Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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 Lake Erie Correctional Institution, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed Appellant's habeas petition for failure to comply with Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(A).Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was entitled to immediate release from prison because his sentences had expired. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with section 2969.25(A). Appellant appealed. After briefing was completed, Appellant filed a motion for certified copies of the record. The Supreme Court denied the motion and affirmed the court of appeals' dismissal of the habeas petition, holding that dismissal was proper because Appellant did not comply with section 2969.25(A). View "Robinson v. Fender" 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 the court of appeals properly dismissed the habeas corpus petition.In dismissing the petition, the court of appeals concluded that Appellant had failed to attach all his commitment papers to the petition and failed to state a proper claim for relief in habeas corpus. Further, the court found that the petition was barred under the doctrine of res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's failure to attach commitment papers related to his convictions was a fatal defect and that Appellant's petition failed to state a claim cognizable in habeas corpus. View "State ex rel. Kerr v. Turner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's appeal of his conviction for two counts in an indictment because of a "hanging charge," holding that, in this case, the trial court's finding that Appellant was incompetent to stand trial on the pending charge operated as a de facto severance of that count from the counts of conviction.A jury found Appellant guilty on two counts in an indictment and hung on a third count. Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment on the two counts on which he was convicted, but the third count remained pending. Because of the "hanging charge," the court of appeals dismissed Appellant's appeal from his convictions for lack of a final, appealable order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that when a defendant is convicted and sentenced on fewer than all counts of a multicount indictment and the State is prevented from retrying the defendant on the remaining counts due to a finding that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, the incompetency finding effectively severs the charges, and the defendant may appeal his or her conviction and sentence. View "State v. Craig" 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 the petition did not comply with the mandatory filing requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 2725.04 and that Appellant's claims were not cognizable in habeas corpus.Appellant was arrested and held in jail on a felony charge. The municipal court scheduled a preliminary hearing but then granted the State's motion for a continuance. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the county sheriff arguing that he was entitled to immediate release because the municipal court had failed to conduct a preliminary hearing within ten days after his arrest and that the continuance was fatally flawed. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's petition was fatally defective and that Appellant's claims were not cognizable in habeas corpus. View "Davis v. Sheldon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of prohibition to vacate his criminal convictions, holding that the court of appeals correctly concluded that Appellant's claims were barred by res judicata.Appellant was convicted of four counts of forgery and four counts of tampering with evidence. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of prohibition against the now-retired judge who presided over his criminal case and the judge who replaced the previous judge, claiming that his judgment of conviction should be vacated because certain evidence was improperly admitted at trial, venue was not properly established, his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence, and the prosecutor committed misconduct. The court of appeals dismissed the petition sua sponte. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petition was properly dismissed because (1) the common pleas court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear Appellant's criminal case; (2) Appellant's appeal of his criminal convictions constituted an adequate remedy at law; and (3) Appellant's claims were barred by res judicata. View "State ex rel. Kerr v. Pollex" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC), holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed Appellant's complaint for his failure to submit the statement of inmate account required by Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C)(1).Appellant, an inmate, filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the DRC to aggregate his prison terms "in a manner consistent with the law." The court of appeals dismissed the petition sua sponte because Appellant had failed to comply with section 2969.25(C)(1). On appeal, Appellant argued that he filed with his petition an inmate account statement that substantially with section 2969.25(C). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because section 2969.25(C) does not permit substantial compliance the court of appeals correctly dismissed Appellant's complaint. View "State ex rel. Roden v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals granting summary judgment to Judge Joseph D. Russo and denying Sell Jefferson a writ of mandamus, holding that Jefferson's claims were barred by res judicata.In 1975, Jefferson was convicted of aggravated robbery and aggravated robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction was not notified of Jefferson's aggravated murder conviction and life sentence. As a result, the Adult Parole Authority granted Jefferson final release in 1982. In 1985, Jefferson was indicted for several felony counts. Jefferson was convicted and sentenced to a prison term, to be served concurrently with his 1975 sentence. Jefferson raised numerous challenges to his arrest and reincarceration in the 1975 case, without success. Jefferson then brought this proceeding, arguing that his due process rights were violated. The court of appeals concluded that the claims in Jefferson's complaint were barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that summary judgment was properly granted. View "State ex rel. Jefferson v. Russo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Relator's request for a writ of mandamus to compel Karla Hack, the former Marion County Court Reporter, to inform him of the fee for a copy of the transcript of his 2009 sentencing hearing, holding that Relator established all three requirements necessary to obtain a writ of mandamus.Relator, an inmate in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, filed a motion to compel the court reporter to produce a copy of the sentencing transcript and inform Relator of the fee for a copy of it. Relator then filed a motion to add the county court reporter's office and the current county court reporter as respondents, stating that Hack had retired and that he was unable to determine who the current court reporter was. The Supreme Court granted the motion and the writ, holding that Relator established that he was entitled to the writ. View "State ex rel. Newsome v. Hack" on Justia Law

In this certified-conflict case, the Supreme Court held that when an indigent defendant makes an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based upon counsel's failure to request a waiver of court costs, a reviewing court must apply the test in State v. Bradley, 538 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio 1989) for determining whether a defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel.Defendant was convicted of assaulting a peace officer. The trial court assessed court costs against Defendant, despite his indigent status. On appeal, the court of appeals determined that Defendant was not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to request a waiver of costs and that the basis for a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to request such a waiver no longer exists. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) when trial counsel fails to request that the trial court waive court costs on behalf of an indigent defendant, a determination of prejudice for purposes of an ineffective assistance of counsel analysis deeds on whether there is a reasonable probability that the trial court would have granted the request to waive costs had one been made; and (2) the court of appeals incorrectly analyzed the prejudice prong of the ineffective-assistance of counsel analysis set forth in Bradley. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant's pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the court of appeals correctly denied relief.Appellant was sixteen years old when four delinquency complaints were filed in juvenile court. The cases were transferred to adult court where Appellant was convicted of five felony counts and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of sixteen years. Appellant later filed this habeas corpus petition alleging that the juvenile court did not fully comply with the procedures for transferring jurisdiction to the adult court because it did not timely notify his father of a hearing in one of the cases that led to the transfer of some of the charges. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court's failure to provide timely notice was not a defect that deprived the adult court of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Smith v. May" on Justia Law