Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was indicted on several charges. Defendant entered into a plea agreement whereby he agreed to testify in a murder prosecution against his father in exchange for amended or dismissed charges. One year after Defendant was sentenced, the State asked the trial court to vacate Defendant’s plea because he failed to cooperate in the State’s prosecution of his father. The trial court granted the request, withdrew the former plea agreement, and vacated the sentence. Defendant subsequently entered into a second plea agreement and was resentenced. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, concluding that the trial court did not have the authority to reconsider its own final judgment after Defendant had been sentenced. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there is no authority for a court to revisit a sentence that has already been imposed based on a defendant’s failure to fulfill his obligations under a plea agreement. View "State v. Gilbert" on Justia Law

Christopher Wright was convicted of felonious assault. The court of appeals affirmed. Asserting that he filed such a motion, Wright filed a petition for writ of procedendo to compel the trial judge to rule on his pro se motion for a new trial. The judge to whom the motion was directed moved to dismiss the motion, asserting that Defendant never filed a motion for a new trial. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals was correct in dismissing the petition, as there was no evidence that Wright’s motion was ever filed in the trial court. View "State ex rel. Wright v. Niehaus" on Justia Law

In 1976, Appellant was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death. The court of appeals affirmed the sentence. The Supreme Court reversed and modified Appellant’s death sentence to life in prison based on Lockett v. Ohio and Bell v. Ohio. In 1998 and 2007, Appellant filed petitions for writ of habeas corpus, which the court of appeals dismissed. In 2013, Appellant filed the instant complaint for a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo asserting that he should have been returned to the common pleas court for resentencing after his death sentence was modified. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the case was res judicata, as Appellant unsuccessfully made all these arguments in previous actions. View "State ex rel. Johnson v. McClelland" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of several counts of aggravated robbery and abduction, with firearm specifications. Several years later, Appellant filed a motion asserting that his sentence should be corrected because he was not properly advised of postrelease control. The trial court responded by correcting the original sentencing entry by a nunc pro tunc entry. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for writs of mandamus and procedendo against Judge Jeffrey L. Reed, requesting that the court of appeal compel the judge to issue a final, appealable sentencing order in his criminal case. The court of appeals denied the writ, concluding that the sentencing judgment, as corrected by the nunc pro tunc entry was a final, appealable order. The Sureme Court affirmed on the grounds that Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way of appeal. View "State ex rel. Ward v. Reed" on Justia Law

In 2011, Bernard Keith entered Lorain Correctional Institution to serve a six-month sentence. A hearing officer subsequently determined that Keith’s previous parole should be revoked. After a parole release hearing, the parole board denied Keith’s parole, citing several factors and stating that Keith had been paroled eight times. Keith filed this action in mandamus, requesting that the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (OAPA) be compelled to correct the record to reflect the correct number of times he had been paroled and that the parole board grant him a new hearing to consider the corrected information. The OAPA filed a motion to dismiss Keith’s case. Keith subsequently raised additional claims of further errors in his records. The court of appeals granted the OAPA’s motion for summary judgment because the information regarding the number of times Keith had been paroled had been corrected and because the parole board declined to modify its decision based on that corrected information. The Supreme Court reversed and granted the writ because the court of appeals failed to consider Keith’s additional assertions of error in his record. View "State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth." on Justia Law

The City of Cincinnati charged Daniel Ilg with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and related offenses. Ilg moved to suppress the results of his breath test taken from an Intoxilyzer 8000 machine. During discovery, Ilg sought computerized online breath archives data consisting of information transmitted by the specific machine used to test him to the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) for each breath test it performed. Ilg sought the data to challenge whether the Intoxilyzer 8000 machine operated properly on the day of his arrest. When the information was not forthcoming, the trial court ordered ODH to disclose the records. The ODH failed to comply with the discovery order, and the trial court ordered as a sanction that the evidence obtained from the Intoxilyzer 8000 be excluded from trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sanction was warranted in this case because Ilg was entitled to discovery of relevant evidence to support his claim that the Intoxilyzer 8000 machine used to test him failed to operate properly. View "City of Cincinnati v. Ilg" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate serving sentences from separate convictions, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the jurisdiction of the common pleas court to order him back to prison in the first case after he received an unconditional final release in that case. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata, attaching numerous exhibits. The court of appeals granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals should have granted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment because the res judicata defense depended on documents outside the pleadings. Further, the appellate court compounded its error by failing to give Appellant an opportunity to respond to the motion. Remanded.View "Jefferson v. Bunting" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the effect of H.B. 86 on a defendant who was convicted of possession of crack cocaine prior to its effective date but who was not sentenced until after its effective date. In practice, the enactment of H.B. 86 decreased the penalties for possession of crack cocaine. After a sentencing hearing conducted two weeks after H.B. 86’s effective date Defendant in this case was sentenced in accordance with the sentencing law in existence at the time she entered a plea of no contest to possessing crack cocaine. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Defendant was entitled to the benefit of a decreased sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that defendants who were convicted of possession of crack cocaine prior to the effective date H.B. 86 but were not sentenced until after that date must be sentenced under the provisions of H.B. 86.View "State v. Limoli" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on two counts of aggravated murder, each of which carried three death specifications. Defendant waived a jury and was tried by a three-judge panel. The panel found Defendant guilty of felony murder and sentenced him to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s jury waiver and voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; (2) the procedure whereby the judges were appointed to the panel was not plain error; (3) Defendant’s confession was voluntary; (4) Defendant’s claim that the State violated his Sixth Amendment rights by seizing “attorney work product” during a search of his jail cell was waived at trial; (5) prosecutorial misconduct did not deny Defendant a fair trial; (6) the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors in this case beyond a reasonable doubt; and (7) the death sentence in this case was appropriate and proportionate.View "State v. Osie" on Justia Law

The Cincinnati Enquirer filed two original actions in the Supreme Court seeking extraordinary writs. In the first case, the Enquirer sought a writ of mandamus to compel the county court judge to vacate his order sealing records relating to the prosecution of a defendant for a disorderly-conduct misdemeanor charge. In the second case, the Enquirer sought a writ of mandamus to compel the judge to produce criminal records for the past five years that had been incorrectly sealed and a writ of prohibition to prevent him from enforcing his orders to seal those records. The Supreme Court (1) granted the writ in the first case because the judge did not follow the proper statutory procedure in sealing the case; and (2) denied the writs in the second case because the Enquirer failed to establish a clear legal right to the records it requested.View "State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Lyons" on Justia Law