Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's habeas corpus complaint against Kenneth Black, the warden of the Richland Correctional Institution, where Appellant was incarcerated, for failure to comply with Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(A) and failure to state a cognizable claim for relief in habeas corpus, holding that there was no error.Defendant was convicted of abduction and domestic violence and sentenced to consecutive prison terms. The appellate court affirmed. This appeal concerned Defendant's complaint for a writ of habeas corpus in which Defendant alleged that his domestic violence conviction was void and that he was entitled to immediate release. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's habeas complaint failed to state a valid claim for relief. View "DeVore v. Black" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of one count of drug trafficking, a first-degree felony with a forfeiture specification, and one count of drug possession and trafficking, holding the trial court did not have an affirmative duty to inquiry about a possible conflict of interest.At issue on appeal was whether a trial court has an affirmative duty to inquire into the possible conflict of interest created by an attorney's dual or multiple representation of codefendants in a criminal case. The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative, holding (1) when a trial court does not know, and should not reasonably have known, of a possible conflict of interest in an attorney's representation of two or more codefendants charged with a crime, the trial court has no affirmative duty to inquire whether a conflict of interest exists; and (2) there was nothing in the record here giving rise to an affirmative duty on the part of the trial court to inquire about a potential conflict of interest resulting from the dual representation of Defendant and his codefendant. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's convictions of murder with capital specifications, aggravated burglary, kidnapping, and abuse of a corpse, holding that because the trial court accepted Defendant's guilty plea without first strictly complying with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c), Defendant's guilty plea was invalid.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the trial court failed strictly to comply with the requirements for a valid plea colloquy under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c), and neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel brought the omitted constitutional rights to the court's attention at the time of the initial plea colloquy. Because this inattention was impermissible, especially in a case where a potential death sentence was at issue, the Supreme Court vacated Defendant's convictions and sentences and remanded the cause to the common pleas court for new proceedings. View "State v. Brinkman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of aggravated murder with an escaping-detection specification, kidnapping, felonious assault, possessing criminal tools, tampering with evidence, and having weapons while under a disability and Defendant's sentence of death, holding that there was no error in proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed the offenses of aggravated murder and kidnapping; (2) the trial court did not deny Defendant's right to a fair trial by denying his motion for a new venire; (3) trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; (4) the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts; (5) there was no error in the sentencing opinion; and (6) there was no other error in Defendant's sentencing. View "State v. Worley" 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 Keith Foley, warden of the Grafton Correctional Institution, holding that the information was insufficient to satisfy Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(A).Appellant was indicted in two separate indictments on multiple counts of kidnapping and gross sexual imposition. The court dismissed the first indictment, after which Appellant pleaded guilty to five counts of gross sexual imposition. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the State was required to seek a new indictment before Appellant could be tried. The court of appeals dismissed the action because Def Appellant endant had failed to attach a proper affidavit describing his prior civil actions, as required by section 2969.25(A). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's failure to identify certain information in his affidavit required dismissal of his complaint. View "State ex rel. Steele v. Foley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying writs of mandamus to compel appellees - the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office and the City of North Olmsted - to prosecute crimes allegedly committed by Appellant's parents when Appellant was a minor, holding that the court of appeals did not err in denying Appellant's requested relief in mandamus.When Appellant was twenty-five years old, Appellant filed two charging affidavits alleging that his father committed felonious assault and felony domestic abuse and that his mother committed felony child endangering when Appellant was a minor. The prosecutor declined to prosecute or issue an arrest warrant. Appellant then commenced this action. The court of appeals granted the prosecutor's motion for summary judgment and denied the requested writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in denying Appellant's requested relief in mandamus. View "State ex rel. A.N. v. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals upholding the order of the municipal court granting Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the police officer's investigatory stop of Defendant was reasonable and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment.At issue was whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain Defendant in order to confirm or dispel an unidentified witness's claim that Defendant was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The trial court granted Defendant's motion to suppress. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the officer lacked the reasonable suspicion necessary to effectuate a lawful investigatory stop because the anonymous tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability and because there was no evidence of erratic driving by Defendant prior to the stop. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to investigate whether Defendant was driving while drunk based on the unidentified customer's tip and the officer's own partial corroboration of that tip. View "State v. Tidwell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part the application of Charles Summers for court costs, attorney fees, and statutory damages following the Court's grant of a writ of mandamus ordering Respondents to produce documents to Summers, holding that Summers was entitled to an award of court costs.This case concerned Summers's request for public records relating to his son's criminal case. Summers sent the requests to Respondents - Mercer County Prosecuting Attorney Matthew Fox and Mercer County Sheriff Jeff Grey. When court-ordered mediation resulted in Summers receiving some, but not all, of the documents that he had requested the Supreme Court granted his writ of mandamus in part and denied it in part. Summers then filed his petition for an award of court costs, statutory damages, and attorney fees. The Supreme Court held (1) Summers was entitled to court costs; (2) Summers's status as the prevailing party in his mandamus action did not entitle him to an award of attorney fees, nor was he entitled to an award of bad-faith attorney fees; and (3) Summers was not entitled to an award of statutory damages. View "State ex rel. Summers v. Fox" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's habeas corpus petition and denied all of Appellant's motions seeking various orders on appeal, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief.Appellant was convicted of aggravated murder and other crimes and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the trial court committed numerous due process violations during his trial. The court of appeals dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed and denied Appellant's motions, holding (1) Appellant's arguments did not state claims cognizable in habeas corpus; and (2) Appellant's motions were improper. View "Orr v. Schweitzer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's habeas corpus complaint and, in a separate case, the court of appeals' order denying Appellant's motion to vacate the assessment of court costs against him, holding that the court of appeals did not err.Appellant, an inmate, filed a complaint for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his original sentence was partially void due to an improper inclusion of a postrelease control sanction. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint, finding that Appellant failed to state any cognizable claim for relief in habeas corpus. After Appellant was sent notice of the court's judgment against him for the payment of court costs Appellant filed a document that the court of appeals treated as a motion to vacate court costs. The court of appeals denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's claims were not cognizable in habeas corpus; and (2) the court of appeals properly denied Appellant's motion to vacate the judgment of court costs assessed against him. View "State ex rel. Davis v. Turner" on Justia Law