Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was indicted on one count of rape. After a jury trial, Appellant was found not guilty of rape and not guilty of sexual battery but guilty of the lesser included offense of gross sexual imposition. The court of appeals remanded the case, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of gross sexual imposition over Appellant’s objection; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for gross sexual imposition but that there was sufficient evidence to prove the lesser included offense of sexual imposition. Upon remand, the trial court found that Appellant was guilty of sexual imposition. Appellant appealed, arguing that, as a matter of trial strategy, a defendant has a right to present an “all or nothing defense” and refuse any lesser-included offenses instructions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a defendant does not have such a trial, and the trial court, after reviewing the evidence, must give an instruction on a lesser included offense if its is possible for the trier of fact to find the defendant not guilty of the greater offense and guilty of the lesser offense. View "State v. Wine" on Justia Law

In 2013, the Supreme Court ousted George Maier as sheriff of Stark County based on Maier’s failure to meet the employment qualifications. Maier subsequently went back to work full-time for Harrison County as a deputy sheriff. The Stark County Democratic Central Committee believed this employment cured the defect in Maier’s qualifications and again appointed him Stark County Sheriff. Thereafter, Maier submitted an application to be a candidate for sheriff in the May 6, 2014 Democratic primary election. Relator filed a protest with the Stark County Board of Elections (“BOE”), claiming that Maier remained unqualified to be a candidate for sheriff. The BOE’s hearing on the protest resulted in a tie vote. Secretary of State Jon Husted broke the tie in favor of denying the protest. Relator filed this action in prohibition to order the BOE and Husted to remove a BOE member for purposes of this protest for alleged bias and to order Husted to remove Maier from the primary ballot. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that neither Husted nor the BOE had the clear authority to remove a board of elections member for bias and because Husted did not abuse his discretion in allowing Maier to remain on the ballot. View "State ex rel. Balas-Bratton v. Husted" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to multiple criminal offenses, both state and federal. Appellant sought release from prison, arguing that the sentencing entry was ambiguous regarding whether his state sentences were to be served concurrently or consecutively to his federal sentence, and as a result, the sentences must be concurrent. The court of appeals dismissed Appellant’s petition for habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) habeas corpus was inappropriate in this case because sentencing errors are not cognizable in habeas corpus; (2) the availability of other adequate remedies at law also precludes relief in habeas corpus; and (3) even if Appellant could overcome the problems with habeas in this case, his arguments were without merit because the sentencing entry was not ambiguous. View "State ex rel. O’'Neal v. Bunting" on Justia Law

While she was a 2012 judicial candidate for the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, Respondent, who had previously served on the Eleventh District Court of Appeals but was no longer an incumbent judge, wore a name badge identifying herself as a judge of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. A five-member judicial commission found that, during the campaign, Respondent violated Jud. Cond. R. 4.3(A). The Supreme Court affirmed the commission’s order in part, holding (1) the portion of Rule 4.3(A) that prohibits a judicial candidate from conveying information about the judicial candidate or candidate’s opponent that the candidate knows to be false is not an overbroad restriction on speech and is not unconstitutionally vague; and (2) the portion of Rule 4.3(A) that prohibits a judicial candidate from knowingly or recklessly conveying information about the candidate or the candidate’s opponent that, if true, would deceive or mislead a reasonable person is unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. Accordingly, the Court severed the unconstitutional portion of the rule, found that Respondent committed one rather than two violations, and agreed with the commission that a remand is appropriate. View "In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against O’’Toole" on Justia Law

In 1995, Todd Plassman pled guilty to several counts of rape. Plassman was sentenced to indefinite terms of nine to twenty-five years, to be served concurrently but consecutively to his sentence imposed in another case. Over the years, Plassman filed, unsuccessfully, a variety of actions attempting to enforce the alleged limit on his sentence. In this instant case, Plassman filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the prosecutor and judge in his 1995 case agreed off the record that he would serve no more than a ten-year term of imprisonment if he pled guilty. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the issues Plassman raised were not only res judicata but were barred from consideration in habeas corpus due to the availability of other remedies. View "Plassman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth." on Justia Law

For the tax year 2008, Appellant, a property owner and taxpayer, filed four valuation complaints challenging the Summit County Fiscal Officer’s valuation of seven parcels. The Summit County Board of Revision (BOR) rejected Appellant’s requests for decreased valuations for lack of probative evidence. On appeal, Appellant urged the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) to adopt to certain properties the contractual allocation of the purchase price of a large industrial-warehouse business Appellant sold in 2010. The BTA found that the values determined by the fiscal officer and the BOR should be retained, concluding that the 2010 sale included some but not all of the parcels at issue as well as parcels that were not at issue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully in concluding that the allocation evidence did not suffice to establish the value of the properties; and (2) Appellant failed to discharge its burden to show the propriety of an allocated sale price. View "RNG Props., Ltd. v. Summit County Bd. of Revision" on Justia Law

Defendant was a juvenile when he committed acts constituting aggravated robbery. After a mandatory bindover hearing, the juvenile court relinquished jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the common pleas court. Defendant did not object to the mandatory bindover. Defendant then pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery with a firearm specification. Defendant was sentenced to four years in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing, for the first time, that the statutory mandatory bindover procedures violated his constitutional rights and that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise these claims in the lower courts. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that, by pleading guilty, Defendant had waived his right to challenge either the mandatory bindover or his attorney’s failure to object to it and that Defendant had not demonstrated that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant forfeited his challenge to the constitutionality of the mandatory bindover statutes by failing to present it to the lower courts. View "State v. Quarterman" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of felonious assault and carrying a concealed weapon. The appellate court remanded the matter for resentencing, determining that the trial court did not properly impose postrelease control. At the resentencing hearing, Defendant told the trial court that he wanted to represent himself. Thereafter, the court announced that Defendant would be subject to mandatory postrelease control upon release from prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that his right to counsel was violated during the resentencing proceedings and that a resentencing hearing is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding to which the right to counsel attaches. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court had not violated Defendant’s right to counsel by allowing him to represent himself at the resentencing hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a resentencing hearing is a critical stage of the proceedings to which the right to counsel attaches; and (2) Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel at the resentencing hearing. View "State v. Schleiger" on Justia Law

After a group of Richmond Heights, Ohio electors submitted a “recall petition” to recall Mayor Miesha Wilson Headen, the Richmond Heights City Council voted to certify the mayoral recall issue for inclusion on the ballot. A special election was scheduled for September 23, 2014, and early voting in the special election began on August 27, 2014. On September 4, 2014, James G. Dawson attempted to file a written protest against the special election. The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections refused to accept the protest because the voting had already begun. Dawson subsequently filed suit seeking a writ of prohibition against the Board of Elections to prevent it from submitting the recall initiative to the voters at the September 23, 2014 special election. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Dawson failed to present any reason why a writ of prohibition should issue to prevent the recall election. View "State ex rel. Dawson v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

On June 17, 2014, the city council of Powell approved a development plan prosing new construction in the Powell downtown business district by adopting Ordinance No. 2014-10. Relators filed petitions with the city clerk in support of three ballot measures: a referendum to block Ordinance No. 2014-10 from taking effect, an initiative to approve an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 2014-10, and an amendment to the city charter that would nullify Ordinance No. 2014-10. The city clerk transmitted the three petitions to the Delaware County Board of Elections. As a result of the combined actions of the city council and the board of elections, none of the three ballot measures was certified for the November 4, 2014 ballot. Relators filed this mandamus action to compel with city council and city clerk to place the proposed charter amendment on the ballot. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the proposed charter amendment unlawfully delegated legislative power, and therefore, the city council did not have a clear legal duty to put the measure on the November 4, 2014 ballot. View "State ex rel. Ebersole v. Powell" on Justia Law