Facts
- Javier Alfonso Martinez was charged with felony cruelty to animals and misdemeanor possession of controlled substance paraphernalia based on an incident where he allegedly threw his dog to the ground and hit it twice [lines="17-18"].
- During the trial, law enforcement officers testified that they witnessed Martinez abuse the dog, and a veterinarian found no injuries to the dog following the incident [lines="50-76"].
- Martinez claimed he was not under the influence during the incident and denied the allegations, arguing he merely spanked the dog for running into the street [lines="66-71"].
- The trial court considered whether to give a unanimity instruction regarding the separate acts of throwing and hitting the dog but ultimately decided against it [lines="88-90"].
- Martinez was convicted on both counts, and the trial court imposed a 364-day sentence for the misdemeanor, which was challenged as exceeding statutory limits [lines="90-96"].
Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in not providing a unanimity instruction, which would require jurors to agree on which act constituted animal cruelty [lines="102-103"].
- Whether the district attorney committed prosecutorial misconduct by allegedly misstating the law and pushing the jury to find guilt without unanimous agreement on a specific act [lines="237-238"].
Holdings
- The trial court did not err in failing to give a unanimity instruction, as the acts of throwing and hitting the dog constituted a single discrete criminal event [lines="232-234"].
- The district attorney did not commit prejudicial misconduct, as the jurors were not required to agree on the specific act, only that Martinez committed an act of animal cruelty [lines="249-255"].
- The trial court acknowledged the misdemeanor sentence was excessive and reduced it from 364 days to 180 days [lines="35-36"], [lines="278-279"].
OPINION
*1 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jacob Scott Goodwin, Appellant Pro Se. Kelly Lynn Sturman, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6582 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Jacob Scott Goodwin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.
In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court entered its order on March 4, 2024, and the appeal period expired on April 3, 2024. Goodwin filed the notice of appeal on April 26, 2024. [*] Because Goodwin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
[*] For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Goodwin could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 2