Podcasts about record no

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Granted Appeal Summary Case JEREMY WAYNE AKERS v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (Record Number 190094) From The Court of Appeals of Virginia. Counsel Darrell W. Craft (Law Offices of Darrell Craft, P.C.) for appellant. Nathaniel S. Griffith (Office of the Commonwealth Attorney) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The trial court abused its discretion by saying it had no jurisdiction to act under the “Motion for Modification of Sentence pursuant to § 19.2-3032 of the Code of Virginia and New Hearing” and by default, the Appellant, Mr. Akers, was sentenced to the remaining 2 years 6 months of incarceration in the Virginia Department of Corrections. 2. At oral argument and over the objection of counsel for Mr. Akers and Stokes v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 388, Record No 0090-12-1, (2013), (Court of Appeals of Virginia, Chesapeake), the trial court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to act on the “Motion for Modification of Sentence pursuant to §19.2-303 of the Code of Virginia and New Hearing” since the DOC had picked up the Appellant five (5) days prior to the hearing. Mr. Akers, through counsel, believes under these facts, with a court order, the trial court had jurisdiction to act. 3. At oral argument and over the objection of the Appellant, the trial court failed to hold that Appellant's procedure due process rights that were violated with no post deprivation remedy (As raised, but not acted on in Stokes v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 388, Record No 009012-1, (2013), (Court of Appeals of Virginia, Chesapeake). Counsel specifically raised the issue of due process rights being violated and by doing so, argued that there was no post deprivation remedy once Mr. Akers was picked up by the DOC or some state employee. This issue left unresolved in Stokes, and which was given to the trial court to first consider, was clearly preserved for appeal. 4. At oral argument and over the objection of the Appellant, the trial court failed to recognized jurisdiction even though the act of picking up the Appellant by the DOC or some state employee violated the Appellant's rights pursuant to the 5th Amendment of The United States Constitution, the 8th Amendment of The United States Constitution, the 14th Amendment of The United States Constitution and Article I. Bill of Rights, Section 8, Criminal Prosecutions, of the Constitution of Virginia. http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190094.pdf    

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Andrew Gilbert Schmuhl, Appellant, against Record No. 181596 Court of Appeals No. 1572-16-4 Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee.   Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals of Virginia.   In this case, we awarded appellant an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed appellant’s convictions for two counts of abduction with intent to gain pecuniary benefit, two counts of aggravated malicious wounding, two counts of using or displaying a firearm during the commission of an aggravated malicious wounding, and burglary while armed with a deadly weapon. See Schmuhl v. Commonwealth, 69 Va. App. 281, 312-13 (2018).   We have considered the record, briefs, and arguments of counsel, and for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, we will affirm the judgment.   Source Document: http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1181596.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Paul Jonas Crwn, Jr., No. 1690588, Petitioner, against Record No. 171622 Harold W. Clarke, Director ofD.G.C., Respondent.   Upon a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus   Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on December 6, 2017, I the rule to show cause, the respondent's motion to dismiss, petitioner's reply, the findings of fact submitted by the Circuit Court of Dickenson County, petitioner's objections to the findings of fact, petitioner's opening brief, the respondent's brief, and the argument of counsel, the Court is of the opinion that the motion should be denied and that the petitioner is entitled to relief.   Source Document: http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/orders_unpublished/171622.pdf

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals of Virginia.   Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and argument of counsel, the Court is of the opinion that there is no error in the judgment of the Court of Appeals.   Juan Amarndo Candelaria appeals from a judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming his convictions of arson of personal property and conspiracy to commit arson in violation of Code §§ 18.2-81 and 18.2-22. Candelaria v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0470-17-4,2018 WL 2204480 (Va. Ct. App. May 15, 2018) (unpublished). In its judgment, the Court of Appeals assumed without deciding that the circuit court erred in admitting certain hearsay evidence but held that any errors constituted harmless error. Candelaria asserts here that without the hearsay evidence, the evidence of his guilt was not overwhelming and, therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in finding the admission of such hearsay evidence was harmless error... Source Document: http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/orders_unpublished/180759.pdf  

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com   From the Court of Appeals of Virginia   In this appeal we determine whether the evidence adduced in a criminal trial was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Code § 18.2-374.3(D), which prohibits the use of “a communications system . . . for the purposes of soliciting, with lascivious intent,” an adolescent between the ages of 15 and 18 to commit certain sexual acts as specified by Code § 18.2-374.3(C).   Procedural History:   This case is before us following an appeal and remand to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, which originally decided the issue in an unpublished opinion. Murgia v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0788-16-1 (May 30, 2017). In that opinion, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of Mark David Murgia, in the Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake, for the criminal solicitation of a sixteen-year-old female high school student (“A.L.”) using a communications system in violation of Code § 18.2-374.3(D). Relying on Ford v. Commonwealth, 10 Va. App. 224 (1990), the panel majority concluded that the words used in Murgia’s text messages to A.L. “standing alone” were merely expressions of his own sexual desire and did not constitute an entreaty or effort to persuade A.L. to engage in any illegal sexual conduct as required to support a conviction for a violation of Code § 18.2-374.3(D). The dissenting member of the panel concluded that the panel majority had disregarded the standard of review by failing to defer to the findings of fact made by the trial judge in Murgia’s bench trial.   The Commonwealth sought a review of the Court of Appeals’ decision in this Court. While that appeal was pending, this Court issued its opinion in Dietz v. Commonwealth, 294 Va. 123 (2017). Dietz involved the application of Code § 18.2-374.3(B), which prohibits the use of “a communications system . . . for the purposes of procuring or promoting the use of a minor” for taking indecent liberties with a child or for the production of child pornography. In affirming Dietz’s conviction, we concluded that the gravamen of the offense was whether “the purpose of Dietz’s communication was to move forward with a scheme of taking indecent liberties with [the minor] as proscribed under Code § 18.2-370, though such crime under Code § 18.2-370 may not have yet been completed.” Id. at 137.   Although Dietz involved the application of a different subsection of Code § 18.2-374.3, the rationale of our opinion upholding the conviction was potentially applicable to any act of sexual solicitation under the general scheme of that statute. Accordingly, by order entered on March 22, 2018, we granted the Commonwealth’s appeal and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to reconsider its ruling in light of our decision in Dietz.   Upon remand, the Court of Appeals received the parties’ briefs regarding the potential application of Dietz. Thereafter, the Court issued an order dated June 19, 2018 stating that it “does not believe Dietz is applicable to this case” and again reversed Murgia’s conviction for the reasons stated in the panel’s original opinion of May 30, 2017.   We now consider the merits of the Commonwealth’s appeal. The Commonwealth appeals from the Court of Appeals’ decision reversing Murgia’s conviction by its May 30, 2017 opinion and its June 19, 2018 order. The Commonwealth has assigned four errors to the decision of the Court of Appeals. However, these may be reduced to the composite issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the evidence adduced at trial, and the reasonable inferences that the factfinder could draw therefrom, was insufficient to support Murgia’s conviction for violating Code § 18.2-374.3(D). For the reasons that follow, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Murgia’s communications with A.L., when viewed in the overall context of his relationship with A.L., constituted a violation of the statute... Source Document: http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1180946.pdf  

In the late 60s and early 70s Scholastic Magazines Inc.'s Enrichment Materials Inc. label released the "American Document" series of records, which dramatized historical documents for educational purposes. Record No. 18 presented the Supreme Court cases Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The records were produced by Martha Huddleston, directed by Bob Bell, and scripted by Elise Bell. The records included a study guide with additional information and suggested questions.Side B is titled "Integrated Education: U.S. Supreme Court, Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, 1954." It features narration by Peter A. Douglas, Roy Heatherton as Chief Justice Warren, songs performed by Lorenz Graham and others, and sound effects by Ralph Curtiss. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In the late 60s and early 70s Scholastic Magazines Inc.'s Enrichment Materials Inc. label released the "American Document" series of records, which dramatized historical documents for educational purposes. Record No. 18 presented the Supreme Court cases Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The records were produced by Martha Huddleston, directed by Bob Bell, and scripted by Elise Bell. The records included a study guide with additional information and suggested questions.Side A is titled "Black and White: Separate but Equal, U.S. Supreme Court, Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896." It features narration by Peter A. Douglas and songs performed by Lorenz Graham and Ray Heatherton. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.