Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a court-appointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal of a criminal case because of his belief that any grounds for appeal were frivolous.
All parties must present grounds to appeal, or it will not be heard. By convention in some law reports, the appellant is named first. This can mean that where it is the defendant who appeals, the name of the case in the law reports reverses (in some cases twice) as the appeals work their way up the court hierarchy. This is not always true, however.
The presiding judge should give reasons for the decision, whether the appeal is allowed or refused. Irrespective of whether the convicted person is against sentence or conviction, he has not more than 21 days after sentence or the date sentence is deferred, whichever is earlier, to lodge a notice of appeal. [10]
Appeals against sentence following conviction on indictment: A person convicted in the Crown Court may only appeal against sentence with a certificate of the trial judge or leave of the Court of Appeal. [10] For this purpose, sentence includes any order made by a court when dealing with the offender. [11]
American English and British English have diverged significantly on the topic of appellate terminology. [3] American cases go up "on appeal" and one "appeals from" (intransitive) or "appeals" an order, award, judgment, or conviction, while decisions of British courts are said to be "under appeal" and one "appeals against" a judgment. [3]
The U.S. Bill of Rights. Article Three, Section Two, Clause Three of the United States Constitution provides that: . Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have ...
Appeals and post-conviction cases, by their very nature, focus on legal errors, not factual disputes. Indeed, it is unclear whether proof of actual innocence is, in and of itself, grounds for appellate reversal. Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) Convicted persons have two avenues for attacking the validity of their conviction or sentence.
An attorney may also raise an objection against a judge's ruling, to preserve the right to appeal that ruling. Under certain circumstances, a court may need to hold some kind of pretrial hearing and make evidentiary rulings to resolve important issues like personal jurisdiction, or whether to impose sanctions for extreme misconduct by parties or counsel.