Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves appellant Soleiman Mobarak, who appealed the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus against appellee, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey M. Brown. Mobarak had sought to vacate his criminal convictions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in the trial court. The court of appeals held that the trial court had jurisdiction over Mobarak’s criminal case and that Mobarak had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.In 2012, Mobarak was indicted on charges of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, aggravated trafficking in drugs, and aggravated possession of drugs. The charges alleged that Mobarak had possessed and sold a controlled-substance analog commonly known as bath salts. In his petition, Mobarak asserted that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his criminal case on several grounds including that there was no statute prohibiting the possession or sale of bath salts at the time his offenses were alleged to have occurred, and that the controlled-substance-analogs law was unconstitutionally vague.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Tenth District Court of Appeals' judgment dismissing Mobarak’s petition. The court held that Mobarak’s petition failed to state a mandamus claim because he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law and failed to show that the trial court had patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction over his criminal case. The court found that by virtue of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. 2931.03, the trial court had jurisdiction over Mobarak’s criminal case. The court also noted that Mobarak’s arguments were similar to those raised and rejected in his prior appeals. The court stated that extraordinary writs may not be used as a substitute for an otherwise barred second appeal or to gain successive appellate reviews of the same issue. View "State ex rel. Mobarak v. Brown" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal by an inmate, Keith Walker, against the Third District Court of Appeals' dismissal of his request for a writ of mandamus. Walker had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence in 2020, for which he received the maximum sentence allowed by law. He later filed a motion to vacate his guilty plea, arguing that the plea and the judgment of conviction were void due to the absence of a judge at his plea hearing, and the prosecutor's alleged role in accepting his plea and sentencing him. The municipal court judge, Teresa Ballinger, denied his motion. Walker then filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus, asking that his conviction be vacated as an illegal and void judgment. This was dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeals, who agreed with Judge Ballinger's argument that Walker had failed to submit an affidavit required by R.C. 2969.25(A), and that his claim was not cognizable in mandamus.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the Third District Court of Appeals was incorrect to dismiss the action based on a failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A)’s affidavit requirement, as the statute does not require a statement that the inmate has filed no such civil action or appeal. However, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court's determination that Walker's claim was not cognizable in mandamus, as his argument essentially raised a nonjurisdictional defect for which he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Third District Court of Appeals dismissing Walker's complaint. View "State ex rel. Walker v. Ballinger" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant, Eric Johnson, filed a third, untimely, and successive petition for postconviction relief based on an affidavit from the victim, James Keith, who recanted his identification of Johnson as the assailant. Johnson argued that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering Keith's recantation before the statutory deadline and that, but for constitutional error at trial, he would not have been convicted. However, the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the decisions of the lower courts, denying Johnson's petition for postconviction relief. The court held that Johnson failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering Keith's recantation within the statutory deadline. The court also held that Johnson failed to show that a constitutional error occurred at trial that led to his conviction. Specifically, the court stated that a conviction based on false testimony is not a constitutional violation unless the state had knowledge of the testimony’s falsity. The court therefore concluded that Johnson did not satisfy the requirements for filing an untimely or successive petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1). View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of Ohio, the issue concerned whether a landlord or landlord's agent can prohibit a person from entering leased premises, even if that person has received permission from a tenant. The case arose when Antonio Randolph was banned from an apartment complex by the property manager and was then later arrested and charged with criminal trespass after he was discovered in his uncle's apartment at the complex, which his uncle had invited him to. The trial court found Randolph guilty of criminal trespass. The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the city had to prove that Randolph had entered the premises without privilege, and that his uncle's invitation to the apartment contradicted this.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Ohio agreed with the Sixth District's decision. The court held that a landlord or landlord's agent generally may not exclude a person from rented premises such that the excluded person is considered a trespasser when on the premises even if the person received permission to enter the premises from a tenant of the property. The court noted that Ohio law provides that a landlord cedes his or her possessory interests in leased property to the tenant and therefore may not prohibit the tenant from inviting guests onto the property.However, the court also highlighted that a landlord can maintain control over access to a property if the landlord so desires, provided that this authority is reserved in the lease agreement. In the absence of such a provision in the lease agreement, a tenant may invite onto the property a person whom the landlord has sought to ban from the premises. The judgment of the Sixth District Court of Appeals was affirmed. View "State v. Randolph" on Justia Law

In this case, an appellant challenged his criminal convictions, arguing that the trial court had erred by failing to hold a competency hearing. The appellant's counsel had requested a competency evaluation prior to the trial, but the appellant refused to be transported to the treatment center for the evaluation. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that while the trial court should have held a competency hearing, the error was harmless because the record, when viewed as a whole, did not demonstrate sufficient indicia of incompetency. The court noted that the appellant had demonstrated understanding of the proceedings and had been able to articulate what his counsel had told him about the proceedings. Therefore, the court affirmed the decision of the lower court, upholding the appellant's convictions. View "State v. Mills" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of Ohio, Michael Swazey Jr. was indicted for failing to pay child support. He filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment under Rule 12(C)(2) of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, arguing that the statutes he allegedly violated did not apply to him. The trial court declined to consider Swazey's motion on the merits, holding that the arguments raised were not permitted under Rule 12(C)(2) but should instead be presented at the close of the state’s case at trial. Swazey subsequently pleaded guilty to all counts.On appeal, the Ninth District Court of Appeals held that Swazey’s Rule 12(C)(2) motion was proper and should have been considered on the merits. It also held that by entering a guilty plea, Swazey did not waive his right to raise a constitutional challenge on appeal.The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the court of appeals' decision, stating that Swazey's motion to dismiss was appropriate under Rule 12(C)(2), and that his guilty plea did not waive his right to raise his constitutional challenge on appeal. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Ohio remanded the case back to the trial court to consider Swazey's pretrial motion. View "State v. Swazey" on Justia Law

In 2016, Brian N. Spencer was convicted of possession of heroin and marijuana with a firearm specification, and having a weapon while under disability by a Franklin County Court of Common Pleas jury. On the day of the trial, Spencer requested a new attorney, claiming that his appointed counsel was colluding with the prosecutor. When the court refused, Spencer decided to represent himself, despite warnings about the risks. Following his conviction, Spencer appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, arguing that his right to counsel was violated, but the court affirmed the lower court's ruling.In 2022, Spencer filed a habeas corpus complaint in the Seventh District Court of Appeals, arguing that his convictions and sentence are void because the trial court violated his right to counsel. The court dismissed the complaint and Spencer appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.The Supreme Court affirmed the Seventh District's dismissal of the complaint. The Supreme Court held that even if the trial court had violated Spencer’s right to counsel, it did not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. A violation of the defendant’s right to counsel is a structural error that is reversible on appeal, but it does not result in a sentence that is void for the court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court further noted that Spencer had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law through direct appeal of his convictions and sentence, which he had already pursued. Thus, his convictions and sentences were not void and he was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. View "State ex rel. Spencer v. Forshey" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of Ohio, the issue was the quantum of evidence required to satisfy the probable-cause standard for determining whether a juvenile-court offender may be bound over to adult court. The case arose from an incident where a juvenile, E.S., was in a stolen car during a police chase, with his friend E.M., who was driving. After the car crashed, E.M. was found dead from a gunshot wound. A gun was found under the car’s passenger seat where E.S. had been seated, and E.S.'s DNA was found on the trigger and the grip of the gun. A bullet that had been fired from the gun was found in the driver's side front door. E.S. was charged in juvenile court with multiple offenses relating to the stolen car, the gun, and E.M.’s death.The juvenile court found probable cause for some charges but not for involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide. The state appealed the juvenile court's decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s judgment. The state then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The court held that the state had presented sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to believe that E.S. had committed the offense of involuntary manslaughter. The court found that the state’s evidence, both circumstantial and direct, was sufficient to establish probable cause. The court held that the juvenile court and the Court of Appeals had erroneously held the state to a higher burden than required for establishing probable cause in a bindover proceeding. The case was remanded back to the juvenile court for further proceedings. View "In re E.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and the Bureau of Sentence Computation (collectively, DRC) to calculate his minimum sentence to be fifteen years, holding that the court of appeals did not err.In 1996, Appellant was convicted on three counts of rape, one count of kidnapping, and one count of aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced him to three life sentences and two sentences of ten to twenty-five years, to be served consecutively. DRC calculated Defendant's sentence to be forty-five years to life. Appellant later brought this mandamus action, arguing that DRC erroneously calculated his minimum sentence by adding three ten-year minimum sentences associated with his life sentence. The court of appeals granted DRC's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in deciding that DRC correctly calculated Appellant's parole eligibility under Ohio Rev. Code 2967.13(F). View "State ex rel. Stokes v. Dep't of Rehabilitation & Correction" 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 Tom Watson of the North Central Correctional Institution, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief.Appellant was convicted on sixty-one counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor and sentenced to thirty-six and one-half years in prison. Appellant later filed this habeas petition alleging that he was being unlawfully imprisoned. The court of appeals granted the warden's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed and denied Appellant's motion for judicial notice, holding that Appellant was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because he did not show that his maximum prison sentence had expired or that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to later resentence him. View "State ex rel. King v. Watson" on Justia Law