Josh Gentry – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Josh Gentry tied his NCAA record for efficiency on December 22, 2014. The Cal State Fullerton Titans won their home game against the Texas A&M-CC Islanders with a 20 percent efficiency. Gentry had 14 points, six rebounds, and three assists. Here are some highlights from Gentry’s career. The article also includes the last known address, name, occupation, and date of death for the Appellants.

Appellants’ counsel

Weldon Patrick Gentry appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated. He was sentenced to ten years in prison and now seeks a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He claims that his counsel was ineffective during his guilt/innocence trial. He failed to cross-examine State witnesses or present an argument before the jury. He also argues that his counsel was ineffective during the punishment phase of the trial, in which he allowed the prosecution to stipulate to all the aggravating evidence and failed to present any extenuating evidence.

Gentry claims that his counsel failed make a closing argument. However, this could have been a trial strategy decision. In Ransonette v. State, no closing argument was presented and there was no clear reasoning as to why counsel had chosen not to make one. As a result, Gentry’s ineffective assistance claims fail on this stage. Further, Gentry must show that his counsel’s performance fell below the standard of reasonable representation, as established by Texas case law.

Appellants’ counsel Joshua Gentry’s appeal is based on the grounds that Smith did not submit an adequate defense to the motion to suppress evidence. As the only party to this appeal, the court will review the case in light of the evidence presented. In addition, Gentry’s counsel did not cross-examine Smith during the bench trial, which is a sound trial strategy. This decision will therefore not be reviewed in retrospect.

The case in this case involves a young girl who was left with her mother during the holidays. The woman testified that Celeste had exchanged Jailyn with her mom every time Celeste left the home. The testimony of the child, who shared a bond with her mother was important. The Circuit Court ruled that the appellants’ motion for suppression of evidence was inappropriate. The trial should be continued.

Last known address of appellants

The Board’s failure to mail Appellants’ appeals on time demonstrates that the notice was not properly served. The Board should have mailed a notice to Appellants’ home addresses in St. Paul and Washington, D.C., rather than relying on the Appellants’ last known address in St. Paul. Appellants would have had enough time to appeal if a notice was sent to the St. Paul address.

Unless the petition is personally served, the court must serve the petition on the attorney or the last known address of the party. If the party does not have an address, service can be left at the clerk of court. In Beckstrands’ case, they failed to provide their last known address. They wrote to the clerk of court, stating that they would not be able to find their address for an indeterminate time. The letter was also sent by them to their attorney at the Missionary Training Center’s last known address. This was not their last known address.

The appellants’ last known address was No. 24, Agba Street, Inside White House. Effurun for many years. On 14th December 2015, the appellant allegedly moved to Oleh Street, DDPA, Effurun. The bailiff’s substituted service by pasting was effected on that address, over one year before Appellant’s last known address.

Although the complaint and summons of the plaintiffs identified the subject premises as the last known address of the Appellants, the names of the Appellants remained in the mailbox. Although the process server tried to make personal service on the appellants three times, and each time they failed, the plaintiffs failed to show that the Appellants had engaged in conduct that prevented service. Thus, the court rejected the plaintiff’s motion to strike the summons and complaint.

Last known name of appellants

In this case, the Appellants are Darrell Gentry and Joshua Gentry. The Appellants filed their original petition on June 30, 1898. They amended it on August 19 and the court issued summons to defendants to appear on Monday, September 2. The defendants filed a demurrer opposing the plaintiff’s point and the facts of their claim. The case was under advisement.

Jonse Miller’s wills contained strict provisions. This resulted in a lawsuit filed to break these provisions so that the estate could be distributed as if Jonse Miller died intestate. The Plaintiffs were comprised of twenty heirs at-law and three executors, all prominent Gentry County businessmen. They also claimed that they owed more than what they had received.

Last known occupation of appellants

The parties in this matter are the Gainsco Companies and Kentucky Farm Bureau Insurance Company. The Gainsco Companies appealed, arguing that the Appellee failed prove that the defendants actually knew about the property in question. The Appellee is seeking a summary judgment order that requires the parties to pay a substantial amount. Barton D. Darrell and Paul T. Lawless represent the Appellee.

Jonse Miller didn’t appear to be the owner of any of these parcels. He may have sold them when the patents were issued. In the 1860 US Census, E. J. Miller was living in a boarding house in Albany. He was renting a house from Daniel Brown, who owned a tailor shop. On the day of the census, E. J. Miller was living in a boarding house with Daniel Brown, a tailor. Also, the 1860 census shows that Daniel Brown was a mechanic and tenant merchant.

The petition was filed June 30, 1898. On August 19, 1898, the court issued a summons to the defendants, to appear before the court on the second Monday of September. The defendants filed a demurrer on that date, objecting both to the plaintiff’s point as well as its factual basis. The case was continued on advice. After the appellants’ denials were disapproved by the trial court, the plaintiffs were awarded a trial by jury.

At trial, the appellants’ first witness, Celeste Gentry, testified that he had used drugs and was working as a LPN. She said that Joshua had left Jailyn with her mother almost every day because he was working long hours. She testified that she doesn’t spend much time with her daughter and is concerned about her safety. However, she did admit to leaving Jailyn with her mother, because she believes the child’s bond is stronger than that between father and daughter.

Appellants’ last known profession

Lea D. Smith, the plaintiff in this case, appealed from the summary judgment against her and Travis Carpenter, Clinton Township police sergeant. The order denied the Appellants’ motion to summary judgment. This was based upon claims that they were not liable. The appellants contend that they were entitled to due process and proper review. They claim that they were denied this opportunity because of Joshua Gentry’s wrongful arrest and subsequent detention.