A pretty uninteresting lot...
State v. Bare, (08-818). Defendant challenges enrollment in Satelite Based Monitoring (SBM) based on his conviction for indecent liberties with a minor in 1998, years before passage of the law to SBM sex offenders, as an ex post facto law. Ex post facto forbids applying new crimes or enhanced punishments to actions already committed--basically on notice grounds. Defendant arguees that SBM inflicts a greater punishment than the law that made his conduct a crime when committed.
The Court found the purpose of the law was not to punish, but rather to regulate and protect, and as such is not an ex post facto violation. (eds note: yeah, right).
State v. Garcia, (08-1312). Issue: Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to stop based on a tip. Answer: Yes, because they sufficiently corroborated the anonymous tip. The anonymous informant called and said Marijuana was stored and sold at a particular residence. The resident of that address had a lengthy history of "police contact, including suspicion of narcotics and firearms offenses." Police conducted surveillance and saw two men frequently run in and out of the house from their cars, go into a shed behind the back, and return to the cars. The men carried bags. Here, this was sufficient corroboration to give rise to reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop.
State v. Goode, (08-1145). No IAC in lawyer arguing to jury client is only guilty of 2nd and not 1st degree murder, despite claim by client that this was without consent, where judge directly addressed the client on this issue on the record. No error on failure to hold competency hearing where actions of defendant's counsel waived such hearing. No error on other issues.
State v. Largent, (08-1108). Claim by surety appealing denial of motion to set aside bond forfeiture. Motion made on basis that Defendant was incarcerated in another state and that was why he failed to appear. However, notice of this basis was untimely, as the DA must be notified while the Defendant is still incarcerated.
State v. Worley, (08-1532). No error in conviction for willful failure to change address for registered sex offender (sentenced to 107 to 138 months).
On 9/14/04, Defendant reports his address at Candler Knob.
On 5/19/04, Defendent submits a change of address back to living with a friend in public housing, as he had been evicted. A Detective infomed the Housing Authority that Defendant was living there, and the housing authority threatened to evict his friend unless the sex offender moved out.
On 8/10/05, Defendant and his friend were evicted from public housing.
On 9/16/05, Defendant submitted a change of address saying he moved back to Candler Knob.
Under the law, a sex offender must submit a new address within 10 days. Defendant took 36 days to submit a new address. He claims this was because he lacked a residence and was "drifting." The Court said he should have reported wherever he actually was, therefore the conviction was valid.
(Ed note: this is really crazy. So, this semi-homeless guy who bounces around, gets evicted because the police tell the Housing Authority he is there and get him evicted. 36 days later, he finds a new place and submits his address, and they lock him up for 10 years for not reporting his address (or rather, reporting it 26 days late). That is an incredible waste of resources to lock this guy up for 10 years. I'm not sure the court got it wrong, but I am sure our legislature did.)