wallet. Cain then proceeded to get into the car, and a woman got into the passenger seat. The van that Cain had been in prior to the carjacking then followed Cain and the passenger as they drove off in Spires’ mother’s Saturn.

Upon locating the Saturn in a backyard, police officers also found a Ford Explorer which was determined to be a stolen vehicle. Cain and two others were then arrested. Cain told Grosse Pointe Park police during questioning that he did not carjack anyone, and that someone had told him about the stolen cars; he also denied owning the gun.

In October of 2010, Cain was convicted on several charges which included felon in possession of a firearm, felony firearm, two counts of receiving and concealing a stolen motor vehicle, carjacking, and UDAA (unlawful driving away of an automobile).

The Michigan Court of Appeals found that the double jeopardy argument made by the defendant did not offend the clause due to elements of each offense that do not apply to the other.

Continue reading

Individuals who are arrested for DUI and subsequently convicted often feel that the punishment they face doesn’t really “fit” the crime. What happens if you and your attorney feel that the sentencing handed out was excessive, or even reached due to legal error? Some individuals believe that once the sentence is given, there is no going back, nothing can be changed. However, you can consult with a Michigan criminal sentence appeals attorney who can help determine if you may be able to appeal the sentence. Whether at the federal or state level, those convicted of driving under the influence typically have the option to appeal. This simply means that a higher court will examine the facts of your case and come to a conclusion regarding whether certain legal factors could have led to either a conviction for DUI, or harsh sentencing.

When is the best time to appeal a DUI conviction?

Immediately. The sooner you appeal your DUI conviction or sentence, the sooner the process will move forward. In the majority of cases it takes months for an individual’s appeal to go in front of the court and be decided.

What happens during the appeal process?

First, it is important that you realize that the appellate court will examine the evidence and details of the lower court’s case against you, and that any “new” evidence will not be permitted. The appeals process is simply a re-examination of what occurred in the original case, reviewed by a higher court and different eyes. It is every appellant’s hope that the higher court in an appeals process will have a different perspective or outlook.

What part do you play in the appeals process?

As the appellate, you should prepare to argue that the decision made in your case was affected by mistakes made during the legal process, and that the jury’s decision was swayed by these mistakes. When you file an appeal, you are essentially claiming that your case should be dismissed, or that the sentence is too harsh for the offense for which you were convicted, and that you desire a retrial or to be re-sentenced. Either way, you must state these facts in your appeal.

In addition, you will be required to provide a written brief to the court. Be aware that while your brief challenges the harshness of your sentence or your conviction, the prosecution will do the same – file a brief upholding the sentence or conviction. In some situations, you may be required to participate in oral arguments before the appellate court in order for a decision to be reached.

Continue reading

If you have been convicted of an offense such as sexual assault, drug possession, drunk driving or even homicide, you may be wondering how to appeal the conviction, or if it is even an option. It is important that you select an experienced Michigan criminal appeals lawyer with a good reputation and positive results; in fact, if you have great trust in the attorney who originally represented you at trial, you may want to ask him or her for guidance.

Interview prospective lawyers before you make a hasty decision
Never feel uncomfortable about evaluating an attorney before you make a decision. Ask those you interview about their years in practice, and what portion of their practice is dedicated to criminal defense. Today, there are many lawyers who seem to be “jack of all trades,” who handle not only criminal cases, but divorce, personal injury, even business law or bankruptcy. It is to your advantage to choose a Michigan criminal appeals attorney who focuses solely on criminal defense. Like other professions, an attorney cannot be an expert in every aspect of the law!

Keep in mind that one appellate lawyer is not necessarily as effective as another
Years of experience, how aggressive an attorney is, even his or her intelligence – these are all factors that may impact whether an appeal is a success or failure. It is essential that you hire a highly regarded quality appellate attorney, as with most appeals it is an uphill battle and one that requires a capable lawyer with a proven track record.

Other things to consider
In your search for a capable criminal appeals lawyer in Michigan, it never hurts to ask for trustworthy recommendations. You may ask co-workers, family members, friends, anyone you trust. Most lawyers today also maintain a website advertising their services, and often you can find client testimonials on the site, or articles regarding previous cases they have won. Even then, it is critical that you speak with the attorney in person. Additionally, you may want to do a little research to determine if the lawyer you are considering has been cited for any ethical violations.

When questioning an appellate attorney, consider the answers he or she gives carefully. No criminal appeals lawyer can guarantee the outcome you want. Expect candid replies to your questions, even if it means that there are no options left.

Continue reading

Chad Curtis, a former Major League Baseball player, was charged with six counts of criminal sexual conduct in May of this year after allegedly engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with teenage girls attending Lakewood schools, where Curtis was a volunteer at Lakewood High School.

Since that time, there have been hearings and pre-trial motions which have challenged the rulings made by Judge Amy McDowell; now, the case will go to the Michigan Court of Appeals. Instead of the original trial date set for January 14 in Barry County Circuit Court, the trial is slated to begin in early May. David Dodge, Curtis’ attorney, chose to challenge motions that he lost before Judge McDowell, arguing that Chris Ellsworth, Barry County Assistant Prosecutor, was a witness necessary to Curtis’ defense; because Dodge wanted Ellsworth to take the witness stand, he motioned to have the assistant prosecutor disqualified.

According to news reports, Dodge is questioning a meeting that took place between Ellsworth and an individual who has now been identified as a victim, although the individual was reportedly a witness at the time of the meeting. Allegedly, the witness described an event between herself and Curtis to Ellsworth, but the conversation was not recorded, nor was there a third party present to witness the conversation. Dodge feels it is necessary that Ellsworth testifies as to what was discussed in the conversation, since the former witness is now supposedly a victim.

Essentially, Dodge’s motion to have the assistant prosecutor disqualified was denied by Judge McDowell, who said that the pertinent information, depending on Dodge’s questioning skills, could be revealed during the alleged victim’s testimony. Dodge also argued about an expert psychology witness that he feels should be able to testify regarding behavioral science specific to his case and client, but the judge ruled that the witness could testify only to general principles. It is expected that the Court of Appeals will rule on Dodge’s challenges to the judge’s rulings sometime in late March.

Continue reading

Kevin J. Moore had been serving a life sentence after being convicted on a charge of first-degree murder for an offense he allegedly committed in Detroit in 2000. Now, a federal appeals court has overturned the conviction, throwing out incriminating statements made by Moore while he was being interviewed by police during his interrogation.

News reports claim that unusual circumstances led to the 2-1 decision made in the court early in December. Reportedly, Moore had requested that police call an attorney for him as he was being interviewed regarding the shooting which took the life of the victim, Hyshanti Johns. The attorney could not be reached when police attempted to contact him; the subsequent statements made by Moore without the presence of his lawyer were then used against him.

Moore requested an appeal, saying that the incriminating statements he made should have been thrown out of court because he requested an attorney. Police claimed that the conversation which ultimately convicted Moore was initiated by him, and not police. The appeals court determined that Moore did not waive his right to a lawyer, and sided with him. According to news reports, Moore will remain free unless another trial is held within six months.

Michigan murder appeals attorneys know that police often use intense pressure in order to get innocent people to say things they do not mean – in fact, the interrogation can be so excruciating and drawn out that people have admitted guilt when they were in fact innocent. Prosecutors are relentless in their efforts to secure a conviction. Today, the number of guilty verdicts being overturned on appeal even in the case of murder or homicide is proof that innocent people indeed spend time in prison for crimes they did not commit.

Continue reading

In 2010, Julie Mae Wright-Allen died after being involved in a crash in which her husband’s SUV collided with a speeding Grand Rapids police patrol car. Her husband, Ronald Lee Allen, was convicted on charges of operating a vehicle with a suspended license causing death.

Allen, 32, appealed the conviction, but the state Court of Appeals upheld it according to recent news reports. On February 21 of 2010, Allen and his wife were in a GMC Jimmy with two other people when Allen allegedly drove through a flashing red light, colliding with Officer Greg Bauer who was in a patrol car. The crash caused the SUV to roll; Wright-Allen died after suffering fatal head injuries.

According to news reports, Officer Bauer had a flashing yellow light, and thus the right of way. At the time of the accident, Wright-Allen was on maternity leave from the Cracker Barrel restaurant in Grandville, where she worked. She was a mother of a 1-month-old baby and a 2 year old, both girls.

Soon after the deadly crash occurred, Wright-Allen’s family questioned the officer’s speed. While it was alleged that Bauer was driving 25 mph, Allen’s mother said that “You are not going to tell me that, going 25 mph, you are going to flip and SUV.” Sgt. Steve Labrecque of the Grand Rapids police said that he did not believe Bauer was driving too fast, and that ultimately the SUV blew the red flashing light, causing it to turn around and roll over. Labrecque also stated that Bauer saw the SUV coming and tried to avoid it by hitting the brakes, but could not.

It was later determined that Bauer was driving 44 mph in the 25 mph zone. In his appeal request, Allen argued that the jury originally was not adequately instructed by the trial judge regarding the officer’s speeding, and that it could a causing factor in the crash. However, the appeals panel said that at the time of the trial, Allen’s trial attorney had no objections as part of the trial strategy.

Allen argued that Bauer’s speeding in a high traffic area was “grossly negligent,” however the Court of Appeals held that gross negligence could not be adequately established on violating the speed limit on its own. The appeals panel upheld Allen’s conviction writing that evidence concluded that Allen was not paying attention, drove through a flashing red traffic light and was intoxicated when the crash occurred.

Continue reading

It was recently determined by the Michigan Court of Appeals that the mandatory life sentence handed out to juveniles convicted of first-degree murder is unconstitutional. This development unfolded following the case of Miller v. Alabama, a case which held that sentencing juveniles to life in prison is essentially cruel and unusual punishment, and violates the Eighth Amendment. However, there approximately 350 individuals currently serving life sentences for murders which were committed as juveniles in the state of Michigan; as of now, it looks like those who are already imprisoned will serve the full sentence.

Approximately two weeks ago, the state of Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that 21-year-old Raymond Carp who was convicted of stabbing a woman to death in 2006 when he was 15 years old must serve out his sentence of life in prison. Carp requested a hearing for new sentencing after Miller v. Alabama, however the judges rejected his request.

Miller v. Alabama was a case in Alabama in which it was found that juveniles are not fully developed intellectually and less mature than adults, and therefore less culpable than adults in the case of serious criminal offenses such as murder. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the argument in this case, saying that lower courts must take into consideration factors such as maturity and age when juveniles are accused of murder.

In the case of People v. Carp, the life sentence was upheld after the Court stated that Miller v. Alabama is not a substantive rule change, but a procedural rule change. The Court determined that the rule change does not meet criteria which would allow it to be retroactive. Ultimately, under Michigan law the change does not apply to offenders such as Carp who have exhausted direct appeals, but applies going forward. Some attorneys predict that Carp’s case will be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Michigan criminal appeals attorneys agree that sentencing a juvenile to life in prison without the possibility of parole for first-degree murder or any offense is extremely harsh punishment. Essentially, young people who are not fully developed mentally or mature have their entire lives and futures taken away from them.

Continue reading