A Friday hearing regarding post-sentence motions involved some confrontation between attorneys but did nothing to change a convict’s conviction nor sentence.

Tyson K. Navarrette, 22, of Warren, was found guilty of strangulation, simple assault, and harassment at a June jury trial.

He was subsequently sentenced to 25 to 75 months in state prison.

Navarrette’s attorney, Komron Maknoon, filed a number of post-sentencing motions, including that the conviction be overturned.

At a Friday hearing, Maknoon addressed the filings, saying he was trying to find a balance between representing his client in good faith and filing “frivolous” motions.

He said he had intended to have a witness testify to facts that were not brought up at trial.

Hammond said he remembered the witness in question and that the witness had been brought forward as a character witness, not a witness to facts. He said the ‘facts’ in question were not appropriate to a character witness, but that he would not have denied the defense the right to call another fact witness.

“I certainly would have permitted that,” he said.

“I know that that was my intention,” Maknoon said, but admitted that he did not “see it in the record.”

Maknoon said he was improperly denied the right to enter evidence — specifically a Facebook post regarding the victim in the case.

“It was 8:30 in the morning before the trial,” Hammond said. But he did not disallow the evidence because of the timing. “It was complete hearsay. You wanted to admit Facebook messages from a non-witness.”

Maknoon argued that there is a precedent for authenticating social media posts.

Hammond said those cases involve witnesses who authenticate posts they made and who then may be questioned and cross-examined in court.

“It’s an out-of-court declarant,” he said. “It’s not an authentication thing. It’s a hearsay thing.”

“I don’t consider Facebook posts to be the stomping grounds for truthfulness,” he added.

Maknoon said the presence of a uniformed law enforcement officer who is a relative of the victim seated in court and “easily identified” with the victim’s supporters during the trial could have been prejudicial to the jury.

Hammond said he did not recall any particular uniformed officer among the gallery, but that he should have been made aware of any potentially prejudicial concerns at the time. “I think you have an obligation to… give me a chance to address issues when they come up,” he said.

For some of the other motions, including a motion to modify sentence, Maknoon said he checked the transcript and was satisfied that the concerns raised in those motions had been appropriately addressed at trial.

District Attorney Rob Greene expressed disgust with the motions.

“It’s extremely unfortunate that this victim has to be re-traumatized,” Greene said.

She was aware of the motions and would have to be concerned about the outcomes, he said.

He also questioned Maknoon’s statement about balancing frivolous motions and good faith representation.

“I think the deep pockets of your client” extended “that good faith,” Greene said.

Maknoon took exception to the suggestion that he would file frivolous motions simply because he was being paid. He said he recognized possible issues that came up during trial, brought case law, and was trying to advance the interests of his client.

“It’s extremely insulting,” he said.

“That was the intent,” Greene said.

With the exception of granting a transcript of the trial, which had already been ordered and done, Hammond denied all of the motions. “None of them had merit,” he said.

With respect to acquittal, “clearly, the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict,” he said.

Maknoon made one more verbal motion.

“I was going to ask if I could withdraw from the case,” he said, explaining that the supposedly deep pockets of his client’s family were not that deep and that Navarrette would qualify for the services of the public defender.

Hammond said because of time deadlines related to the filing of appeals, and because he would not accept that motion verbally, he would not allow Maknoon to withdraw immediately. “There’s no way another attorney can be brought on and brought up to speed” in the 30-day period in which any appeals must be filed.