by
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s complaint for a writ of procedendo against Summit County Common Pleas Court Judge Christine Croce. Appellant was convicted of multiple offenses, including two counts of aggravated murder with capital specifications. Later, a visiting judge sitting by assignment held a resentencing hearing to correct a notification regarding Appellant’s postrelease control and issued a new sentencing entry. The court of appeals concluded that the visiting judge’s corrective entry should have been labeled a nunc pro tunc entry and remanded the case for that correction. On remand, Judge Croce issued the nunc pro tunc sentencing order. Appellant then filed his petition for a writ of procedendo alleging the neither the sentencing entry nor the nunc pro tunc entry was a final appealable order and asked the court to issue a writ of procedendo to compel Judge Croce to enter a revised journal entry that would be final and appealable. The court of appeals granted Judge Croce’s motion to dismiss, concluding that a writ of procedendo was not appropriate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to state a claim for a writ of procedendo. View "State ex rel. Williams v. Croce" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment dismissing Appellant’s complaint for a writ of procedendo against retired Judge Richard D. Reinbold Jr. and Summit County Court of Common Pleas Judge Mary Margaret Rowlands. In his action for a writ of procedendo Appellant alleged that he had never received a final, appealable sentencing order and asked the court to order Judge Reinbold and/or Judge Rowlands to issue a “proper” final sentencing entry. The court of appeals dismissed the case sua sponte because Appellant had an adequate remedy at law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to an extraordinary writ in this case. View "State ex rel. Payne v. Reinbold" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
In this mandamus action, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant’s motion to waive court costs and denied Appellant’s motion to appoint counsel. Appellant filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to review a correction officer’s alleged deployment of a chemical spray in Appellant’s face that caused severe burns. Appellant also sought a waiver of the prepayment of filing fees. The court of appeals dismissed the case sua sponte. Appellant then filed a motion asking the court of appeals to waive all court costs and filing fees on the ground that he had previously been declared indigent. The court denied the motion to waive costs. Appellant appealed the denial of his motion to waive costs and moved for appointment of counsel. The Supreme Court denied the motion to appoint counsel and affirmed the denial of Appellant’s motion to waive costs, holding that Appellant’s argument was raised for the first time on appeal and was therefore beyond the scope of the appeal. View "State ex rel. Russell v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction this appeal from a judgment of the court of appeals that dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Appellant, holding that the notice of appeal was untimely. The court of appeals dismissed the action in this case because Appellant had failed to include certain commitment papers with his petition. The court of appeals then denied Appellant’s application for reconsideration. Appellant purported to appeal both decisions to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding (1) Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely; and (2) Appellant’s application for reconsideration could not cure the untimeliness of his appeal. View "State ex rel. White v. Richard" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant’s complaint for a writ of mandamus against Erie County Common Pleas Court Judge Roger E. Binette and denied Appellant’s motions for judgment on the pleadings and for an order to the clerk of courts, as well as Binette’s motion to dismiss. Appellant filed this original action for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Binette to vacate his sentence and conduct a new sentencing hearing on the grounds that his sentence was void. The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the complaint as frivolous. The Supreme Court denied the motions filed by Appellant and Binette and affirmed the judgment, holding that the court of appeals properly denied Appellant’s complaint. View "State ex rel. Hunter v. Binette" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s complaint for a writ of procedendo against Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Jenifer French, holding that the intermediate appellate court properly dismissed Appellant’s complaint for failure to attach the statement of inmate account required by Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C). In his complaint, Appellant alleged that he had filed a petition for postconviction relief and that Judge French had not yet ruled on the petition, as required by Ohio R. Crim. P. 35(C). The court of appeals dismissed the complaint on the grounds that Appellant had failed to comply with the requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s noncompliance with section 2969.25(C) required dismissal of his complaint. View "State ex rel. Neil v. French" on Justia Law

by
This suit fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, rather than the court of common pleas, because Plaintiff sought legal relief rather than equitable relief. This suit challenged the legality of fees that were incurred by some recipients of workers’ compensation benefits when accessing their benefits. In this appeal, however, the Supreme Court was required to determine only whether the suit was properly brought in the court of common pleas or whether it should have been brought in the Court of Claims, which has exclusive jurisdiction over many suits against state entities such as the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. The Supreme Court held that Plaintiff’s claim was equitable because it sought full payment of the benefit lawfully awarded to him by the Bureau, and therefore, the Court of Common Pleas had exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. View "Cirino v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ dismissal of Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus that he filed against LaShann Eppinger, warden of the Grafton Correctional Institution, where Appellant was incarcerated, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim. In his petition, Appellant argued that he was entitled to immediate release because his aggregate minimum sentence for his 1992 convictions exceeded the allowable limit under former Ohio Rev. Code 2929.41(E). The court of appeals granted Eppinger’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant had not completed his aggregate maximum sentence, the court of appeals correctly dismissed his petition for failure to state a claim. View "State ex rel. Fuller v. Eppinger" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant’s request for writs of mandamus and/or procedendo against Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Hollie L. Gallagher and Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts Nailah Byrd and denied the motions filed by Appellant during the pendency of this case. Appellant filed an original action in the court of appeals against Judge Gallagher alleging that his 1995 sentencing entry was void for several reasons. Appellant sought writs of mandamus and/or procedendo to compel Judge Gallagher to conduct a de novo resentencing and issue a new final, appealable order, and to compel Byrd to journalize the new sentencing entry once it was created. The court of appeals granted summary judgment in favor of Judge Gallagher and Byrd. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to relief. View "State ex rel. Arnold v. Gallagher" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ dismissal of Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed against the warden of the correctional facility where Appellant was incarcerated. Appellant claimed that he was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because he had served more than sixteen years’ imprisonment on a fifteen-year prison sentence. Specifically, Appellant claimed that the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction unilaterally extended his sentence by running his two prison terms consecutively without judicial sanction. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant’s sentences ran consecutively by operation of statute, and therefore, the Department did not change Appellant’s sentence or aggregate his sentences on its own initiative. View "State ex rel. Smith v. Schweitzer" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law