All Star Home Health Services Inc. D/B/A Spectrum Health Solutions and Silver Oak Management Group I, LLC D/B/A Spectrum Health Solutions v. Drake Consulting, LLC

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-25-00240-CR Bradley Oliver, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee On appeal from the 19th District Court of McLennan County, Texas Judge Thomas C. West, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 2021-499-C1 JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant appeals from a judgment revoking community supervision which was imposed on May 15, 2025 and signed by the trial court on that same date. Appellant wrote a pro se letter to the trial court asking to appeal the judgment which was mailed on July 16, 2025 and filed by the trial court clerk on July 18, 2025. Appellant was represented by court-appointed counsel prior to the imposition of sentence, and nothing in the clerk’s record indicates that his attorney withdrew from his representation of Appellant after his sentence was imposed. The trial court appointed appellate counsel for Appellant on July 25, 2025, and counsel promptly filed a notice of appeal and motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. However, a motion for extension of time may be granted only if it is filed within 45 days of the imposition of sentence. Therefore, the pro se notice of appeal filed by Appellant on July 18, 2025 and later motion to extend and amended notice of appeal were not timely and this Court is unable to grant the motion for extension of time because we lack jurisdiction to do so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1), 26.3. See also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See id. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal is dismissed. STEVE SMITH Justice OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: August 14, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Appeal dismissed; motion dismissed Do not publish CR25 Oliver v. State Page 2

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas JUDGMENT No. 04-25-00056-CR Alicia Angelita ARREDONDO, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022CR11898 Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS, JUSTICE VALENZUELA, AND JUSTICE BRISSETTE In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. SIGNED August 6, 2025. _________________________________ Irene Rios, Justice

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAOT-XX-XXXXXXX 20-JUN-2025 07:59 AM Dkt. 5 ODSLJ NO. CAOT-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I JASON FLETCHER, Petitioner, v STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent. ORDER (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka, Wadsworth, JJ.) Upon review of the record, the court finds that self- represented Petitioner Eric Fletcher's (Fletcher) April 25, 2025 Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody appears to seek affirmative relief in the nature of a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus, which this court lacks jurisdiction to decide. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that case No. CAOT-XX-XXXXXXX is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to Fletcher seeking relief from the appropriate court having jurisdiction. Dated: Honolulu, Hawai i June 20, 2025. /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Judge /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 18-JUN-2025 07:58 AM Dkt. 65 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLESTON MAHOE, Defendant-Appellant (CASE NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX) AND STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLESTON MAHOE, SR., Defendant-Appellant (CASE NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX) APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Acting C.J., and Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Charleston Mahoe, also known as Charleston Mahoe, Sr. (Mahoe), appeals from the following orders (together, the Denial Orders) entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit: (1) the February 28, 2023 "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying [Mahoe's] Motion to Dismiss Proceedings" in case no. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX (Case 823); and (2) the February 28, 2023 "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying [Mahoe's] Motion to Dismiss Proceedings," in case no. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX (Case 829).1/ On June 22, 2017, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai#i (State) charged Mahoe in Case 823 with Count 1, Assault in the Second Degree, and Count 2, Violation of a Temporary Restraining Order. On June 23, 2017, the State charged Mahoe in the 829 Case 1/ The Honorable Shirley M. Kawamura presided in both cases.  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER with Counts 1 through 3, Terroristic Threatening in the First Degree, and Counts 4 through 9, Violation of a Temporary Restraining Order. Mahoe pleaded no contest to all counts in both cases, and on December 19, 2017, the circuit court sentenced him to HOPE probation. On June 24, 2022, the State moved in both cases to revoke Mahoe's probation and resentence him. On December 22, 2022, Mahoe filed a Motion to Dismiss Proceedings (Motion to Dismiss) in each case. Mahoe argued that the Hawai#i Supreme Court's decision in State v. Obrero, 151 Hawai#i 472, 517 P.3d 755 (2022), required dismissal due to the State's failure to comply with HRS § 801-1's indictment-or- information requirement. On February 28, 2023, the circuit court entered the Denial Orders, which denied the respective Motions to Dismiss. On May, 11, 2023, the circuit court filed Orders of Resentencing Revocation of Probation. On appeal, Mahoe contends that the circuit court erred in applying "the Motta/Wells standard" to his "Obrero claim" and denying his Motions to Dismiss on that basis. After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve Mahoe's appeal as follows: The Hawaii Supreme Court has held that "Obrero applies to cases that were pending trial before the decision. Obrero does not apply retroactively to defendants who pled out or to defendants convicted after a trial." State v. Bautista, 153 Hawai#i 284, 289, 535 P.3d 1029, 1034 (2023). The supreme court further held that "defendants awaiting sentencing . . . are foreclosed from having their pleas nullified or their trial convictions overturned" pursuant to Obrero. Id. Here, Mahoe pled out, was convicted, and was sentenced to probation with special conditions before Obrero was decided. He was awaiting resentencing when he first raised his argument based on Obrero. Pursuant to Bautista, Obrero did not apply to 2  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER his cases. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in denying the Motions to Dismiss. Therefore, the respective February 28, 2023 Denial Orders entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit in Case 823 and Case 829 are affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 18, 2025. On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Taryn R. Tomasa, Acting Chief Judge Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Brian Vincent, Associate Judge Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Cly

No. 558 June 25, 2025 403 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JONATHAN CORY ANDREWS, Defendant-Appellant. Yamhill County Circuit Court 22CR50352; A185366 Cynthia L. Easterday, Judge. On appellant’s petition for reconsideration of Appellate Commissioner’s order of dismissal filed October 22, 2024. Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Rond Chananudech, Deputy Public Defender, for petition. Before Egan, Presiding Judge, Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Joyce, Judge. LAGESEN, C. J. Reconsideration allowed; order of dismissal adhered to. 404 State v. Andrews LAGESEN, C. J. This is a criminal case in which defendant filed an untimely notice of appeal. When alerted to that fact by a show cause order, defendant filed an untimely motion for late appeal under ORS 138.071(5). The court, by order of the Appellate Commissioner, dismissed the appeal as untimely. Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration, arguing that this appeal should proceed, notwithstanding its double untimeliness problem. The Appellate Commissioner referred the petition for reconsideration to the Motions Department for the purpose of resolving the matter by way of prec- edential opinion. We allow reconsideration for that pur- pose. On reconsideration, we conclude, as did the Appellate Commissioner, that defendant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal or a timely motion for late appeal means that this appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Both ORS 19.270, made applicable to criminal pro- ceedings by ORS 138.015, and ORS 138.071 generally require, among other things, that a notice of appeal be timely filed for the Court of Appeals to have jurisdiction over an appeal. ORS 19.270 (1), (2)(b). The legislature has, however, carved out an exception to that requirement in ORS 138.071(5). That statute directs that “the Court of Appeals shall grant the defendant leave to file a notice of appeal after the time limits” set forth in those statutes provided the defendant (1) files a motion that makes the showing described in ORS 138.071(5)(a) and (2) files the motion “no later than 90 days after the party receives notice that the order or judgment has been entered.” ORS 138.071(5)(c); State v. Smith, 330 Or App 397, 399, 543 P3d 1258 (2024) (describing process for filing motion for late appeal). In this case, it is undisputed that defendant neither filed a timely notice of appeal, nor filed a timely motion for late appeal. Defendant nevertheless argues that his untimely-filed notice of appeal is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court because it was filed within the time for filing a motion for late appeal, albeit without the motion required by ORS 138.071(5). In support of that argument, he points to our deci- sion in Smith. There, we concluded that the defendant’s fail- ure to include a proposed notice of appeal, as required by ORS Cite as 341 Or App 403 (2025) 405 138.071(5)(c), with the defendant’s timely-filed motion for late appeal did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to grant the timely-filed motion for late appeal. Smith, 330 Or App at 399. Defendant invites us to read Smith to stand for the following: “In short, so long as the defendant files something noti- fying the court and the state of the defendant’s intent to appeal within 90-days, the failure to comply with the many requirements for notices of appeal, including the failure to file an accompanying motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal, can be cured by timelines set by the court.” We reject that invitation for two reasons. First, it is detached from the procedure set forth by the plain terms of ORS 138.071(5). Were we to adopt defen- dant’s proposed approach, we would effectively be rewriting ORS 138.071(5) to craft a process entirely different from the one enacted by the legislature. Rewriting statutes is not part of the judicial function. Bellshaw v. Farmers Ins. Co., 373 Or 307, 326-27, 567 P3d 434 (2025). Second, defendant’s proposed approach is at odds with longstanding Oregon law treating the timelines for filing appeals as jurisdictional. In addressing whether the defect in Smith was a jurisdictional one, we looked, in part, to case law addressing what appeal-filing defects were jurisdictional and what defects were merely technical. Smith, 330 Or App at 403-04 (discussing Pohrman v. Klamath Co. Comm., 272 Or 390, 538 P2d 70 (1975)). That case law indicated that the key jurisdictional requirements were the timely filing and service of the notice of appeal, something that, in Smith, supported