Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court's judgment denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, holding that Defendant did not suffer a manifest injustice when the trial court failed to tell him during his Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy that he would be subject to mandatory prison sentences for his second-degree felony sexual battery convictions.Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of second-degree felony sexual battery and other offenses. After a plea colloquy in which the trial court told Defendant that none of his prison sentences were mandatory the trial court accepted Defendant's guilty plea and imposed an agreed-upon sentence. Defendant later filed a postsentencing motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that the trial court erred by imposing mandatory sentences without first telling him that they were mandatory. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Defendant should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court's error in failing to tell Defendant that part of his sentence would be mandatory did not prejudice Defendant. View "State v. Straley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals refusing to consider for the first time on appeal the State's argument that Defendant lacked Fourth Amendment standing to contest the admission of seized evidence, holding that when the State fails to dispute a defendant's standing in the trial court, it is foreclosed on appeal from attacking the trial court's judgment on these grounds.Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that a detention violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, concluding that the arresting officer lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity at the time he detained Defendant. The State appealed, arguing that Defendant lacked standing to contest the admission of the evidence seized. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that where the State did not assert in the trial court that Defendant lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge his detention, the State was precluded from asserting that argument in its appeal from the judgment granting Defendant's motion to suppress. View "State v. Wintermeyer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that two sentencing statutes - Ohio Rev. Code 2925.041(C)(1) and 2929.14(A)(3)(b) - are in conflict and applying the rule of lenity to determine that Ohio Rev. Code 2929.14(A)(3)(b) and its lesser maximum penalty applies to violations of section 2925.041(A) when the drug in question is methamphetamine and the defendant has committed certain prior offenses, holding that section 2925.041(C)(1) applied to the defendant in this case. Defendant was convicted of one count of illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of methamphetamine, in violation of 2925.041(A). The trial court determined that section 2925.041(C)(1) applied and sentenced Defendant to a five-year prison term. The court of appeals reversed Defendant's sentence, holding that section 2929.14(A)(3)(b), the less punitive sentencing statute, applied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that when a defendant is charged with a violation of section 2925.041(A) when the drug in question is methamphetamine and the defendant has committed certain prior offenses, the mandatory five-year sentence prescribed by section 2925.041(C)(1) is a special provision that prevails as an exception to the general statute, section 2929.14(A)(3)(b). View "State v. Pribble" on Justia Law

In this appeal from a criminal judgment the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision vacating some of Defendant's consecutive sentences and rendering Defendant's second assignment of error moot, holding that State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016), has no application to consecutive sentencing cases that are governed by Ohio Rev. Code 2953.08(G)(2).Defendant pleaded guilty to multiple offenses stemming from her act of stealing thousands of items from nursing home residents. Defendant waived her right to appeal including, but not limited to, the grounds listed in section 2953.08. The trial court imposed prison terms and ordered Defendant to serve the felony sentences consecutively. The court of appeals reviewed Defendant's sentence under Ohio Rev. Code 2929.11 and 2929.12 based on its reading of Marcum and determined that, while Defendant's consecutive sentences were appropriate and warranted the aggregate sentence was excessive and disproportionate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the State forfeited its argument that Defendant waived her right to appeal her sentence when it did not raise the issue at the court of appeals; and (2) the court of appeals should have analyzed Defendant's consecutive sentences for compliance with Ohio Rev. Code 2929.14(C)(4). View "State v. Gwynne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the court of appeals properly dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a claim for habeas relief and was 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 habeas corpus, which the court of appeals dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) none of Appellant's challenges to his convictions was cognizable in habeas corpus; and (2) the court of appeals also correctly determined that Appellant's claims were barred by res judicata. View "State ex rel. Kerr v. Turner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals vacating the trial court's decision ordering Defendant, who pleaded guilty to cashing seven forged checks at branches of three different banks, to pay restitution to the banks in the amount of the forged checks, holding that a bank that cashes a forged check and then recredits the depositor's account is a victim to which the forger can be required to pay restitution.In reversing the trial court's judgment, the court of appeals determined that the banks were not "victims" for purposes of Ohio Rev. Code 2929.18, the statute authorizing a trial court to order an offender to pay restitution to a "victim" who suffers an economic loss, but were instead third parties who had reimbursed the account holders, who were the true victims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the banks were victims of Defendant's fraud that suffered an economic loss thereby, and therefore, the trial court properly ordered Defendant to pay restitution to the banks under section 2929.18. View "State v. Allen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the court of appeals correctly held that Appellant failed fully to comply with Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C).In his petition, Appellant sought to compel a common pleas judge to hold a new sentencing hearing and to issue a final, appealable order in his criminal case. The court of appeals dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim, concluding that the petition was procedurally defective because the affidavit of indigence did not contain a statement of the balance in Appellant's inmate account and because Appellant an adequate remedy by law by way of direct appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's failure to comply with the requirements of section 2969.25 required dismissal of his complaint. View "State ex rel. Sands v. Culotta" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of two counts of aggravated murder and sentence of death for one of the murders but vacated the sentence, holding that the trial court erred in ruling that Defendant was not intellectually disabled.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in concluding that he was not intellectually disabled. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to hold a new hearing to determine whether Defendant was intellectually disabled in accordance with the criteria set forth in this opinion, holding (1) the trial court should have discussed evidence presented on the Flynn Effect, although it was in the trial court's discretion whether to include it as a factor in Defendant's IQ scores; (2) the trial court used the wrong standard in finding that Defendant did not have significant limitations in his adaptive skills; (3) the holding in State v. Lott, 779 N.E.2d 1011 (Ohio 2002), that there is a rebuttable presumption that a defendant is not intellectually disabled if his IQ score is above 70 is no longer valid; and (4) for purposes of eligibility for the death penalty, a court determining whether a defendant is intellectually disabled must consider three core elements set forth in this opinion. View "State v. Ford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that where Defendant was previously convicted of child endangering in connection with the death of his child and then, after his release from prison, Defendant told authorities that he had beaten his son to death, the prohibition against double jeopardy did not prevent the state from prosecuting Defendant for murder or aggravated murder.Defendant originally told authorities that he had accidentally caused his son's death while driving an ATV. Defendant was charged with child endangering and involuntary manslaughter. Defendant entered into a plea agreement whereby he pled guilty to child endangering, and the involuntary manslaughter charge was dismissed. After Defendant served his time in prison, he confessed that he had beaten the child to death and fabricated the ATV accident. Defendant was then indicted for aggravated murder and murder. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the murder charges, asserting that involuntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder and aggravated murder and that the state was thus barred from prosecuting the charges. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that double jeopardy principles did not bar Defendant's prosecution. View "State v. Soto" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the two judgments arising out of the same underlying criminal case, holding that Appellant's requested writ of mandamus was properly denied, and Appellant's complaint for a writ of habeas corpus was properly dismissed.Appellant pleaded guilty to murder, but the sentencing entry incorrectly stated that Appellant had pleaded guilty to aggravated murder. The presiding judge subsequently journalized a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry to clarify that Appellant had pleaded guilty to murder rather than aggravated murder. The court of appeals then affirmed the conviction and sentence. Appellant later filed a complaint for writ of mandamus claiming that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the nunc pro tunc entry. The court of appeals concluded that Appellant's claim was barred by res judicata and that he had an adequate remedy at law. Appellant also filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus arguing that he was entitled to release because the trial court failed to require a written waiver of a jury trial. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed both judgments, holding that Appellant was not entitled relief in mandamus and that his habeas complaint was properly dismissed. View "State ex rel. Parker v. Russo" on Justia Law