WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says a person convicted of a crime and later ordered to pay the victim must file a separate appeal to challenge the order.
The justices recently ruled 6-2 against a Florida man who was convicted of possessing child pornography and ordered to pay $4,500 to cover the victim’s loss.
Marcelo Manrique appealed his conviction, but not the restitution order, which came about two months later.
Manrique argued his initial appeal covered the later judgment.
But the Supreme Court said he should have filed a second appeal when restitution was ordered.
A federal appeals court also ruled against him.
The decision clarifies an area of law that has confused lower courts about when appeals must be filed to challenge orders that can come months after conviction.
- Posted April 26, 2017
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Justices require new appeal for challenging victim awards
headlines Macomb
- Toasting three decades of success
- Court rules absentee ballots with mismatched or missing stubs can’t be counted
- Man sentenced for arson, first-degree animal torture/killing
- St. Clair Shores man arraigned for intentional threat to commit act of violence against a school
- Nessel files reply calling for full public hearings on DTE’s data center application
headlines National
- The business of successfully running an in-house department
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Justice Gorsuch writes children’s book about ‘Heroes of 1776’
- Companies use ‘deceitful tactics’ to market harmful ultra-processed products with ‘addictive nature,’ city’s suit alleges
- Lawyer accused of trying to poison her husband
- ‘Lawyers Gone Wild’? Filmmaker criticizes bar as he seeks ethics probe of serial killer’s daughter for alleged lie
