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, September 17, 2025

CAPTION: STATE V. THOMPSON

APPEAL NO.: C-240446

TRIAL NO.: B-2203847

KEY WORDS: DRUG OFFENSES — WEAPONS — JURISDICTION — CONTEMPT — RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT TRIAL — DUE PROCESS — CONFRONTATION — COUNSEL WAIVER — OTHER-ACTS EVIDENCE — AUTHENTICATION — FIREARM OPERABILITY — COMPETENCY — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT — CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES — CUMULATIVE ERROR 

SUMMARY: Where the defendant did not challenge the sufficiency of the indictment in the trial court, he waived that issue on appeal; the trial court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over defendant, and the judgment of conviction was not void.

Where the defendant did not appeal the entry finding him in contempt and imposing a sentence, this court lacked jurisdiction to consider the assignment of error challenging the contempt finding.

Defendant waived his right to be present at trial by refusing to attend and participate in his trial.

Defendant’s being tried despite his refusal to sign the waiver-of-counsel form was harmless error where the trial court engaged in a thorough colloquy that established defendant’s waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of defendant’s prior drug sales where the evidence was necessary and relevant to the background of the offenses and explained the issuance of the search warrant.

The trial court did not err in admitting still photos from a recording device where the officer authenticated the photos by testifying to the reliability of the recording device and the accuracy of the photos.

The operability of the firearms was proven where the officer testified that a loaded firearm was found on defendant’s bed, a firearm with ammunition was found in the headboard of defendant’s bed with mail addressed to him, and the firearms, test-fire packs, and ammunition were presented to the jury.

Defendant waived the competency hearing by stipulating to the contents of the report finding him competent.

The evidence was sufficient to prove defendant constructively possessed the firearms found on his bed and in his headboard with mail addressed to him; the State presented sufficient evidence that defendant possessed the drugs where the evidence established the drugs were found in his home, defendant prepared the drugs for sale, and defendant admitted drugs were confiscated from his home. 

The record supported consecutive sentences where the trial court considered the presentence investigation, defendant’s criminal history, which included offenses involving a firearm, the harm to the community from the offenses, and the necessity of protecting the public.

Defendant failed to demonstrate that cumulative errors denied him of due process and a fair trial where he failed to establish any instance of error.

JUDGMENTS: AFFIRMED AND APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART

JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, P.J.; CROUSE and NESTOR, JJ., CONCUR.

 

CAPTION: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION V. MCAFEE

APPEAL NO.: C-240451 

TRIAL NO.: 24CV02104

KEY WORDS: SUMMARY JUDGMENT — CIV.R. 56 — AFFIDAVITS — BUSINESS RECORDS — EVID.R. 803(6) — PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE 

SUMMARY: Plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on its action on account where the affidavit and evidence attached to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment were inadmissible.

The trial court abused its discretion when it considered the affidavit and evidence attached to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because the affidavit did not cite the affiant’s personal knowledge as a basis for the statements in the affidavit and the affiant’s job title does not create an inference that the affiant had personal knowledge of either plaintiff’s record-keeping system or documents allegedly showing defendant’s outstanding balance.

JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED

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

 

CAPTION: STATE V. MILLER

APPEAL NO.: C-240649 

TRIAL NO.: 24/CRB/11381

KEY WORDS: ASSAULT — EVIDENCE — MANIFEST WEIGHT — WITNESS CREDIBILITY — SENTENCING — RESTITUTION 

SUMMARY: Where the trial court, which was in the best position to judge the credibility of the witnesses, specifically found the victim’s testimony to be credible despite its inconsistencies, defendant’s conviction for assault was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Where defendant had a lengthy criminal record including multiple convictions for offenses of violence, and where defendant had struck the victim in her side, hit her with a kettlebell, and slammed her head on the ground, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a maximum sentence for a misdemeanor offense and in ordering defendant to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of damages that the victim testified she had incurred as a result of the offense. 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED 

JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, P.J.; BOCK and MOORE, JJ., CONCUR.