Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Relator, who had been convicted of a sexually-oriented offense, was indicted for failure to notify the appropriate county sheriff’s office when he changed his residential address. Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the court of appeals, asserting that Judge Frank G. Forchione lacked jurisdiction over his criminal case for the failure to notify and indicating that only Judge Haas, who presided over his original criminal case, had jurisdiction. The court of appeals granted Judge Forchione’s motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Relator had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way of appeal was not entitled to a writ of mandamus. View "State ex rel. Black v. Forchione" on Justia Law

Platinum Lodging, LLC, the former owner of the property at issue in this appeal, was a party throughout proceedings challenging a real property valuation for the tax year 2008. The Franklin County Board of Revision (BOR) reduced the valuation. Platinum Lodging and the current property owners appealed to the common pleas court. The common pleas court remanded the matter to the BOR. On remand, the BOR dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the complainant lacked standing. The Columbus City Schools Board of Education and Platinum Lodging appealed. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) dismissed the appeals on the grounds that, because the first appeal had been filed in the common pleas court, the BTA lacked jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the BOR’s dismissal order on remand. The Supreme Court reversed the BTA’s order or dismissal as to Platinum Lodging, holding that Platinum Lodging acted properly in filing its notice of appeal at the BTA instead of in the common pleas court. Remanded to the BOR with instructions that it determine the value of the property in accordance with the earlier remand order issued by the common pleas court. View "Columbus City Schs. Bd. of Educ. v. Franklin County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Relator, Richard Burroughs, submitted a nominating petition containing twenty-four valid signatures to run as an independent candidate for the city of Akron ward 8 council position in the November 3, 2015 election. The Summit County Board of Elections rejected four petition signatures because they did not match the signatures on the electors’ voter-registration forms. Relator sought a writ of mandamus ordering the Board to certify him for the city of Akron ward 8 council position in the general election. On the authority of State ex rel. Crowl v. Delaware County Bd. of Elections, also decided today, the Supreme Court granted a writ, concluding that the Board abused its discretion in rejecting the four petition signatures and in denying Relator a place on the ballot. View "State ex rel. Burroughs v. Summit County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

Relator, Douglas Crowl, gathered signatures on a nominating petition to run for the position of Porter Township trustee in the November 3, 2015 general election. Crowl timely filed the petition with the Delaware County Board of Elections. The Board marked eight signatures as not genuine and determined that Crowl’s petition did not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. Crowl objected, but the Board denied the protest. Crowl sought a writ of mandamus compelling the Board to place his name on the November 2015 general-election ballot. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that because the Board admitted that the eight signatures in question were genuine, the Board abused its discretion when it denied Crowl a place on the ballot. View "State ex rel. Crowl v. Delaware County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated murder. The trial court sentenced Appellant to death. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for aggravated murder but vacated the sentence of death, holding (1) the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its pretrial rulings or violate Appellant’s right to a speedy trial or fair trial; (2) there was no prejudicial error or violation of Appellant’s constitution rights regarding jury selection; (3) the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress; (4) Appellant was not prejudiced by prospective juror misconduct, and the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion for a mistrial based on statements made by a witness; (5) Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel; (6) the jury was properly instructed; but (7) there was not sufficient evidence to support the finding on the capital specification, and therefore, the evidence was insufficient to support the death sentence. Remanded for a new sentencing hearing. View "State v. Adams" on Justia Law

In 2014, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted decided to remove several members of the Lucas County Board of Elections from their positions. The Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee (LCRP) formally recommended Kelly Bensman and Benjamin Roberts for appointment. Husted rejected the recommendations by letter. The executive committee subsequently sought a writ of mandamus compelling Husted to appoint Bensman and Roberts to seats on the Board. The Supreme Court denied the application for a writ of mandamus, holding that Husted did not abuse his discretion, and therefore, LCRP was not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the appointment of Bensman or Roberts. View "Lucas County Republican Party Executive Comm. v. Husted" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs (OVI) in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 4511.19(A)(1)(a), a third-degree felony, and a repeat-offender specification; OVI in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 4511.19(A)(1)(d), a third-degree felony; and driving under suspension. The trial court merged the two OVI counts for sentencing purposes and imposed a “mandatory” three-year sentence for the specification plus an additional “mandatory” consecutive five-year sentence for the underlying OVI offense. The Ninth District Court of Appeals vacated the sentence, holding that it was contrary to law, but certified that its decision conflicted with State v. Sturgill, decided by the Twelfth District Court of Appeal. In this certified conflict appeal, the Supreme Court considered how multiple sentencing statutes interact when a defendant is convicted of an OVI offense as a third-degree felony as well as a repeat-offender specification. The Court held that, under these circumstances, a trial court must sentence that defendant to a mandatory prison term of one to five years for the repeat-offender specification and may also sentence the defendant to an additional prison term of nine, twelve, eighteen, twenty-four, thirty, or thirty-six months for the underlying OVI conviction. View "State v. South" on Justia Law

After a pretermination hearing, the Lockland School District Board of Education terminated Appellant’s contract of employment. Appellant appealed, arguing that Lockland had violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to hold the pretermination hearing in public. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Lockland. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a public employee can require that a hearing about his employment status be held in public under Ohio Rev. Code 121.22(G)(1) only when he is otherwise entitled to a public hearing; and (2) Appellant in this case was not otherwise entitled to a public hearing. View "Stewart v. Lockland Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ." on Justia Law

In 2011, Appellee submitted a disability-retirement application to the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and its board of trustees (together, “the Board”). The Board rejected Appellee’s claim for benefits. The Board also rejected Appellee’s appeal, finding that she was not permanently disabled. Appellee then filed suit for a writ of mandamus. The Court of Appeals granted the writ and ordered the Board to award benefits. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Court of Appeals abused its discretion by independently reevaluating the medical evidence and substituting its judgment regarding weight and credibility for that of the Board. View "State ex rel. Woodman v. Ohio Pub. Employees Ret. Sys." on Justia Law

On June 26, 2015, Mark H. Curtis filed a nominating petition and statement of candidacy to become a member of the school board of the Twinsburg City School District. The filing consisted of six part-petitions. At issue in this case was the validity of “Petition 1.” The board of elections declared Petition 1 invalid and struck the part-petition in its entirety because the circulator wrote that it contained twenty signatures from qualified electors and the board determined that there were twenty-one signatures on that part-petition. Curtis subsequently sought a writ of mandamus to compel the board to count the valid signatures on Petition 1. The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus, as Curtis presented undisputed evidence that that the unregistered voter whose signature was at issue had crossed out his own signature. View "State ex rel. Curtis v. Summit County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law