Subscribers to the Criminal Defense Resource Center’s online resources, found at www.sado.org, have access to more than 1,800 appellate pleadings filed by SADO Attorneys in the last five years. The brief bank is updated regularly and is open to anyone who wants to subscribe to online access. On our site, briefs are searchable by keyword, results can be organized by relevance or date, and the pleadings can be filtered by court of filing. Below are some of the questions presented in briefs added to our brief bank in the last few weeks. For confidentiality purposes, names of clients and witnesses have been removed.
BB 282171: Judge Strong erred by refusing to accept Defendant’s guilty plea.
BB 281908: Defendant must be resentenced because the sentencing judge wrongly thought he was required to impose a maximum term in keeping with the Tanner two-thirds rule.
BB 281908: Because the evidence did not show that Defendant’s tongue actually touched the complaining witness’s genitals, the evidence was insufficient to convict him of first-degree criminal sexual conduct.
BB 282172: Defendant is entitled to resentencing because the minimum term was an unreasonable and disproportionate upward departure from the recommended guidelines range.
BB 282299: Even if this appeal were justiciable, the prosecutor’s voided plea conditions violated the Michigan constitution’s separation of powers.
BB 282376: The circuit court erred when it resentenced Defendant to impose a lifetime tether because MCL 750.520n(1) does not require lifetime electronic monitoring for a first degree criminal sexual conduct conviction unless the offense involved a victim who is younger than 13 and a defendant who is older than 17.
BB 282417: The evidence was insufficient to prove that Defendant and the complainant were members of the “same household,” and was thus insufficient to prove first-degree criminal sexual conduct.
BB 282973: The trial court reversibly erred by failing to respond to defendant's objection to information contained in the presentence report; this error requires resentencing as a matter of due process, US Const, Ams V, XIV; const 1963, Art 1, § 17.
BB 282991: The trial court plainly erred in denying Defendant credit for time served in the instant case, in violation of his federal and state statutory and constitutional due process rights.
BB 283074: Defendant entered an involuntary plea in violation of the state and federal due process protections.
BB 283310: The admission of Defendant’s statements violated due process because his waiver of his constitutional rights was not voluntary. He should be granted a new trial on all counts.
BB 283408: Defendant was not advised fully as to the offense he was pleading to; thus his plea was involuntarily entered in violation of the state and federal due process clauses
BB 283639: Defendant should have been allowed to withdraw his plea where his attorney was constitutionally ineffective when he failed to review fully the discovery received before advising him to enter into a plea.
BB 283804: The imposed life without parole sentence violates Defendant’s Eighth Amendment and Due Process rights where the court failed to adhere to individualized sentencing, failed to properly consider and apply the Miller factors, and failed to apply the proper standard of review.
BB 283831: The sentence is invalid because the trial court did not have authority to reject defendant’s offer on the record to plead guilty as charged when prosecutor explained that the sentences would run concurrently, and then, later, accept the plea and sentence defendant to consecutive sentences on all 12 counts; overriding the prosecutor’s charging decision was a violation of the separation of powers, violating Defendant’s right to due process under the law; US Const, Ams V, XIV; Const 1963, Art 1, § 17
BB 283831: Defendant is entitled to resentencing because his sentence minimum term was an unreasonable and disproportionate upward departure from the recommended guidelines range.
BB 283831: The order of restitution granting compensation to law enforcement employees who were performing their duties and where there is nothing in the record to support either the actual loss or defendant’s obligation to pay restitution to the designated individual is invalid.
BB 283841: Defendant was denied due process of law by the unduly suggestive one-photo lineup procedure.
BB 283841: Defendant was denied a fair trial by the prosecution’s failure to produce an important res gestae witness; the witness was endorsed and the prosecution failed to exercise due diligence to produce the witness; defendant was entitled to the missing witness instruction; defendant was severely prejudiced and is entitled to a new trial.
BB 283808: Defendant is entitled to plea withdrawal because the trial court abused its discretion in denying this request, which was made before sentencing; due process requires that defendant be allowed to withdraw her plea in the interests of justice
BB 283708: Because Defendant did not waive and was thereby deprived of the right to counsel at his guilty plea and sentencing, his plea was involuntary and must be withdrawn.
- MAACS 2015 Orientation and Annual Fall Training Materials
- Spotlight On: Suzanna Kostovski
- Local Success: March, 2017
- SADO/CDRC Expert Witnesses Database Updated