FIRST DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS

        

THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT.  THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI.  INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.

 

DATE: Wednesday, March 13, 2024

CAPTION: State v. Chasteen

APPEAL NO.: C-230174

TRIAL NO.: 22CRB-8342

KEY WORDS: Sexual Imposition – Sexual Contact – Jury Instructions – Purposely – Ineffective Assistance – Joinder

SUMMARY: The trial court did not commit plain error when it did not instruct the jury on the meaning of “purposely” in the context of the definition of “sexual contact” where the court instructed the jury to rely on its individual and collective knowledge and understanding of the meaning of any undefined terms.

Trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to request an instruction on the definition of “purposely” where it was not plain error for the court to fail to give such an instruction and counsel presented an argument based on the required element of purpose.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in joining defendant’s two counts of sexual imposition against separate victims in a single trial where the evidence of each count was simple and distinct.

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

JUDGES: Opinion by Crouse, J.; Zayas, P.J., and Winkler, J., concur.

 

CAPTION: STATE V. HARRIS

APPEAL NO.: C-230284

TRIAL NO.: B-2204945

KEY WORDS: PLEAS — CRIM.R. 11 

SUMMARY: Where the trial court was not bound by the recommended sentence in the plea agreement and explained to defendant the difference in the potential sentence as opposed to what was stated on the plea form, the trial court did not err to defendant’s prejudice in deviating from the recommended sentence in the plea agreement, especially where defendant ultimately was sentenced to the four years she had bargained for. 

Where the trial court explained the clerical error in the written plea form and confirmed defendant’s understanding of the correct potential sentence, defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered the guilty plea. 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and WINKLER, J., CONCUR. 

 

CAPTION: CARTER V. TAKODA TRAILS

APPEAL NO.: C-230329

TRIAL NO.: A-2204380

KEY WORDS: ARBITRATION — CONTRACTS — MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND COMPEL ARBITRATION

SUMMARY: The trial court did not err in denying defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration where the arbitration clause in the parties’ contract stated that it applied to any claims “arising out of” a separate contract and defendants failed to submit an authenticated copy of the separate contract into the record. 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, P.J.; ZAYAS and KINSLEY, JJ., CONCUR.