Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2009, Appellant was convicted of aggravated murder. The court of appeals affirmed. The amended death certificate listed the time of death as “morning,” as had been indicated in the original death certificate. In 2008, the coroner reexamined the case and estimated that the time of death was between “2:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.” In 2015, Appellant filed a habeas corpus petition claiming that his conviction was obtained by fraud and trickery because the coroner did not have authority to amend the victim’s death certificate or alter the estimated time of her death, and therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to state a claim in habeas corpus because the coroner’s allegedly unlawful actions raised an evidentiary matter that could have been considered on direct appeal. View "State ex rel. Cutis v. Bunting" on Justia Law

After a trial, Appellant was found guilty of several offenses. Prior to trial, Appellant had filed a motion to represent himself, but the trial court never ruled on it. On appeal, Appellant, who was represented by appellate counsel, filed a supplemental pro se brief containing arguments regarding his motion for self-representation, but the supplemental brief was stricken because Appellant failed to comply with the page limitation set by the court, and the court of appeals did not rule on Appellant’s arguments regarding his self-representation motion. The court of appeals denied Appellant’s subsequent motion to reopen the appeal on the grounds that his appellate counsel had failed to rule that the trial court erred in not ruling on his motion for self-representation. Appellant then filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus compelling a ruling on his motion to represent himself. The court of appeals dismissed Appellant’s complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way of appeal. View "State ex rel. Cowan v. Gallagher" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the proper valuation for the tax year 2010 of an undeveloped tract made up of three noncontiguous parcels that was purchased in 2007 for the development of ranch condominiums. The county auditor originally valued the entire tract using the 2007 sale price, with a portion of that price allocated to each of the individual parcels. The Delaware County Board of Revision ordered reductions based on a deputy auditor’s report that was not made part of the record until the case was appealed. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) retained the reduced valuations. The Supreme Court vacated the BTA’s decision, holding that the evidence in the record negates the validity of the 2007 sale price but does not clearly establish an alternative valuation for the property. Remanded with instructions that the BTA perform an independent valuation of the property based on the existing record and any additional evidence that may be heard or received. View "Olentangy Local Schools Board of Education v. Delaware County Board of Revision" on Justia Law

M.S., a minor child, was in the temporary custody of the Allen County Children Services Board by order of the Juvenile Division of the Allen County Common Pleas Court. At that time, the Allen County Children Services Board brought this action seeking a writ of prohibition barring the Probate Division of the Mercer County Common Pleas Court and two judges from exercising jurisdiction over M.S. Both the Probate Court and the Juvenile Court asserted jurisdiction over the child’s residential placement. The Supreme Court granted a peremptory writ of prohibition precluding the Probate Court from exercising jurisdiction. The two judges moved for reconsideration. The Supreme Court granted the motion for reconsideration and rescinded the peremptory writ of prohibition, holding that the Probate Court acted within its jurisdiction and in accordance with its authority in placing M.S. for adoption with the consent of her mother. View "State ex rel. Allen County Children Services Board v. Mercer County Common Pleas Court, Probate Division" on Justia Law

The State filed a complaint against D.S. in the juvenile court, alleging that D.S., who was seventeen years old, was delinquent for approaching a couple about to enter their home, brandishing a firearm, and robbing them of their possessions. At the time of the juvenile court’s disposition, D.S. had been held for more than nine months in detention. Defendant requested confinement credit, but the juvenile court denied the request. D.S. appealed. The State conceded that the juvenile court erred in not granting D.S. credit for the time he was confined prior to disposition. On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Ohio Rev. Code 2152.18(B) requires that predisposition confinement be credited to a juvenile. Remanded for further proceedings, including the proper calculation and award of preconfinement credit. View "In re D.S." on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder, among other offenses. Appellant was sentenced to two life terms of incarceration, to run consecutively. Appellant filed in the trial court in his criminal case a motion to modify his sentence, asserting that he should have been sentenced as if he had been convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. Appellant further argued that, under Ohio Rev. Code 2929.61(A), none of his sentences should have been greater than one to twenty years and that they should have been imposed to run concurrently rather than consecutively. The trial judge overruled the motion. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus based on the same argument he made in his motion to modify his sentence. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Appellant’s argument misinterpreted section 2929.61(A), sentencing errors are generally not remediable by extraordinary writ, and Defendant had access to an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. View "State ex rel. Ridenour v. O'Connell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of attempted murder and several other offenses. Appellant now filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he was convicted of attempted felony murder and that because the Supreme Court determined in State v. Nolan that attempted felony murder is not a crime in Ohio, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to convict him. The court of appeals dismissed the petition, concluding that Appellant did not allege a defect in the subject-matter jurisdiction of the sentencing court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction over Appellant’s case and, moreover, Appellant could not argue that his conviction for attempted murder was void under Nolan because he committed, and was convicted of, attempted murder. View "State ex rel. Nichols v. Eppinger" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of creating nudity-oriented material involving a minor, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2907.323(A)(1), and possession of criminal tools, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2923.24(A). The convictions arose from Defendant surreptitiously recording video of a eleven-year-old female while she was undressed in a bathroom. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court did not apply the proper definition of nudity in convicting him of violating section 2907.323(A)(1). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, with respect to section 2907.323(A)(1), the statutory definition of nudity applies, rather than the narrower definition set forth in State v. Young. View "State v. Martin" on Justia Law

Jefferson Industries Corporation filed a complaint challenging the valuation for tax year 2011 of a plant involved in manufacturing and stamping car frames. The Madison County Auditor valued the property at $34,500,000. On appeal, the Madison County Board of Revision (BOR) adjusted the valuation to $28,000,000. Jefferson Industries again appealed and offered its appraisal valuation of $10,420,000. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) agreed with the BOR’s value, largely on the basis of the Jefferson Local School District Board of Education’s (BOE) appraisal. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the BTA, holding that the BTA did not explicitly address important evidentiary conflicts but should have. Remanded to the BTA to reconsider the evidence in light of particular objections that were raised to the BOE’s appraisal but were not addressed by the BTA. View "Jefferson Indus. Corp. v. Madison County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Sensible Norwood was a political-action committee established to support an initiative proposing an ordinance to decriminalize hashish and marijuana in the City of Norwood. The Hamilton County Board of Elections voted unanimously not to place the proposed ordinance on the ballot for the November 8, 2016 election, reasoning that it attempted to enact felony offenses and to impose administrative restrictions on the enforcement of existing laws. Sensible Norwood and its founder (together, Relators) initiated this action as an expedited election matter seeking a writ of mandamus to require the Board to place the proposed ordinance on the ballot. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Relators failed to establish a clear legal right to the requested relief and a clear legal duty on the part of the Board to provide it. View "State ex rel. Sensible Norwood v. Hamilton County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law