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
- Lawyer publishes first of three children’s books
- MDHHS to issue maternal health quality payments to hospitals
- Charges amended on two Warren police officers
- No charges yet in weekend crash that killed two siblings at Michigan birthday party
- Justice Dept. launches updated voting rights and elections website
headlines National
- New Legalese: You may have heard a deepfake, but what about ‘Twiqbal’?
- From Intake to Outcome: An in-house lawyer’s guide to matter management solutions
- 2 BigLaw firms in merger talks that could produce 1,600-lawyer firm with top 50 revenue
- Send in the paralegals
- Lawyer reprimanded after mistakenly emailing opposing counsel with plan to avoid judge’s call
- ‘I don’t play well’ judge who threatened to track down, jail misbehaving litigant gets tossed from case