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 habeas corpus, holding that Appellant stated no basis for relief in habeas corpus.After a retrial, Appellant was convicted of murder and aggravated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the trial court in which he was convicted lacked jurisdiction. The court of appeals dismissed the petition, finding that Appellant was convicted by a “court of competent jurisdiction.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief in habeas corpus. View "State ex rel. Swain v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus against Appellee, Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Ethan Cooper, holding that Appellant had - and had used - an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.Appellant’s mandamus claim challenged the credibility of the evidence on which his aggravated-robbery conviction was based. On direct appeal, however, Appellant challenged his conviction on insufficient-evidence and manifest-weight grounds. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that Appellant was not entitled to a writ of mandamus and that res judicata barred his claims concerning the insufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. View "State ex rel. Simpson v. Cooper" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Appellant’s second-degree application for DNA testing, holding that Appellant was not entitled to the relief he sought.Appellant was convicted of two counts of aggravated murder and sentenced to death. This appeal was taken from the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s second-degree application for DNA testing. On appeal, Appellant presented two propositions of law for the Supreme Court’s consideration. The Court denied relief, holding (1) this Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s first proposition of law; and (2) Appellant failed to show any of the evidence he sought to have tested could be outcome determinative. View "State v. Bonnell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the court of appeals properly dismissed Appellant’s petition for failure to attach the statement of his inmate account that is required by Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C).The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed Appellant’s petition due to his failure to abide by the mandatory filing requirements of section 2969.25. On appeal, Appellant argued that the Court should excuse his noncompliance with the technical requirements of the statute and challenged the constitutionality of the statute on its face and as applied. The Supreme Court rejected Appellant’s arguments on appeal, holding that Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly dismissed. View "Rogers v. Eppinger" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the court of appeals properly determined that res judicata precluded Appellant from raising his claim in this habeas corpus petition.In his petition, Appellant argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him because the juvenile court had not conducted a bindover proceeding as required by Ohio Rev. Code 2152.12 and Juv. R. 30. The court of appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law through which he could raise his bindover claim and that his habeas claim was barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed on res judicata grounds, holding that res judicata precluded Appellant from using habeas corpus to gain successive appellate review of this previously litigated issue. View "Lopez v. Warden" on Justia Law

At issue was whether a general contractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy that is nearly identical to the one considered in Westfield Insurance Co. v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc., 979 N.E.2d 269 (Ohio 2012), covers claims for property damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty work.The Supreme Court resolved the issue by applying the holding of Custom Agri which provides that property damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty work is not an “occurrence” under a CGL policy because it cannot be deemed fortuitous. The Court then reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, which reversed the trial court’s conclusion that the insurer in this case had no duty to defend the CGL policy owner, a general contractor. The Supreme Court held that the insurer was not required to defend the insured against suit by the property owner or indemnify the insured against any damage caused by the insured’s contractor. View "Ohio Northern University v. Charles Construction Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus sought by Relators seeking to compel Respondents, the Lucas County Board of Elections and its members, to place a proposed charter amendment on the November 6, 2018 general-election ballot, holding that the submission of the proposed charter amendment to the board of elections did not follow the specific procedure set forth in Ohio Const. article XVIII, sections 8 and 9.Sections 8 and 9 require the legislative body of the municipality to pass an ordinance instructing the board of elections to place the proposed amendment on the ballot upon submission of a sufficient petition. The proposed charter amendment in this case. Relators in this case sought to amend the city charter of Toledo. Relators, however, failed to allege or prove that the Toledo city council passed an ordinance submitting the proposed charter amendment to the electors. The Supreme Court denied mandamus relief, holding that the proposed charter amendment was never properly before the Board, and therefore, Relators did not have a clear legal right to their requested relief, and the board did not have a clear duty to provide it. View "State ex rel. Maxcy v. Saferin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal challenging the Public Utility Commission’s decision to allow Dayton Power and Light Company (DP&L) to withdraw and terminate its second electric-security plan (ESP II), holding that the Commission’s approval of DP&L’s third electric-security plan (ESP III) rendered this case moot.The Commission allowed DP&L to withdraw and terminate its ESP II rate plan and service stability rider (SSR) charge. The ESP II rate plan and its SSR charge were then replaced by ESP III, which the Commission approved. Appellant’s appealed the Commission’s order regarding ESP II. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot, holding that because there was no remedy that the Court could legally order, the appeal constituted only a request for an advisory ruling, and the controversy was no longer live. View "In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition against Robert C. McClelland, a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court judge, holding that Appellant was not entitled to either writ.Appellant pleaded guilty to five counts of gross sexual imposition and was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Appellant later filed a petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition in the court of appeals seeking an order compelling Judge McClelland to vacate as void a journal entry dismissing the first indictment in his criminal case. The court of appeals concluded that the trial court properly dismissed the first indictment and that Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, even if the dismissal had been granted in error, Appellant did not demonstrate that he lacked an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. View "State ex rel. Steele v. McClelland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s suppression of 150 individually wrapped pieces of marijuana-infused candy contained in two sealed Priority Mail envelopes located inside an open box on the back seat of Defendant’s vehicle during a traffic stop, holding that the search of the envelopes and the duration of the traffic stop were not in violation of Defendant’s constitutional rights.Specifically, the Court held that after finding marijuana and other drug paraphernalia in Defendant’s car, the arresting officer had probable cause to open the envelopes and had the right to detain Defendant for as long as reasonably necessary to complete the search of the vehicle. View "State v. Vega" on Justia Law