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 mandamus to compel Appellee, Judge Megan E. Shanahan of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, to provide public records relating to his incarceration, holding that Appellant improperly sought records under the Public Records Act rather than the Rules of Superintendence.Appellant was convicted of aggravated burglary, abduction, and rape. Appellant later filed motions seeking the inspection and release of public records relating to his case. Judge Shanahan denied the motions, noting that Appellant could access all publicly available records through the clerk of courts. Appellant then filed his petition for a writ of mandamus. The court of appeals dismissed the writ, concluding that since Appellant was incarcerated, a sentencing court must first determine that the court records were necessary to support a justiciable claim. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding that the court of appeals erred in applying the Ohio Public Records Act, Ohio Rev. Code 149.43, to Appellant's records request and that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the case. View "State ex rel. Husband v. Shanahan" 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 Warden Brandeshawn Harris, holding that Appellant's underlying claims were not cognizable in habeas corpus.Appellant filed in the court of appeals a petition for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that that, as a result of several errors, he had already served his total sentence. The court of appeals granted the warden's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claims were not cognizable in habeas corpus. View "Rock v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's denial of Appellee's motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that the trial court erred in denying Appellee's motion without considering the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) and applied in the immigration context but that the court of appeals' remand order for a full evidentiary hearing was premature.In his motion, Appellee claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney had failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his pleas. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed and remanded to the trial court to conduct a hearing, concluding that the trial court erred by denying the motion without deciding whether counsel properly advised Appellee. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the matter to the trial court for application of the proper standard, holding that the trial court erred in denying Appellee's motion without considering the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel established in Strickland and applied in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010). View "State v. Romero" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant did not show that he was entitled to the writ.In his habeas corpus petition, Appellant, an inmate, argued that the Bureau of Sentence Computation miscalculated his prison term and that his jail-time credit was improperly calculated. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's prison term was properly calculated; and (2) Appellant's claim that he was entitled to additional jail-time credit was not cognizable in habeas corpus actions. View "State ex rel. Shafer v. Wainwright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied as moot Relator's complaint seeking a writ of mandamus against Larry Greene, the administrative assistant for the warden of the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, to compel the production of public records, holding that Relator was not entitled to mandamus because he received the documents that he requested.After Relator, an inmate, submitted a public-records request he filed a complaint for writ of mandamus against Greene. Eight days later, Relator was provided with copies of the requested records. Greene filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Relator filed to attach certain documents to the complaint. Three months late, Relator filed a motion asking the Court to consider the affidavit and exhibits attached to his complaint as substantive evidence. The Supreme Court (1) denied the writ of mandamus as moot; (2) denied Relator's demand for statutory damages and court costs on the merits; and (3) denied Relator's motion to have the attachments to his complaint accepted as service as moot. View "State ex rel. Martin v. Greene" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition against an unnamed judge of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, holding that Appellant's complaint failed to state a claim and was correctly dismissed.Appellant was found guilty of aggravated murder. Because he was charged under Ohio Rev. Code 2903.01(B), which requires that the death occurred during the commission of an underlying felony, and he was acquitted of the alleged underlying felony, Appellant alleged in his complaint that the law required him to be acquitted of aggravated murder. The court of appeals dismissed Appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's mandamus complaint failed to state a claim and was correctly dismissed; and (2) Appellant failed to state a claim for relief in prohibition. View "State ex rel. Zander v. Judge of Summit County Common Pleas Court" on Justia Law

In this original action brought by Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney Michael C. O'Malley seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael J. Russo from exercising jurisdiction over a wrongful imprisonment claim filed by Joe D'Ambrosio and a writ of procedendo to compel Judge Russo to terminate D'Ambrosio's litigation, the Supreme Court granted Judge Russo's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that O'Malley was not entitled to either writ.D'Ambrosio commenced a wrongful imprisonment action in the common pleas court under Ohio Rev. Code 2743.48. The trial court granted summary judgment for D'Ambrosio. The Supreme Court reversed. Thereafter, D'Ambrosio filed a new complaint in common pleas court again asserting a wrongful imprisonment claim. The State moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the mandate rule and the doctrines of law of the case and res judicata barred the action. The trial court denied the State's motion. The Supreme Court granted Judge Russo's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that O'Malley had not alleged facts supporting the issuance of a writ of prohibition or a writ of procedendo. View "State ex rel. O'Malley v. Russo" 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 arguments raised in the petition were not cognizable in habeas corpus.Appellant, an inmate, filed a habeas corpus petition arguing that his sentences were void for several reasons and that the indictment in his first case was invalid. The court of appeals dismissed the petition, concluding that Appellant had an adequate remedy at law to raise most of his claims and that another claim was without merit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claims were not cognizable in habeas corpus. View "Smith v. Sheldon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the chief of the Ohio Bureau of Sentencing Computation (BSC) to recompute his sentences, holding that although the court of appeals' reasoning was incorrect, its result was correct.Appellant, an inmate, filed a declaratory judgment action against BSC arguing that it had not properly computed state court sentences imposed in 1966 and 1986 and seeking a judgment declaring his proper sentence, parole-eligibility date, and sentence-expiration date. The court of common pleas granted summary judgment for BSC. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant then filed a writ of mandamus again arguing that the trial court improperly imposed consecutive sentences instead of concurrent sentences. The court of appeals granted the BSC's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant had an adequate remedy at law to raise his claims, he could not now raise them in a mandamus action. View "State ex rel. Miller v. Bower" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to suppress a handgun and other evidence obtained during a Terry stop, holding that the stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.After hearing the sound of gunshots, two police officers drove to the area where the shots seemed to be coming from. With their guns drawn, the officers detained Defendant, the only person in the area. The officers patted Defendant down and retrieved a handgun from his jacket. Defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the officers had reasonable suspicion to perform an investigative stop. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the police officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant and did not convert the stop into an arrest by approaching Defendant with their weapons drawn. View "State v. Hairston" on Justia Law