State v. Causer
v.
Dana Causer, Defendant and Appellant
Judge John C. McClintock, Jr.
| Appellant: | Pro se | |
| Appellee: | Lonnie Olson , State's Attorney |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
I. Whether Causer Was Denied Due Process When Probation and Parole Failed to Serve Him with Proper Notice.
II. Whether Causer Was Denied Effective Assistance of Counsel.
III. Whether the States Attorney Abused Causer's Right to Counsel.
IV. Whether Causer Was Properly Notified of His Right to Appeal.
V. Whether Causer Was Denied Counsel on Appeal.
VI. A) Whether the Court Erred in Revoking Causer's Probation for Refusing to Answer the Door of His Residence When Police and Probation Were Knocking.
B) Whether the Evidence Obtained Were the Fruits of an Illegal Entry of Causer's Residence.
VII. Whether the Court Erred in Revoking Causer's Probation for Allegedly Possessing Alcohol.
VIII. Whether the Court Erred in Revoking Causer's Probation for an Alleged Violation of a Restraining Order.
IX. A) Whether the "Dangerous Weapons" Clause of Causer's Rules of Probation Was Too Broad.
X. Whether the Court Erred in Revoking Causer's Probation for a Lapse in Court Ordered Treatment.
XI. Whether the State Proved That Causer Consumed Methamphetamine and Not the Over-the-counter Drug Known as "Sudafed."
XII. Whether the Case at Bar Is Based on Passions and Prejudices Rather than Facts.
XIII. Whether the Court Erred in Finding Causer a Danger to Society and Sending Him to Prison.
XIV. Whether Ordering Probation after Punishment Illegal.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. The Defendant was not Denied Due Process
II. The Defendant was not Denied Due Assistance of Counsel
III. No One Abused the Defendant's Right Right to Counsel
IV. Whether the Defendant was Notified of His Right to Appeal
V. Whether the Defendant was Denied Counsel on Appeal
VI.(a) The Court Properly Revoked the Defendant's Probation for Refusing to Answer the Door to Probation Officer
(b) Whether the Evidence Obtained in Violation of Law
VII. Whether the Court Properly Revoked the Defendant's Probation for Illegally Possession Alcohol
VIII. Whether the Court Properly Revoked the Defendant's Probation for Violating the Restraining Order
IX. Whether the Dangerous Weapons Clause of the Defendant's Probation was Overly Broad
X. Whether the Court Properly Revoked the Defendant's Probation for Failing Court Ordered Treatment
XI. Whether the Court Properly Revoked the Defendant's Probation for Using Methamphetamine
XII. Whether the Court Revoked the Defendant's Probation Based Upon Fact
XIII. Whether the Court Properly sent the Defendant to Prison
Add Docket 20030124 RSS