Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of Appellant for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant was charged with drug trafficking and drug possession while on parole for an earlier offense. The Ohio Adult Parole Authority (APA) found that Appellant violated the terms of his parole by having illegal drugs under his control and ordered him to serve the remainder of his original maximum sentence. The State subsequently dismissed the drug charges for insufficient evidence. In his habeas petition, Petitioner argued that the APA violated his due process rights by finding a parole violation based on insufficient evidence. The court of appeals dismissed the petition on several grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in determining that Appellant’s petition (1) did not comply with the mandatory filing requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C) and 2725.04(D); (2) was not properly captioned in accord with Ohio R. Civ. P. 10(A); and (3) failed to state a claim for relief in habeas corpus. View "Greene v. Turner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals that affirmed Defendant’s felonious assault conviction for knowingly engaging in sexual conduct with his girlfriend without disclosing to her that he had tested positive as a carrier of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2903.11(B)(1). On appeal, Defendant argued that section 2903.11(B)(1) (1) is a content-based regulation that compels speech in violation of the First Amendment, and (2) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the state and federal Constitutions because there is no rational basis for a distinction between HIV positive individuals and individuals with other infectious diseases such as Hepatitis C or between the methods of transmitting HIV. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the statute regulates conduct, not speech, and therefore does not violate the First Amendment; and (2) the statute does not violate constitutional equal protection guarantees because it is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in preventing the transmission of HIV to sexual partners who may not be aware of the risk. View "State v. Batista" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of prohibition against Appellee, Court of Claims Judge Patrick McGrath. Appellant, an inmate, filed a negligence action against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Judge McGrath dismissed the action. The appellate court reversed and remanded the cause for further proceedings. On remand, Judge McGrath denied Appellant’s motion for summary judgment. In his petition for a writ of prohibition Appellant argued that Judge McGrath lacked jurisdiction to deny his summary judgment motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ dismissal of the prohibition petition, holding that Appellant failed to comply with Ohio Rev. Coe 2969.25(C)(1) and that Appellant’s noncompliance was not excused. View "State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath" on Justia Law

In this action alleging that D.S. allegedly engaged in acts of sexual contact with another boy, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and reinstated the juvenile court’s order dismissing the complaint pursuant to Juv. R. 9(A) before a delinquency case against D.S. progressed to a formal court proceeding.The State charged D.S. with three delinquency counts of of gross sexual imposition pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 2907.05(A)(4) for his conduct with another boy. Both boys were under the age of thirteen at the time of the offenses. The juvenile court dismissed the case, holding (1) section 2907.05(A)(4) was unconstitutional as applied to D.S.; and (2) dismissal was proper under Juv. R. 9. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the matter pursuant to Juv. R. 9(A). View "In re D.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Relator’s request for a writ of mandamus and/or a writ of prohibition to compel Respondent, the Wood County Board of Elections, to remove a charter amendment petition from the November 2017 ballot. Relator challenged the validity of the petition, alleging that it exceeded the municipal powers of self-government set forth in the Ohio Constitution, and alleging that the petition had insufficient valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. Respondent concluded that the petition was valid. The Supreme Court affirmed Respondent’s decision rejecting Relator’s protest arguments, holding that Relator’s protest had no merit. View "State ex rel. Espen v. Wood County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied relief in this original action seeking writs of mandamus and prohibition in regards to a zoning referendum. Relators argued that the zoning referendum did not comply with Ohio Rev. Code 519.12(H) because it did not reference the name of the property owner. Therefore, Relators argued that the referendum should removed from the November 7, 2017 ballot. The Supreme Court held (1) Relators’ mandamus claim must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because, although Relators framed their mandamus request in terms of compelling the board of elections to discharge affirmative duties, their true objectives were a declaratory injunction and a prohibitory injunction; and (2) the decision of the board denying Relators’ protest was authorized by law, and therefore, Relators were not entitled to a writ of prohibition. View "State ex rel. Tam O'Shanter Co. v. Stark County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of Appellant for a writ of habeas corpus. In his petition, Appellant claimed that he had served the maximum sentence on his convictions and was entitled to immediate release from prison. The court of appeals dismissed Appellant’s petition for failing to comply with Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(A) and (C). The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals correctly determined that Appellant failed to comply with section 2969.25(A) and thus properly dismissed the action. View "State ex rel. Perotti v. Clippper" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint of Appellant for writs of mandamus and/or procedendo against Summit County Court of Common Pleas Judge Christine Croce. In his complaint, Appellant argued that his sentence was void because the trial court incorrectly found that none of the offenses were allied offenses and it failed to make the necessary findings before imposing consecutive sentences. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint on the grounds that Appellant had failed to comply with the mandatory filing requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(A) and (C). The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals correctly determined that Appellant failed to comply with section 2969.25(C) and thus properly dismissed the action. View "State ex rel. Cowell v. Croce" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ denial of Appellant’s complaint for a writ of prohibition against Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Richard McMonagle, holding that the jurisdictional-priority rule has no applicability when the cases at issue are pending in the same court.Appellant, Consortium for Economic and Community Development for Hough Ward 7, owned real property (“the parcel”) in Cuyahoga County that was adjacent to property owned by the Oak Leadership Institute. Oak Leadership filed an action in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to quiet title to the parcel. Thereafter, a tax foreclosure suit relating to the parcel was filed in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. Appellant sought a writ of prohibition against Judge McMonagle, arguing that, even though the quiet-title lawsuit was filed first, the foreclosure lawsuit had jurisdiction priority because it first perfected service of process over all the interested parties. The court of appeals denied the writ, thus rejecting Appellant’s theory of jurisdictional priority. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the jurisdictional-priority rule has no applicability when the cases are pending in the same court. View "State ex rel. Consortium for Economic & Community Development For Hough Ward 7 v. Russo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that the exclusionary rule is not the appropriate remedy when police executing a valid search warrant violate the requirements of the knock-and-announce statute, Ohio Rev. Code 2935.12.The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court granting Defendants’ motion to suppress all evidence obtained during the search of an apartment. The trial court found that police had violated section 2935.12 without any exigent circumstances justifying the violation. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court and remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings, holding that the exclusion of evidence is not the proper remedy for a violation of the knock-and-announce statute. View "State v. Bembry" on Justia Law