Martin p kay arizona arrest record

In many states, any interested citizen may sign up for updates on an inmate. Some states limit availability of the VINE services to victims, next of kin, and witnesses. Many states also offer updates on court cases, including scheduled hearings and trials, disposition of cases, and court docket entries. The couple moved to Anchorage, Alaska , [18] where Letourneau found work as a baggage handler for Alaska Airlines. She graduated from Seattle University in with a teaching degree. The Letourneaus' marriage reportedly suffered; they had financial problems and both parties engaged in extramarital affairs.

She was seen jumping into the front seat while Fualaau pretended to sleep in the back.

Free News Delivery by Email

She and Fualaau provided false names when asked for identification and Letourneau lied about his age, saying that he was Letourneau said she and her husband had gotten into an argument, and that Fualaau, who she said was a family friend who had been staying with them that night, witnessed the argument and ran away upset. She said she left to find him. The mother was asked what should be done, and said to return Fualaau to Letourneau.

She later said that if the police had alerted her to the fact that Letourneau had lied about Fualaau's age and what had occurred in the car, she would not have allowed her son to go back to Letourneau. With more than journalists observing, [33] Letourneau pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree child rape.

The state sought to sentence her to six-and-a-half years in prison. On February 3, , [40] two weeks after completing her jail sentence, Letourneau was found by police in a car with Fualaau near her home. Letourneau initially said she was alone in the car. She and Fualaau provided false names when asked for identification.


  • Mary Kay Letourneau.
  • oil change vehicle inspection checklist?
  • find my car online with the vin?

In October , while serving her second stint in jail, Letourneau gave birth to her second daughter by Fualaau. In , Fualaau's family sued the Highline School District and the city of Des Moines, Washington , for emotional suffering, lost wages, and the costs of rearing his two children, claiming the school and the Des Moines Police Department had failed to protect him from Letourneau.

Letourneau was released to a community placement program on August 4, , and registered the following day with the King County Sheriff's Office as a Level 2 sex offender. After Letourneau's release from prison in , Fualaau, then age 21, persuaded the court to reverse the no-contact order against Letourneau.

Stay Connected

Letourneau said she planned to have another child and return to the teaching profession and indicated that by law she was permitted to teach at private schools and community colleges. Attorney Anne Bremner, who met Letourneau in during Fualaau's civil suit, said that Letourneau considered her relationship with Fualaau to be "eternal and endless". According to Bremner, "Nothing could have kept the two of them apart. I'm not ashamed of being a father. I'm not ashamed of being in love with Mary Kay.

Walters interviewed the couple about their relationship and their two daughters. On May 9, , after almost 12 years of marriage, Fualaau filed for separation from Letourneau [58] but later withdrew the filing. As of April , Fualaau was working at a home improvement store and as a professional DJ and Letourneau was working as a legal assistant. An article in People magazine quoted an insider source who said, "They know what everyone thinks about their relationship [ They really never have. The wrong stuff that happened was so long ago.

They are two grown adults who are living their lives now. The couple divorced in August From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. American teacher convicted of the statutory rape of a year old boy. Tustin, California , U. Steve Letourneau m. Vili Fualaau m.

John G. Schmitz father. Biography portal Law portal. The Kitsap Sun. Associated Press.

February 8, Retrieved September 11, The Associated Press. October 19, Retrieved April 3, March 18, The judgment dismissing the action on statute of limitations grounds is affirmed. The trial court correctly applied Rule , which prohibited plaintiffs from filing two separate lawsuits when one would have been perfectly sufficient.

Connection denied by Geolocation

Because plaintiffs could have joined all three of its claims in a single suit and no qualifying principle of res judicata applies, Rule prohibited them from filing a second suit after losing its first suit on the merits. The judgment dismissing the case on res judicata grounds is affirmed. Since she lacked standing to bring this claim herself, the circuit court did not err in denying leave to amend the complaint to name the bankruptcy trustee as the plaintiff, or to substitute the trustee for the named plaintiff. The judgment of the circuit court dismissing the action with prejudice is affirmed.

Jardines, U. Since the only fact relevant to the retroactivity determination was the date on which the petitioner's conviction became final, which was in the record and uncontested, the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the pure question of law presented by this habeas claim could be resolved solely on the recorded matters and a plenary hearing was unnecessary.

The judgment denying a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed. In Virginia, a Miller violation can be addressed on direct review or in a habeas proceeding.

Criminal Background Checks Online

Because the violation, if proven, does not render the sentence void ab initio but merely voidable, it cannot be addressed by a motion to vacate filed years after the sentence became final. The judgment of the circuit court for the plaintiff on a battery theory of liability is reversed. The instructions given reinforced the Commonwealth's burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt, and did not state that willful concealment alone satisfied the burden of proof as to the element of intent.

The instruction used in this case merely created a permissible inference that the jury was free to reject, not a mandatory presumption and, accordingly, the trial court did not err in giving it to the jury. On the whole, the instructions given by the trial court, including the finding instruction, fully and fairly covered the inferences permitted from evidence presented of willful concealment.

Nor did the trial court err in excluding a racially charged statement made by the defendant at the scene of the vehicle accident. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Nor was there any error in the trial court's refusal of a proffered jury instruction on the topic of eyewitness identification. While the defendant tendered an instruction relating to eyewitness identification testimony that was a correct statement of the law, other instructions granted in this case were sufficient to inform the jury that it could consider the reliability of the identification of the defendant, and factors noted by the defendant reflect common sense considerations.

This decision does not foreclose the use of an appropriate eyewitness identification instruction in a future case, however. There is no reversible error in the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the convictions, and it is affirmed. Here, the county did not establish an ordinance as required by subsection B. Consequently, it may not rely on subsection I of that statute as a basis to tax the TDRs at issue. While, upon request, the Commonwealth is required to provide indigent defendants with the basic tools of an adequate defense, the constitutional right to the appointment of an expert, at the Commonwealth's expense, is not absolute and an indigent defendant who seeks such an appointment must demonstrate that the assistance of an expert is likely to be a significant factor in the defense, and that the defendant will be prejudiced by the lack of such assistance.

Thus, it cannot be said that a particularized need for the assistance of a neuropsychologist was demonstrated. Market conditions can reduce the value of machinery and tools, and the fact that for a portion of the year the refinery was idled due to adverse market conditions was a relevant consideration in assessing fair market value, but the refinery did not carry its burden of proving that the refinery was overvalued as of January 1 of each of the contested years.

Finally, the county did not assume inconsistent positions in successive litigations, and there was no fatal inconsistency in its appraisals. Thus, the statutory scheme governing habeas corpus jurisdiction does not prohibit the court where the present habeas corpus application has been made from hearing this petition. The Court of Appeals correctly determined that the circuit court had sufficient evidence before it to establish both the causation and criminal negligence elements of the crime, and its judgment is affirmed.

The trial court found as fact that the ring was given as a conditional gift in contemplation of marriage. The marriage did not occur. Consequently, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. In the single-trial setting, the role of the constitutional guarantee is limited to assuring that the court does not exceed its legislative authorization by imposing multiple punishments for the same offense.

The intent of the legislature is controlling, and it may determine the appropriate unit of prosecution and set the penalty for separate violations. For the reasons explained by the Court of Appeals in its published opinion, 65 Va. In this case, the trial court correctly held that principles of sovereign immunity barred a suit plaintiff filed pursuant to that Act against the Virginia Department of State Police, an arm of the Commonwealth. The judgment dismissing the suit is affirmed. It also authorized the designation of a new beneficiary for his individual retirement account.

The award of attorney's fees is reversed and the judgment is, in all other respects, affirmed. In addition, when indemnification is dependent on performance, a cause of action for failure to indemnify accrues at breach of performance. Here, while plaintiff claimed no damages until , some injury or damage, however slight, is sufficient for a cause of action to accrue, and it is immaterial that all the resulting damages did not occur at the time of the injury.

Because any breach by the subcontractors occurred at that time, the statute of limitations has similarly run against the sureties. The judgment of the circuit court dismissing the actions is affirmed. The fact that an appellate court had jurisdiction based on a notice of appeal that was filed protectively, does not necessarily divest the trial court of all jurisdiction to act on certain matters. Although the Court of Appeals did not address the merits of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion on the alternative basis that the defendant had failed to prove manifest injustice, a ruling that was fully supported by evidence in the record.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed as right for the wrong reason. In an attempt to defuse the situation and protect himself and his family, defendant retrieved his own gun from another room. When the defendant returned, the victim pointed his gun at defendant who, fearing for his life, shot the victim. These facts support the defendant's claim that he shot the victim in self-defense. The proposed witnesses would have provided both direct probative evidence on the issues, and proof corroborative of the testimony of the expert witness.

The error was not harmless in this case, and the matter is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Services v. While the parties' agreement provided for different caps in separate subsections, the plain language does not contemplate that more than one of these caps would be applicable where, as here, the damages of the party entitled to indemnity all result from the same conduct.

The circuit court erred in not limiting the defendants' liability to indemnify the purchaser to damages that escrow cap. A purchaser must look to the title papers under which he buys, and is charged with notice of all the facts appearing upon their face, or to the knowledge of which anything there appearing will conduct him. A person with notice, actual or constructive, of a defect in his title is not entitled, upon being dispossessed by the rightful owner, to recover compensation for permanent improvements made on the premises, and these principles are applicable on the present facts.

Based upon long-standing common law principles, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed. The evidence failed to prove that certain zero balance credits created liability on the garnishee bank to the judgment debtor. When these balance credits are removed, the sum of the outside deposits is the amount subject to garnishment, and this matter is remanded for determination of these outside deposits to the account, payable to the judgment creditor.

Under governing constitutional case law, this statute does not support a public policy Bowman claim for wrongful termination in this case. The provision is unconstitutional as applied to private consensual sexual activity between adults, and can no longer provide the basis for a valid allegation of wrongful termination whether the employee accedes to the demands or is terminated for refusing the demand.

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to show that she was asked to engage in any public sexual activity.


  • Inmate Roster.
  • town of dickinson ny property records;
  • News Flash;
  • city of phoenix registered sex offenders?

The circuit court did not err in finding that no reasonable jurist could find that the peer leader did nothing at all for the decedent's care, and thus there was no question for the jury, and the circuit court properly granted the defense motion for summary judgment. The judgment of the circuit court against the plaintiff successor landowner is affirmed. Failure to obtain a warrant was not necessary in light of the vehicular exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.

Accordingly, because the special district tax is not subject to the partial exemption, the trial court was correct, albeit for the wrong reason, in ruling that the special district tax is not a real estate tax within the meaning and for the purposes of the partial exemption. Its judgment is therefore affirmed via application of the right result for the wrong reason doctrine.

Accordingly, the portion of the April 14, order holding the senators and the Division in contempt is vacated. The portions of the February 16, order that are inconsistent with this opinion are likewise vacated, and the case will be remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The judgment for plaintiff is reversed and final judgment is entered for the defense. A trial judge has the power to correct a written statement at any time while it remains in the office of the clerk after notifying counsel and providing an opportunity for a hearing. Thus, as long as a proposed written statement of facts was timely filed and the notice and hearing requirements are satisfied, this correction power allows a trial court to enter a revised version of a timely filed statement of facts. In this case, the statement of facts signed by the circuit court judge was timely filed in the circuit court and complied with the requirements of Rule 5A:8, and was properly part of the record as an authoritative account of the events that occurred at trial in lieu of a transcript.

The Court of Appeals erred by ruling that there was no such statement of facts in the record for its consideration. The award of punitive damages is reversed in this case, the judgment is affirmed in part, and final judgment is entered for the plaintiff on the remainder of the circuit court's award. A two-year convalescence period is available to injured service members in applying for reinstatement to a former civilian position.

However, Sections and of the Act afford returning service members protection only during the act of rehiring. Because there is no dispute in this case that the defendant Sheriff promptly rehired the plaintiff as a deputy upon her return from military deployment, the circuit court properly granted summary judgment to the Sheriff. Title 38 U. No claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act is involved in this appeal. The judgment dismissing claims against the defendant Sheriff is affirmed.

The petitioner had no federal constitutional right to counsel in his probation revocation hearing and, under United States Supreme Court case law, he could not meet the requirements of review regarding a due process right to counsel because he admitted violating his probation by committing new crimes and did not otherwise contest revocation, and he did not present any circumstances mitigating or justifying the violation.

Thus, his probation revocation hearing was not one in which fundamental fairness gave rise to a due process constitutional right to counsel. Therefore, petitioner could not have been denied the effective assistance of that counsel. Because the habeas court erred in ruling otherwise, the judgment granting the petitioner a delayed appeal is reversed.

Therefore, the decision of the Commission is affirmed. Nor is the record sufficient to convict the defendant of this offense as a principal in the second degree. Thus, the rationale used by the Court of Appeals to affirm his convictions for assault and battery of a law enforcement officer and obstruction of justice is not valid. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and final judgment is entered. The other encompassed offense, addressed in its second prong, requires a specific intent, but the crime of credit card theft under the first prong of the statute is completed when the credit card or number is unlawfully taken from its rightful owner.

This is a general intent crime completed upon an unlawful taking and does not require that the Commonwealth allege or prove the specific intent required to support a conviction under the second prong of the statute. The judgment upholding the conviction on this charge is affirmed. No election official in the Commonwealth may enforce them. The Secretary of the Commonwealth, the State Board of Elections, the Virginia Department of Elections, and their employees, agents, chairpersons, and commissioners, are ordered to take specified actions to satisfy their duties to ensure that only qualified voters are registered to vote.

The requested writ of mandamus is issued to that effect; a writ of prohibition is denied. Prejudice to the Commonwealth is a relevant factor that should be considered when reviewing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, and in this case it cannot be said that the trial court erred by weighing the equities and considering the resulting prejudice to the Commonwealth due to the lengthy delay between the defendant's entry of his guilty plea and his motion to withdraw that plea.

Nor can it be said that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the prejudice to the Commonwealth outweighed any equities that favored granting the motion. Further, the defendant did not demonstrate an immediate, real threat to his safety, and thus did not have a defense of necessity to a charge of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a felony. The judgment of the Court of Appeals, upholding the judgment of the circuit court, is affirmed. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed on the grounds explained here.

Nor was the royalty owed if the sublicensees used this technology at an off-site location. Both provided concurrent primary liability coverage and, as a result, the judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part. The case is remanded for the circuit court to determine the appropriate pro rata contributions from each insurance source to the costs of defense and indemnification associated with settlement of the underlying liability suit.

The provision, known as a possibility of reverter at common law, lawfully vested the beneficiary of that interest with the reversionary interest. The case is remanded for entry of a final order consistent with this opinion, to be filed in the land records, and the circuit court may in its discretion make an additional award of fiduciary compensation. In the de novo appeal, the circuit court likewise lacked subject matter jurisdiction, because its subject matter jurisdiction was derived from and limited to the subject matter jurisdiction of the court from which the appeal was taken.

The judgment of the circuit court is vacated, thereby restoring each of the parties to their status prior to the commencement of the unlawful detainer proceeding. Thus, the decision of the trial court to grant a motion to dismiss on this ground is reversed. The trial court also erred in denying motions in limine with regard to the separate value of the coal reserves on the property, as well as a surface mine that was not contemplated at the time of the taking. However, considering the the unity of lands doctrine, the court did not err in denying a motion in limine with regard to evidence of the devaluation of the neighboring tracts owned by the landowner that were not part of the take because here, there is evidence from which a jury could find a unity of use.

The judgment is affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and the matter is remanded. State Industries, Inc. The judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed. Petitioner demonstrated that he had a strong desire to wish to maintain his immigration status and remain in this country, and a basis for doing so, and that he conveyed this position to his defense attorney prior to accepting the plea agreement.

The evidence further supported a finding that a fact-finder could have found him not guilty of the hit and run offense. The record therefore supports the judgment of the trial court that a decision to reject the plea agreement and proceed to trial would have been rational.

The judgment of the habeas court is thus not plainly wrong or without evidence to support it and, accordingly, is affirmed. While difficult to establish, the specific agreement between a testator client and an attorney concerning the drafting of a will could identify an intended third-party beneficiary. The judgment for plaintiff is affirmed.

The judgment overturning the result of the grievance procedure is reversed and final judgment is entered for the grievant. The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia upholding the conviction is affirmed. The judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint of a former employee is affirmed. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and final judgment is entered in accordance with the jury verdict and sentencing order.

Her contract with the developers provided that she would receive a particular subdivision lot, but years later it was sold to a builder. A constructive trust is an equitable remedy available under specific conditions and when legal remedies, such as monetary damages, would be insufficient. Accordingly, the trial court erred when it imposed a constructive trust upon the remaining subdivision lot of the developers, in which a bank had a secured interest. The judgment is reversed in part and final judgment is entered. The statute provides that all real property used for open or common space shall be construed as having no value in itself for assessment purposes.

Its only value lies in the value that is attached to the residential or commercial property which has a right by easement, covenant, deed or other interest. The common area is not exempt from taxation but the statute sets the value for assessment purposes as the value the common area provides to the dominant estate i. This is not the value of the fee of the common area itself, but the value by which access to and use of the common area augments the value of the lots.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, the assessments are vacated, and final judgment is entered for the association. Applying the four-factor test recognized in Virginia case law, focusing on the state interests and control of the activities of the defendant and her exercise of judgment and discretion in rendering nursing care to the plaintiff, the facts of the present case, in light of legislation enacted by the General Assembly, demonstrate that it was not error to sustain the plea.

For the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals of Virginia in this case, Wallace v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. The condemnation of additional land by the city was not governed by the subdivision plat note waiver, but the landowner failed to present any evidence damages could be apportioned and thus the entire judgment is reversed. On the evidence, the defendant cannot be found liable for breach of contract and the trial court erred in not striking the evidence on that theory.

Nor did the defendant disclose or use the trade secrets in violation of the Trade Secrets Act, and nothing in the nondisclosure agreement or that Act required the defendant to use plaintiffs as subcontractors. The rules of contract law do not apply to the teaming agreement because it is merely an agreement to agree to negotiate at a future date, and accordingly plaintiffs are not entitled to damages for breach of the teaming agreement.

The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and final judgment is entered with respect to certain claims. There is no such language in these deeds. Aireco Supply, Inc. The judgment is reversed, and the action is remanded. The limitations period on those claims began to run at that point and expired two years later on her birthday in March The judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered in favor of the sanctioned attorneys. There is no basis for declaring the multiple term-of-years sentences imposed to be cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment.

Nothing in governing constitutional case law dictates that multiple sentences involving multiple crimes be treated, for Eighth Amendment purposes, in exactly the same manner as a single life-without-parole sentence for a single crime. Doing so would require extension of the categorical rule of case law far beyond any binding precedent, embracing a wholly new doctrine that is constitutionally unnecessary and jurisprudentially imprudent.

The Court of Appeals did not err in denying their petitions for appeal, and the judgments are affirmed. The circuit court is directed to reconsider the petition after making findings on disputed allegations of material facts. The Commonwealth may obtain an indictment from the grand jury charging an offense for which the district court has previously found no probable cause, and the indictment against this defendant was not amended.

There is no factual support for the contention that defendant was denied his right to represent himself at trial. He had multiple opportunities to raise his right to self-representation and, when the case came on for trial, he was asked whether he wished to represent himself at trial, he informed the judge that he did not. Although the defendant argues the Commonwealth did not establish due diligence in obtaining its evidence for trial, he fails to allege any harm to him resulting from a two-week continuance that was granted.

Gordon Assocs. The judgment finding the design engineers liable under the engineering contract for breach of the applicable engineering standard of care is also affirmed. Because the record also supports the finding that the agreements did not transfer liability for design defects to the construction contractor that built the rain tank structure in accord with the plans, and that the defective plans were the sole proximate cause of its collapse, the circuit court did not err in finding that the contractor was entitled to be paid for removal of the collapsed tank and installation of a replacement system, or in passing the liability for paying the contractor on to the engineers.

The award of damages in the form of extended construction loan interest which was not incurred by the church as a result of the breach of contract is reversed, and that amount will be deducted from the judgment. The judgment is reversed. Certified Question 1 , alternative a is answered in the affirmative by the holding that the executive order constitutes a partial pardon.

Certified Question 2 is answered in the affirmative: the actions taken by the Governor of Virginia in the executive order are valid under the Virginia State Constitution. The original complaint identified the correct defendant involved in a traffic accident, but used an incorrect last name in naming her, a misnomer.

Search Any Background Checks

Here, the plaintiff filed the present complaint within that six-month period and correctly named the defendant. The matter is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Because federal law prohibits the making of a golden parachute payment under the circumstances presented in this case, that section of the employment agreement in this case is void and unenforceable.

Furthermore, the former executive may not collaterally attack the prohibition as an unconstitutional taking without just compensation, because the validity of the law rendering performance impossible does not affect the validity of the defense, provided the promisor relies upon the law in good faith, and nothing in the record suggests that the bank refused to make the golden parachute payment to plaintiff in bad faith.

Considering the pleadings and documents brought before the circuit court for consideration on the demurrer by craving oyer, the plaintiff failed to show that it was situated similarly to another land owner which was granted an extension on its conditional use permit for a sign under county ordinances. Nor did plaintiff demonstrate that granting an extension of its permit was in the public interest.

The judgment of the circuit court granting a demurrer and dismissing this action with prejudice is affirmed. Lambert Coal Co. The other defendant in this case admitted that it had guaranteed payment in full of the deferred purchase price. The circuit court correctly concluded that there was no material fact in dispute and summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on its contract claim was appropriate. The circuit court also did not err in denying a continuance on the pending summary judgment motion based on discovery requests the defendants filed only five days before the hearing.

Judgment for plaintiff is affirmed. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in allowing her claim for timber trespass to go the jury. An applicant who has been convicted of a felony prior to his or her application cannot fulfill this statutory condition precedent, and is not eligible to be hired.

Martin PK - BEAUTIFUL JESUS- OFFICIAL VIDEO

The statute is not ambiguous, and there is no inconsistency between this section and other Code provisions relating to school boards and teacher hiring, termination, or licensure by the Board of Education. Because of a prior conviction, the teacher in this case could not fulfill the statutory condition precedent to employment and the school board lacked authority to hire her, or to make a continuing contract with her the following year. The continuing contract therefore is ultra vires and void ab initio. There was no showing that the teacher reasonably relied on representations of the board to her detriment and, since the contract was void ab initio, it cannot form the basis for a claim of estoppel.

Nor did a conditional use permit and state regulations mandate that plaintiff place the required amount of top soil on the property prior to closing, since there never was such a warranty in this case and, even if there had been, it could not have been violated prior to closing. Nor can an anti-merger clause, absent express language stating otherwise, extend a contractual warranty beyond the closing date that, by its very terms, has no post-closing applicability.

The judgment for the defendant on its counterclaim is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The sentencing orders were final, appealable orders under Virginia law and no precedent recognizes a Sixth Amendment right to counsel to pursue a motion to reconsider a sentence after the entry of final judgment. The writ of habeas corpus, therefore, was properly issued for these reasons, and the judgment is affirmed. Petitioner was required to prove his claim that defense counsel disregarded instructions to prosecute an appeal. While petitioner argues that the evidence contained ambiguities or inconsistencies on the issue of whether such instructions were provided, here there was credible evidence to support the finding by the habeas court that no such instructions were given, and it cannot be said that the circuit court's finding was plainly wrong or unsupported by credible evidence.

A sanction can protect litigants from the assertions of unfounded factual and legal claims and against the assertions of valid claims for improper purposes. Sanctions can also be used to protect courts against those who would abuse the judicial process. The judgment awarding sanctions is affirmed.

The Commonwealth need not present medical testimony to prove bodily injury resulting from strangulation; however, if the Commonwealth presents evidence sufficient to prove that unlawful pressure to the neck was applied to a victim and that it resulted in unconsciousness, this is sufficient to prove the element of bodily injury.

Proof of some form of bodily injury is required to support conviction under this statute. The judgments are affirmed. This bright-line rule is not limited to cases in which the prior sentence was imposed by a jury, and applies equally to sentences imposed by a judge. The case is remanded for re-sentencing in accord with this opinion. Thus, a retired worker whose work-related injury causes total incapacity need not produce evidence of a pre-injury intent to reenter the workforce.

In this case, the deputy commissioner correctly found that the claimant was totally disabled and that he lacked all earning capacity and, therefore, he is entitled to temporary total disability compensation. Therefore, petitioner was not unlawfully detained because of that Virginia conviction, at the time he filed his habeas petition. Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court dismissing the petition for want of jurisdiction must be affirmed. The misdemeanor charge was part and parcel of the same incident and the same alleged course of criminal conduct as the charged murder and attempted murder.

All three charges required proof of the same issue of ultimate fact: that the defendant fired a weapon at a vehicle in a parking lot outside a nightclub on a specific evening. Upon the entry of a final judgment of acquittal on the misdemeanor, the Commonwealth was precluded from trying the defendant on any other charge for which that specific fact was necessary to prove as an element of the crime. In this case when the Commonwealth obtained felony convictions that relied on that specific fact, it put this defendant twice in jeopardy for the same offense and violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the judgments of conviction and dismissing the felony indictments is affirmed. The judgment is reversed and final judgment is entered ordering the payment of the awards to the personal representatives. The evidence adduced at trial by the Commonwealth in this case was insufficient to prove that that the contractor received a statutorily compliant letter demanding a return of the advance of money he had previously received from the homeowner.

The conviction is reversed. The attorney had informed petitioner that he was not an immigration attorney and advised her to consult one, but his deportation advice was correct regardless of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of her presence in the United States. The judgment of the circuit court denying the application for a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed. Selective Insurance Co.

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Hence, a demurrer should have been granted. The judgment is reversed and final judgment entered in favor of the insurer. It also erred in excluding evidence of prior rulings in the contempt proceeding relevant to the issue of bad faith in the present contract action. Chicago Title Insurance Co. Because the former wife made no affirmative, inconsistent representation to the divorce court, judicial estoppel is inapplicable as a matter of law in this case.

The judgment declaring that the lender holds a valid first deed of trust lien against the entire fee simple interest of both former spouses is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and, with respect to several documents, the matter is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings in accord with this opinion. Defense counsel's questioning of a police witness about tips implicating other individuals did not "open the door" to substantive use of the tip regarding this defendant.

The error in permitting this proof was not harmless under non-constitutional principles. Upon review of the entire record, it cannot be said with fair assurance that the jury was not substantially influenced by the erroneous admission into evidence of the substance of the tip implicating the defendant. That part of the Court of Appeals' judgment reversing the convictions and remanding the case for retrial if the Commonwealth be so advised is affirmed. Rule 5A:3 d provides that any document required to be filed with the clerk of the Court shall be deemed to be timely filed if 1 it is transmitted expense pre-paid to the clerk of this Court by a third-party commercial carrier for next-day delivery, and 2 if the official receipt therefor be exhibited upon demand of the clerk or any party and it shows such transmission or mailing within the prescribed time limits.