No. Appellate courts have broad discretion to decline to hear cases in which the lower court's decision was obviously correct.
The term that describes the geographic area covered by an appeals court is known as its "jurisdiction." This refers to the territory over which the court has authority to hear and decide cases on appeal.
Formally asking the next higher court to review the case and hopefully reverse the trial court's conviction. Matters of fact are generally accepted; interpretations of law made in the trial court are the issues for appeal. So an appeals court would decide whether or not evidence should have been admitted or if proper procedure was followed. Most appeals are unsuccessful.
An appellate memo may refer to a decision of an appeals court, stating the basic facts upon which the appeal was centered and why the appellate panel decided the way it did. It may also refer to the fact that the appeals court simply decided that it has no jurisdiction, or some other reason, and that it will not hear or decide the case.
It is not unusual for brothers to have similar taste in women or in anything else. You get to decide which brother appeals to you more (unless, of course, none of them appeal to you).
I am not a criminal defense attorney. Still, You have a chance for a direct appeal. Basically, a simplistic look at the way it works is, "The Judge supervises the lawyers and the court of appeals supervises the judge." There are the charges. There is a record of the trial. There is the Judge's instructions to the jury. There is the verdict. There is the sentencing. The judge supervised all of that. If the judge did not throw out evidence related to the charges or throw out charges not supported by the evidence, or do his job in some other way, that can go to the court of appeals. An appeal court attorney looks through the transcript. If he sees items that look wrong, he writes them up and sends the appeal to the Appeals court. The Appeals court reviews the brief. It may or may not reverse the trial court on one or more issues. For example, a person may have been convicted on 10 counts. The appeal court may decide the evidence only supports 7 of the convictions. It will reverse and remain 3 of the convictions. That means the prosecutor will need to decide if he will prosecute those 3 in a new trial. Usually he does not. After that decision is made, if one or more of the convictions were the same as those reviewed by other appeal courts, and those decisions differed, then the US Supreme Court might become involved. The 9th Circuit (extremely liberal) may have decided one way, while the 5th Circuit (extremely conservative) decided the other way. The 10th Circuit (somewhat conservative) may have surprised someone. As different Courts of Appeal decide the same issues in different ways, someone calls on the US Supreme Court to resolve the issues. (The Supreme Court does not take easy cases.) Thus, the Supreme Court picks its issues. Most appeals are cert. denied. That simply means it refused to decide between the different rulings. Some are simply p c a. Which means the Appeal court ruling stands. Most criminal convictions never make it to the US Supreme Court. Those are trial court and direct appeals. Remember how I said the Judge supervises the Lawyers. There are a different category of appeals called Collateral Appeals. If your lawyer refused to discuss the trial with you before you met in court or he came to court drunk. You can tell the judge in a collateral appeal. If you discover the prosecutor committed a crime and had a witness commit perjury, you can bring that up on a collateral appeal. You get one of those to the trial court. You will need to bring up everything. There are other things you can bring up.
Formally asking the next higher court to review the case and hopefully reverse the trial court's conviction. Matters of fact are generally accepted; interpretations of law made in the trial court are the issues for appeal. So an appeals court would decide whether or not evidence should have been admitted or if proper procedure was followed. Most appeals are unsuccessful.
Actually a court of appeals cannot decide that. A court of appeals can only decide whether or not the trial court correctly followed procedures and existing legal precedence. It is entirely possible for procedures and legal precedence to be completely unfair (they have been many times) but if the trial court properly followed them, the court of appeals must support the trial court's decision. If the court of appeals decides that the trial court failed to follow procedures and/or existing legal precedent, then the case must be retried in a trial court.
If the court of appeals finds a person guilty it is usually their last recourse. An attorney will be able to help the defendant decide what to do in the case they are found guilty.
just a heads up for this, yes of course especially when the convicted didn't really commit the crime they can appeal and some convicted want to abuse the law and wants to lighten up their sentence so they will hire a criminal appeal <a href="http://www.criminalappeallawyers.co.uk/lawyers.html">lawyers</a>. There are many criminal appeal cases if you don't know about that.
Check out both schools. Talk to instructors. Ask if you can observe some classes or lessons. It is highly likely that one will appeal to you more than the others. The reasons will vary; it's up to you and the kind of instruction that appeals most.
Limited as the appeal is based on evidence already presented at trial. The GAL has presented their report to the court. Even if the appeal claims the GAL was bias in their reporting, the appeal court will merely decide to send it back for reconsideration.
- reverse and remand. - reverse in part, affirm in part. - affirm.