Hopi Tribe v. Crozier

Hopi Appellate Court

Hopi Tribe v. Crozier

6 Am. Tribal Law 403

CourtHopi Appellate Court

DecidedJuly 28, 2005

DocketNo. 2005-CR-0322

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Am. Tribal Law 403 (Hopi Tribe v. Crozier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hopi Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hopi Tribe v. Crozier, 6 Am. Tribal Law 403 (hopiappct 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PAT SEKAQCAPTKWA, Judge.

The above matter comes before the Court on a “Motion for Re-Appeal’ filed by Defendant Keshia Crozier on April 4, 2005 and again on April 20, 2005, On June 28, 2005, the trial court held a commutation of sentence hearing, at which the defendant’s counsel, Jeff Porturiea was present. The trial court denied defendant’s Motion for Commutation, but suspended the sentence of 69(1-1) days in lieu of 2 years super-vised probation. See Order dated June 28, 2005 in 2005-CR-0322.

The Appellate Court having reviewed the above matter enters the following,

IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s April 4th and 20th, 2005, “Motions for Re-Appeal” are dismissed. Further, no appeal of the June 28, 2005 trial court order (2005-CR-0322) was taken within the 20 day limit set by H.I.R.C.C.P. Rule 37 c., thus baring an appeal of that trial court order. SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PAT SEKAQCAPTKWA, Judge.

The above matter comes before the Court on a “Motion for Re-Appeal’ filed by Defendant Keshia Crozier on April 4, 2005 and again on April 20, 2005, On June 28, 2005, the trial court held a commutation of sentence hearing, at which the defendant’s counsel, Jeff Porturiea was present. The trial court denied defendant’s Motion for Commutation, but suspended the sentence of 69(1-1) days in lieu of 2 years super-vised probation. See Order dated June 28, 2005 in 2005-CR-0322.

The Appellate Court having reviewed the above matter enters the following,

IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s April 4th and 20th, 2005, “Motions for Re-Appeal” are dismissed. Further, no appeal of the June 28, 2005 trial court order (2005-CR-0322) was taken within the 20 day limit set by H.I.R.C.C.P. Rule 37 c., thus baring an appeal of that trial court order. SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Am. Tribal Law 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopi-tribe-v-crozier-hopiappct-2005.