Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Michael Bell's petition seeking a writ of habeas against the warden of the Mansfield Correctional Institution (MCI) and denied Bell's motion to reverse and vacate the judgment against him, holding that Bell was not entitled to relief.Bell, an inmate at MCI, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against MCI's warden, presenting several arguments to support his claim for relief. The court of appeals granted the warden's motion to dismiss for failure to state a valid claim for relief in habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Bell could not establish that he was entitled to habeas relief under any of the theories he presented. View "Bell v. McConahay" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his propositions of law.Appellant was convicted of rape of a minor and other crimes. Appellant later brought this petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that after serving his mandatory minimum sentence he satisfied the conditions for parole and had been granted release and that he had a right to immediate release. The court of appeals denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the error of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction misinforming Appellant about his parole status did not create a constitutional right to parole. View "State ex rel. Lindsay v. Dep't of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for writs of prohibition and mandamus seeking vacated of his criminal convictions, holding that Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.In 2009, Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery and complicity to commit murder and sentenced to an aggregate term of twenty-eight years to life in prison. In 2022, Appellant filed his complaint for writs of prohibition and mandamus, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to "misapply" Ohio's aggravated robbery statute, Ohio Rev. Code 2911.01, requiring vacatur of his conviction. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. View "State ex rel. Boler v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant's Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(A) affidavit was deficient, making his habeas corpus petition subject to dismissal.Appellant, an inmate at Trumbull Correctional Institution, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the warden, arguing that his underlying burglary conviction was void and that he was entitled to immediate release. The court of appeals granted the warden's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals properly found that Appellant's affidavit did not strictly comply with the statute and in thus dismissing the petition. View "Westerfield v. Bracy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of habeas corpus against warden of the Mansfield Correctional Institution, holding that the petition was properly dismissed.Since he was convicted in 1979 for numerous felony offenses Appellant had been released on parole and convicted of new crimes at least four times. In 2022, Appellant filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his 1979 convictions were void. The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the complaint on procedural grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition because Appellant did not comply with the mandatory filing requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 2725.04 and Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25. View "Robinson v. McConahay" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo against the trial court, holding that Appellant's complaint failed to state a claim for relief in mandamus or procedendo and was properly dismissed.Appellant was found guilty of felony murder and aggravated vehicular homicide and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of twenty years. Appellant later filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo compelling the trial court to enter judgment on each offense for which there was a conviction, namely, felonious assault. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint on the ground that Appellant had not been indicted on a separate charge of felonious assault. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court was under no duty to dispose of a felonious assault charge in Defendant's criminal case because no such charge was brought against him. View "State ex rel. Myles v. Goering" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's mandamus action and denied Appellant's motions for default judgment and summary judgment, holding that the court of appeals properly dismissed the complaint.Appellant, a defendant in a criminal case, filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus seeking a writ compelling Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman to honor his motion to dismiss and to vacate the judgment below. The court of appeals granted Judge Ruehlman's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to state a valid claim for mandamus relief. View "Furr v. Ruehlman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus sought by Matthew Lusane against the city of Kent police department, holding that Lusane was entitled both to the writ and to $1,000 in statutory damages.In 2022, Lusane delivered a public records request to the police department seeking all officer body cameras and cruiser dash camera video related to a certain incident. The department denied the request, stating that the videos fell under the public records disclosure exception for confidential law enforcement investigatory records. Lusane then filed this action requesting a writ of mandamus and seeking an award of statutory damages. The Supreme Court granted both the writ and awarded statutory damages, holding (1) the department improperly denied Lusane a copy of the videos; and (2) Lusane was entitled to $1,000 in statutory damages. View "State ex rel. Lusane v. Kent Police Dep't" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant's third motion for relief from judgment filed after the court of appeals dismissed Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus, holding that the court of appeals correctly denied the motion.Appellant, who was serving sentences for aggravated murder and other crimes, filed an original action in the court of appeals seeking a writ of mandamus. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint and denied the writ. Appellant did not appeal the dismissal of his complaint but instead filed three motions for relief from judgment under Civ. R. 60(B), which the court of appeals denied. Appellant appealed from the court of appeals' denial of his third motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant should have raised his claims of error in a timely appeal from the court of appeals' motion, not in a Civ.R. 60(B) motion. View "State ex rel. Hatfield v. French" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed Appellant's petition.Appellant, an inmate at the Trumbull Correctional Institution, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 2021 seeking his immediate release from prison and alleging that he had completed his original sentence in 2020 and was being wrongfully imprisoned for his 1998 conviction. The court of appeals dismissed the petition because, among other things, Appellant's petition did not comply with Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(A). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's failure to comply with section 2969.25(A) warranted dismissal. View "Alston v. Bracy" on Justia Law