How do appealed court cases work?

Question

My son was convicted for a misdomeaner and sentenced to time in jail. He decided to petition for an appeal . If the appeal is granted when the case is reheard can the new judge give him more time than was originally given from the first hearing, by the first judge?

Answer 1

Absolutely not. To do so will be to "chill the appellate process/access to the courts." This has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court. And your concern only would apply if your son won by appeal a "new trial." That means he gets a new trial, but if convicted again he could not recieve more time than he originally recieved unless he was convicted of a crime during the time his appeal was running. The most likely scenario for appealing a misdemeanor conviction is challenging the ruling of the court that the "evidence was sufficient to support an adjudication of guilt." If that appeal is won, the higher court dismisses the charges with prejudice altogether. This means they say the trial court erred in finding your son guilty, so they "un-guilty" him and the same charges can never be brought against him again for that incident. Finally if he loses his appeal, then it is a "no harm no foul" sort of thing. Everyone just goes their merry way. Hope this answer helped.

Answer 2

Great question. Being granted an appeal doesn't mean the whole case will be re-tried. It just means there was some aspect of the case that wasn't handled according to trial rules. So, if an improper ruling was made and your son's attorney can back that up with case law, then he has the right to appeal the outcome of the case, based on that improper ruling.

The subject of the appeal would be ONLY the supposedly improper ruling... not the entire case. If the appeal is not successful, the results of the trial court stand. (No harm, no foul, no additional time ordered, etc.) If the appeal is succesful, the appellate court has three choices. It can acknowledge the appeal but say the outcome of the trial case remains the same, it can overturn the case, or it can order the case be re-tried.

What the appellate court decides is based on the impact the appealled-upon matter would have had if it had occurred the right way while the case was being tried.

Make sense?

Answer 3

I would think it would come under state law. Here in Ohio, I was charged with xyz, and the judge ruled xy was unconstitutional, but they could charge me with z alone. The prosecutor didn't like that. So he is appealing, but the appeals court will only rule as to whether the law was constitutional or not. Then it goes back to the original Judge. If that makes any sense...

Answer 4

a million. An attraction would not stay the judgment till a bond is published and a stay order entered. 2. The appellant -- it extremely is him -- has a number of remaining dates wherein he could desire to take particular strikes, inclusive of the submitting of a transcript of the trial, a quick arguing his case and in some situations formal designations of what the decrease courtroom did incorrect. 3. If he would not do all of those issues on time the attraction is undertaking to dismissal. 4. If he does, then you definately've corresponding time serious responsibilities. 5. Appeals are very technical. you're able to desire to have an lawyer propose and/or characterize you to take earnings of, and to avert falling afoul of, the various technical standards.