Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals denying Appellant's action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the Ohio Parole Board to reinstate his parole and hold a new revocation hearing, holding that there was no error.Appellant was released on parole in 2019 after his incarceration for murder and other crimes. He was subsequently arrested for violating the terms of his parole. After a hearing, the Ohio Parole Board revoked Appellant's parole, finding that he had engaged in sexual contact with a woman without her consent. The Tenth District denied Appellant's subsequent petition seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the parole board to reinstate his parole and hold a new revocation hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not show by clear and convincing evidence that he was entitled to a writ of mandamus. View "State ex rel. Cartwright v. Ohio Adult Parole Bd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel the common pleas court judge who sentenced him to correct what he alleged was an illegal sentence, holding that a court must give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard before taking notice of facts contained in another court's dockets and relying on those facts to sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25.Appellant filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus arguing that his sentence for attempted murder with specifications was unlawful. The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the complaint on the grounds that Appellant had failed to comply with section 2969.25(A). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred by consulting the record of another case in another court to determine the accuracy of Appellant's section 2969.25(A) and by dismissing Appellant's complaint based on information it obtained without first giving him notice and an opportunity to be heard. View "State ex rel. Roush v. Hickson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant's complaint for a writ of habeas corpus against the warden of the Madison Correctional Institution, holding that the court of appeals correctly denied Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.Appellant was convicted of rape, felonious sexual penetration, and gross sexual imposition. Appellant later filed the complaint for a writ of habeas corpus at issue in this case, alleging that the trial court had sentenced him for an offense when it lacked jurisdiction to do so and, alternatively, that the trial court failed to impose a judgment that satisfied the requirements of Crim.R. 32. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed and denied Appellant's motion for transcripts and journal entires, holding that Appellant's propositions of law were either waived or that Appellant's remedy did not lie in habeas corpus. View "State ex rel. Haddix v. Warden" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of habeas corpus seeking release from custody on bail on reasonable conditions of bond, holding that habeas corpus was not the proper action by which to challenge the trial court's denial of bail.Appellant, who was being held without bail pending trial for rape and other charges, filed a verified complaint seeking a writ of habeas corpus ordering the Franklin County Sheriff Dallas Baldwin to release him from custody and "let him to bail" upon reasonable conditions of bond. The court of appeals granted the sheriff's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by means of appeal from the denial of his requests for pretrial release on bail, thus excluding extraordinary relief in habeas corpus. View "State ex rel. Garcia v. Baldwin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Relator's complaint seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) to provide documents in response to submitted public records requests, holding that this action was moot.Relator, an inmate at the London Correctional Institution, sent several requests to the DRC for records and kites. DRC provided a requested record and concluded that the remaining records were electronic kites. Relator then made subsequent requests. The DRC denied the requests and ultimately gave Relator a formal directive to stop the repetitive requests. Relator then filed his mandamus complaint. The Supreme Court denied the writ and awarded Relator $1,000 in statutory damages, holding (1) Relator's requests for the kites were moot because the DRC provided all the requested kites; and (2) Relator was entitled to statutory damages. View "State ex rel. Straughter v. Ohio Dep't of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the warden of the Trumbell Correctional Institution, where Appellant was serving a forty-year prison sentence, holding that there was no error.Appellant was serving his prison sentence for nine convictions for felonious assault, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2903.11(B)(3). Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus arguing, inter alia, that section 2903.11(B)(3) violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitution. The court of appeals dismissed the petition for failure to state a valid claim for habeas relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that habeas corpus did not lie for Appellant's nonjurisdictional claims. View "Christian v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this case to the trial court for it to enter a judgment of conviction against Appellant for criminal trespass under Ohio Rev. Code 2911.21(A)(1) and to sentence him in accordance with this opinion, holding that insufficient evidence supported Appellant's conviction of burglary.Under Ohio Rev. Code 2911.12(A)(2), the State was required to prove that Appellant trespassed by "force, stealth, or deception" in order to convict him of burglary. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated Appellant's burglary conviction and judicial sanction, holding (1) to prove a defendant trespassed by stealth or deception in a burglary case the State must prove that the defendant actively avoided discovery or used deceptive conduct to gain entry to the structure; and (2) the evidence in this case was insufficient to convict Appellant of burglary but sufficient to convict him of criminal trespass. View "State v. Bertram" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part and denied a writ of mandamus sought by Relator compelling the clerk of the Circleville Municipal Court, Charma Cantrell, to comply fully with a public-records request Relator sent Cantrell under the Public Records Act, Ohio Rev. Code 149.43(B), holding that Relator was entitled to the writ in part.Relator, an inmate, brought this action demanding a writ of mandamus ordering Cantrell either to produce all records responsive to his January 2022 records request or explain why such records would not be produced. The Supreme Court granted the writ in part, holding (1) Relator was entitled to a writ of mandamus on his request to strike the evidence attached to Cantrell's merit brief because it was untimely submitted; and (2) Relator was not entitled to relief on his remaining arguments. View "State ex rel. Adkins v. Cantrell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part the Lawrence County Sheriff's Office's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to this action brought by Relator, an inmate, and denied as moot Relator's claim for a writ of mandamus, holding that the mandamus claim was moot.Relator sought certain records from the Lawrence County Sheriff's Office, which determined that the request was too vague to grant. Relator then filed this action requesting, among other things, a writ of mandamus ordering the Sheriff to produce the requested records and seeking awards of statutory damages, attorney fees, and court costs. The Sheriff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Thereafter, Relator received the requested records. The Supreme Court held (1) the Sheriff was entitled to judgment on the pleadings as to Relator's mandamus claim, which was moot; (2) Relator was entitled to $700 in statutory damages but was not entitled to attorney fees and court costs; and (3) Relator's remaining motions were moot. View "State ex rel. Woods v. Lawrence County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal of the decision of the court of appeals setting Appellant's bail at $250,000, holding that this appeal was moot.Appellant was indicted on several charges and arrested, and the trial court set bail at $500,000. The court of appeals granted Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that his bail was unconstitutionally excessive and reduced his bail to $250,000. After Appellant appealed, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal from the bail order, holding that Appellant's appeal was moot, and Appellant had not shown that a mootness exception applied in this case. View "State ex rel. Casanova v. Lutz" on Justia Law