he said, “Never give up.” In this photo Olga .. Canon Richard W. Wilson ' John C. . '13, Zachary Prete '16, and Banks Simmons ' Richard Simmons' Never Give Up: Inspirations, Reflections, Stories of Hope [ Richard Simmons] on portal7.info *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. richard simmons never give pdf richard simmons never give up inspirations reflections stories of hope Richard L. Blumenthal (/ Ëˆ b l uË• m. É™ n Î¸ É”Ë• l /; born.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Dutch|
|ePub File Size:||24.66 MB|
|PDF File Size:||11.27 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
Richard Simmons' never give up by Richard Simmons, , Warner Books edition, in English. E03ECC8F21EFDB Richard Simmons Never Give Up. Milton Teagle "Richard" Simmons (born July 12, ) is an American fitness. Start by marking “Richard Simmons Never Give Up: Inspirations, Reflections, Stories of Hope” as Want to Read: Now he shares 40 inspiring stories of people he has helped lose weight against all odds. Richard Simmons, born Milton Teagle Simmons, is a fitness personality who.
Thanks for watching! Visit Website Simmons also sold drugs for a time and ran with a street gang, the Seven Immortals. His concerned father made him get a job at Orange Julius in Greenwich Village, in an attempt to steer him away from trouble — but Simmons got fired after a month for throwing oranges at people. He finally got his wake-up call when one of the Seven Immortals was murdered — after which he dropped out of gang life, winding up at the City College of New York in Harlem, where he majored in sociology. It was Simmons' first brush with hip hop, and he felt like he'd "just witnessed the invention of the wheel. Inspired by the success of "Rappers' Delight" in , they recorded a single together, "Christmas Rappin. So he pressed vinyl copies of "Christmas Rappin'" himself and gave them to DJs to play in clubs, sparking the interest of retailers who were led to believe that they could buy the record from the Polygram label they couldn't.
If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the conclusions of the trier of fact, we will affirm the conviction. In this case, there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. But Simmons does not appear to be making any such argument as to Officer Clarke. Instead, Simmons explicitly concedes he could have seen Clarke or at least have been aware of his presence.
Thus, if the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction on appeal, the denial of a motion for a directed verdict could not be error. Henley v. Because intent is a mental state, intent to kill may be inferred from the deliberate use of a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death or serious injury.
Firing a gun in the direction of an individual is substantial evidence from which a jury may infer intent to kill.
In Henley, Police stopped Henley s car, and Henley ran away. Using a police dog, officers tracked Henley to a van. When the dog entered the van, Henley began shooting and killed the dog. Our Supreme Court found there was no evidence Henley knew police officers were present when he fired his weapon.
The officer testified that, not knowing Henley was in the van, he gave no commands at all. The officer testified, however that he could not see Henley because it was too dark in the van.
The Henley Court found that record simply devoid of any probative evidence that Henley was pointing his firearm at Officer Molinet when he fired the weapon. We are compelled to conclude that Henley s intent to kill Officer Molinet was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.
That evidence, Simmons says, was that the officers were in hot pursuit of Henley. They were pursuing him with the dog. The dog was tethered to the officer.
It seems pretty apparent that Henley was aware officers were present. As noted above, our Supreme Court explicitly found to the contrary: There was no evidence presented that Henley was aware of the police presence when he fired his weapon. Henley, N. Simmons concedes it is arguable that he was in a position to be aware of the officers deployed in the doorway, Br.
Simmons characterizes as the best evidence, id. However, we may not consider the best evidence from Simmons perspective. See Olive v. The available evidence permitted the jury to infer Simmons was aware of the officers behind the drywall even if he could not see all of them. In Champlain v.
We noted testimony that Champlain fired into a trailer home at close range aware that the victim was inside. The jury could have concluded from that evidence that Champlain knowingly killed the victim. When the thirteen officers first approached the basement where Simmons was hiding, they knocked and announced: Police, warrant, get on the ground and make yourself known.
The police called out search warrant and arrest warrant, and each officer announced which agency he represented. After one officer encountered Simmons in the laundry room, other officers formed a tactical stack against the outside of the laundry room wall. Simmons conceded when they were in the laundry room, there was [sic] three or four of them that came in.
The officers told Simmons several times to come out of the room, but he did not: There was [sic] several voice commands from several officers.
Officers Bartlett, Stevenson, and Katt were lined up behind Officer Clarke, who was kneeling at the left side of the laundry room doorway and who could see Simmons. Officer Bartlett testified he could see Simmons, and Officer Bartlett and Simmons exchanged words for about five minutes.
As there was ample evidence from which the jury could infer Simmons knew there were at least four officers behind the wall he shot at, there was sufficient evidence to convict Simmons of four counts of attempted murder. Jury Instructions The manner of instructing a jury is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Albores v. We review the trial court s decision only for an abuse of that discretion. On review of a decision not to give a proposed jury instruction, we consider whether the instruction 1 correctly states the law, 2 is supported by the evidence, and 3 is covered in substance by other instructions that are given.
We consider jury instructions as a whole and in reference to each other and do not 9 reverse unless the instructions as a whole mislead the jury as to the law in the case.
Even if an instruction is a correct statement of the law and finds support in the evidence, a trial court may in its discretion decline to give it if its substance is covered by other instructions. Simmons trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining Simmons tendered instruction on the presumption of innocence. The tendered instruction included the statement: Under the law of this state, a person charged with a crime is presumed to be innocent.
That instruction, Simmons asserts, contained the mandatory language concerning the fact that the presumption of innocence continues throughout the trial. This court has found that upon request of the defendant, the count [sic] must include this language.
Simmons relies on Lee v. We noted an instruction that advises the jury that the presumption of innocence prevails until the close of the trial.
In fact, Simmons jury was so instructed, at least at the beginning of his trial. Simmons does not acknowledge in his brief13 that preliminary instruction number fourteen 13 Simmons did not submit a reply brief. The court again instructed the jury in its final instructions about the presumption of innocence, but the final instructions did not include the specific language that the presumption of innocence continues throughout the trial.
It was not an abuse of discretion to so instruct the jury only in the preliminary instructions and not again in the final instructions, as other final instructions adequately conveyed to the jury the concept that the presumption of innocence continues throughout the trial.
In final instruction number 28, the jury was told You should attempt to fit the evidence to the presumption that the defendant is innocent and the theory that every witness is telling the truth. As it is throughout the trial that the jury receives evidence, the instruction that it should try to fit the evidence to the presumption of Simmons innocence covered, in substance, the instruction that the presumption continues throughout the trial.
There was no abuse of discretion. See Albores, N. Sentence Simmons concedes the trial court could impose consecutive sentences for the four counts of attempted murder, but argues the imposition of consecutive sentences, resulting in an aggregate sentence of years was inappropriate in light of the trial court s statement that the aggravating circumstances only slightly outweighed the mitigators.
Anderson v. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the evidence before the court or the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Appellate Rule 7 B empowers us to independently review and revise sentences authorized by statute if, after due consideration, we find the trial court s decision inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.
The nature of offense compares the defendant s actions with the required showing to sustain a conviction under the charged offense, id. An appellant bears the burden of showing both prongs of the inquiry favor revision of the sentence. Simmons does not explicitly address any facts relevant to his character or the nature of his offense.
Instead, he notes the trial court characterized the sentence for each Class A felony count, thirty-three years, as only marginally above the advisory sentences, 14 Tr. At but it then ordered them to run consecutively for an effective sentence of years.
Using the exact same set of circumstances to impose sentences close to the advisory for individual counts but then ordering the individual sentences to be served consecutively was, Simmons asserts without citation to authority, a completely.
He also notes the effective sentence imposed for shooting at an officer 14 The advisory sentence for a Class A felony is thirty years. Simmons inappropriateness argument is waived because he did not make any argument the sentence was inappropriate in light of his character.
See Williams v. The waiver notwithstanding, consecutive sentences were appropriate because there were multiple victims. Whether the counts involve one or multiple victims is highly relevant to the decision to impose consecutive sentences.
Cardwell v. That is because when the perpetrator commits the same offense against two victims, enhanced and consecutive sentences seem necessary to vindicate the fact that there were separate harms and separate acts against more than one person.
We have upheld consecutive sentences where, as here, there are multiple victims of attempted murder. Fernbach s sentencing court imposed advisory sentences for two counts of attempted murder and ordered them to run consecutively. There were two victims, both of whom suffered serious injuries as a result of being shot by Fernbach. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court s decision to impose consecutive sentences was inappropriate.
In 13 light of Simmons multiple victims, the order that his sentences would be served consecutively did not render his total sentence inappropriate.
We accordingly affirm. Enlarge cover. Error rating book.
Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Details if other: Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Richard Simmons Never Give Up: The New York Times bestseller that will change readers' lives. Richard Simmons' unique blend of warmth, charm and gentle encouragement has caused people to respond to him as they do to no one else.
Now he shares 40 inspiring stories of people he has helped lose weight against all odds. Get A Copy. Paperback , pages.
More Details Original Title. Inspirations, Reflections, Stories of Hope.
Other Editions 3. Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Community Reviews.
Showing Rating details. Sort order. Aug 04, Josh Avery rated it really liked it. A little outdated but a great inspirational book. Feb 19, Mary Lou rated it liked it Shelves: Mini-bios of people who lost weight with Simmons' help. Jan 19, Jessica Buike rated it really liked it.
I adore Richard Simmons - I don't think anyone in the history of the fitness industry has been as approachable, lovable, and inspirational as he has throughout his career! So of course when I stumbled on this book in a "free" bin I had to have it. This is a cute collection of anecdotes with a common theme - every day is a new day, don't give up, and keep working! Is it life-changing?
Well, not for me, but I still found it interesting and inspiring. Is it typical of Richard Simmons? Heck yeah - l I adore Richard Simmons - I don't think anyone in the history of the fitness industry has been as approachable, lovable, and inspirational as he has throughout his career! Heck yeah - lots of perkiness and tender-heartedness! If you've made a health or fitness resolution this year, this might be something fun to add to your reading list to keep you motivated.
Feb 16, Jed Olson rated it it was amazing Shelves: Don't laugh- Richard Simmons has dedicated his life to overcoming his own challenges, trying to give self-esteem to the chronically ridiculed, adopting small dogs, and continuing the under-appreciated traditions of short shorts and tall hair.