The appellant of the case is Dude Emshwiller. The appellee in the case is the State of Florida. The case is being heard in the second district of the District Court of Appeal in Florida.
Appeal
Dude Emshwiller, the appellant is appealing his original judgment and sentencing. The original sentence is for three years on the charges of grand theft.
The petitioner of the case is Edgar Paul, et al. The respondent of the case is Edward Charles Davis, III.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said he original case was heard and argued on the fourth of November in 1975. The original verdict of the case was given on the 23rd of March in 1976. A rehearing of the case was denied in May of 1976.
The original case involves a photograph of the respondent that was being used in a flyer that had pictures of active shoplifters. This photograph was used after the respondent had been convicted of shoplifting near Louisville, Kentucky. The shoplifting (petit larceny) charge was dismissed and the respondent then brought this case up against the petitioner police chiefs that issued the flyers. He states that this was a violation of his constitutional rights. The original district court that heard the case granted a dismissal motion from the petitioners.
The plaintiff and appellee in the case is Lynda L. Watt. The defendant and appellant of the case is the Police Department of the City of Richardson.
Appeal
A New York Criminal Lawyer the City of Richardson is appealing the finding of the district court that states that the strip search that was performed was constitutionally invalid.
The plaintiff and appellant of the case is Jacqueline E. Morris. The defendant and appellee in the case is Albertson’s Inc. The case is being heard in the eleventh circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.
Case History
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on the sixteenth of October in 1980, around 5:15 pm, Thelma Powell, who was an employee of Albertson’s saw a young black lady opening the cellophane wrappers of cosmetics and placing the items in her purse (petit larceny). Powell continued to watch the woman throughout the store.
The appellant in this case is Gladys Carol Hutchinson. The appellee of the case is the state of Florida. The case is being heard in the second district, District Court of Appeal in the state of Florida.
Appeal
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing is a plea of nolo contendere for drug charges that she reserved the right to review through this court and was denied the right to suppress the charges.
The plaintiff and appellee in this case is the United States of America. The defendant and appellant of the case is Roy L. Schmidt, III. The case is being heard in the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.
Appeal
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant, Roy L. Schmidt, III, is appealing the conviction that he is an Armed Career Criminal as defined by the Armed Career Criminal Act. Roy L. Schmidt, III in the original case pleaded guilty to the conspiracy of possessing a pipe bomb and of being a convicted felon with possession of the pipe bomb. He is challenging the sentencing from the district court. His reasoning is that the determination of his sentencing used a prior conviction of theft of a firearm was listed as a violent felony for the purpose of convicting him under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
The appellants of the case are Tynesha M. Rivers, Nikina D. Cunningham, and Stacy L. Rivers representing herself and as the parent/custodian of minor Tevon J. Elmore. The appellees in the case are James Donohoe, Linda Love, and a Florida Corporation, Dillards Department Store, Inc.
Case Background
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on the 20th of August in 1994, Tynesha Rivers, Nikina Cunningham, Stacy Rivers and her son Tevon all went to Dillards Department store to shop. Stacy and her son went to the upstairs part of the store and Tynesha and Nikina went to shop for shoes in the shoe department. The girls were waiting for a salesperson to bring them a pair of shoes to try on when they were approached by officer Donohoe, a security guard for the store. Officer Donohoe asked them for their identification, but did not tell them why he wanted it. The two girls gave him their identification and he took it and walked away. Tynesha continued shopping and paid for a pair of shoes.
A man was pulled-over by a police officer because the car he was driving was reported stolen. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the car did not turn out to be stolen, after all as the use of the car by the man was merely unauthorized. When the police officer arrested the man for theft of the car, the man was found in possession of a gun. He had with him in his car a loaded .25 caliber automatic pistol.
The man had the gun licensed in North Carolina when he purchased the gun there in 1973. He later moved to New York and brought the gun with him. He knew of the laws of New York regarding the possession of an unlicensed firearm but for seven years, he possessed an unlicensed firearm.
The man was charged with possession of a weapon in the third degree. But during his arraignment, the man entered a plea of guilt to the misdemeanor possession in the fourth degree.
The appellant of the case is Alma Davis. The appellee in the case is McCrory Corporation. The case is being heard in the second district of the District Court of Appeals in the State of Florida.
Appeal
A New York Criminal Lawyer said Alma Davis, the appellant, was accused and then arrested for shoplifting in one of the McCrory Corporation’s stores. She was acquitted of this crime. She then brought a lawsuit into action claiming malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and false arrest. She is appealing the decision by the district court that granted a summary judgment in favor of the defendant that dismissed the case.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff and appellee of the case is the United States of America. The defendant and appellant of the case is Paul Darvin Lamm. The case is being heard in the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.
Appeal
Paul Darvin Lamm, the defendant has been convicted and sentenced for a previous crime. The crime that is currently in question is a guilty plea to being a user of a controlled substance and possessing a firearm. This is referred to as the instant offense. His appeal is only in regard to his sentencing. He is contesting that the petty theft shoplifting charge not be included when determining his criminal history points for calculation of his prison sentencing. This appeal brings into question whether or not an offense of petty theft is similar to an insufficient funds check, which is excluded from an individual’s criminal history report under a set of specific conditions.
New York Criminal Lawyer Blog