Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant pled guilty to two counts on which he was indicted. Appellant later filed a motion seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court overruled the motion and then sentenced Appellant. The court of appeals affirmed. After Appellant’s second motion to withdraw his guilty plea was denied by the trial court and the court of appeals, Appellant filed this action in mandamus requesting an order compelling the trial court to conduct a hearing on his presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court of appeals granted the court of common pleas judge’s motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to a writ because he had and exercised an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way his motions and the appeal of the denial of those motions. View "State ex rel. Nickelson v. Bowling" on Justia Law

Erin McCardle and Leatrice Tolls, protesters involved in the Occupy Cleveland movement in the Public Square area of Cleveland, were arrested and charged with a curfew violation under Cleveland Codified Ordinances 559.541. The ordinance prevents any person from remaining in the Public Square area between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. without a permit. The defendants moved to dismiss the charges, asserting that the ordinance violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Cleveland Municipal Court denied the motions to dismiss. The defendants subsequently pled no contest to the curfew violation. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the cases, holding that the ordinance violated the First Amendment because Cleveland’s interests were insufficient to justify its limit on speech, and the ordinance was not narrowly tailored. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the ordinance was constitutional under the United States Constitution, as it was content-neutral, narrowly tailored to advance a significant government interest, and allowed alternative channels of speech.View "City of Cleveland v. McCardle" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of the aggravated murders of his former mother-in-law, his five-year-old daughter, and his three-year-old son. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death for each of the three aggravated murders. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for a change of venue did not violate Defendant's rights to due process and to a fair trial by an impartial jury; (2) the trial judge did not abuse its discretion in seating two jurors that Defendant claimed were unfairly biased in favor of the death penalty; (3) there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of autopsy photos; (4) the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct; (5) Defendant’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; (6) Defendant’s challenges to the death penalty failed; and (7) there was no error in the sentences imposed.View "State v. Mammone" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to the murders of two women and to two counts of abuse of a corpse. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated murder with death specifications for the deaths of two girls. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding, primarily, that (1) the State’s closing remarks in the penalty phase were “improper and substantially prejudicial,” but the Court’s independent evaluation and approval of the capital sentence cured the errors in the penalty-phase proceedings; (2) the trial court did not violate Ohio R. Evid. 404(B) by allowing a witness to testify that when she was thirteen years old Defendant exposed himself to her and offered her five dollars to engage in oral sex; (3) trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance; (4) the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of attempted rape or robbery in connection the murder of one of the girls; and (5) the sentence was appropriate.View "State v. Kirkland" on Justia Law

Appellants were convicted of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity under Ohio’s version of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for their involvement in the sale of drugs. The total amount of money involved in the sales attributed to each appellant was $460 and $250 respectively. Appellants appealed, arguing that the State failed to offer evidence demonstrating that either of them was involved in drug sales that totaled $500 or more, although the enterprise they were involved in profited significantly, and therefore, the $500 threshold set forth in Ohio’s RICO statutes had not been satisfied as to either of them individually. The Supreme Court overturned Appellants’ first-degree felony convictions under Ohio’s RICO statutes, holding that in order for a defendant to obtain a conviction for engaging in a patter of corrupt activity, Ohio’s RICO statutes must be construed so that the stated threshold amount applies to each individual and not to the enterprise as a whole. Remanded.View "State v. Stevens" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of aggravated murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Appellant was competent to stand trial; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Appellant to wear leg restraints in the courtroom, and even assuming that the order was an abuse of discretion, the error was harmless; (3) the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence of weapons and ammunition not used in the murders, but the error was harmless; (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in introducing the former testimony of Dr. Delaney Smith, a psychiatrist, during the penalty phase, as defense counsel had a prior opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Smith; and (5) the trial court’s sentencing opinion was adequate. View "State v. Neyland" on Justia Law

While on parole from a prior conviction of murder, Appellant committed murder. After a trial in 1984, a three-judge panel found Appellant guilty of aggravated murder with a prior-conviction specification and sentenced him to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but vacated the death sentence, determining that the panel had improperly weighed a nonstatutory aggravating circumstance against the mitigating factors. On remand, the same three-judge panel that had originally sentenced Defendant conducted the resentencing hearing and again sentenced Defendant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed. In 2007, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted habeas relief and required that Defendant be resentenced on the ground that the panel on resentencing should have allowed Defendant to introduce mitigating evidence in addition to the mitigating evidence presented at his 1984 trial. By the time of the subsequent resentencing, none of the original panel members were on the bench. Accordingly, the trial court convened a three-panel consisting of three new members. The new panel again sentenced Defendant to death. Defendant appealed, raising five propositions of law challenging his death sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence, holding that all five propositions of law lacked merit. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with aggravated murder, and his case was assigned to the docket of Common Plea Court Judge Thomas Nurre. A visiting judge, Judge Donald Schott, was assigned to preside over the trial. The jury found Appellant guilty, and the trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of life imprisonment, with the possibility of parole after twenty years. The judgment entry was signed by Judge Nurre on behalf of Judge Schott. Appellant filed an original action in the court of appeals requesting writs of mandamus and prohibition and seeking to declare the entry of conviction void because it was not signed by the judge who presided over the trial. The court of appeals dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed on the basis that Appellant’s sentencing entry did not violate Ohio R. Crim. P. 32(C) because Judge Nurre’s signing the entry was proper, and the entry satisfied the requirements of Rule 32(C). View "State ex rel. Harris v. Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with, inter alia, operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OVI). Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the traffic stop. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that the motion lacked sufficient particularity on the issue of alleged improper administration of field sobriety tests. At the pretrial conference, Defendant pled no contest. The trial court subsequently found Defendant guilty of OVI. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress, finding the motion deficient because more factual detail was needed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a highly detailed pleading of the facts and law is not required to satisfy the notice requirements of State v. Shindler and to trigger the right to a hearing on a motion to suppress.View "State v. Codeluppi" on Justia Law

Appellant was found guilty of four felonies, with forfeiture specifications, for running a marijuana-distribution operation out of a building he and his brothers owned on Scranton Road. Common Pleas Court Judge Nancy McDonnell issued a sentencing entry listing the property at Scranton Road as property to be forfeited. On October 11, 2011, Appellant appealed the sentencing order. On January 13, 2012, Judge McDonnell issued a journal entry reiterating Appellant’s sentence and ordering transfer of the property. On October 23, 2012, Appellant sought a writ of prohibition to vacate Judge McDonnell’s January 13, 2012 order, arguing that Judge McDonnell lacked jurisdiction to enter the order. The court of appeals dismissed Appellant’s petition, concluding that Ohio Rev. Code 2981.04 vested Judge McDonnell with jurisdiction to conduct forfeiture proceedings even after the notice of appeal was filed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Judge McDonnell did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction and that any errors in the proceedings should be addressed on appeal. View "State ex rel. West v. McDonnell" on Justia Law