Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated its decision in State v. Gwynne, __ N.E.3d __ (Ohio 2022) (Gwynne IV) and affirmed the judgment of the Fifth District Court of Appeals in this sentencing dispute, holding that the court of appeals properly applied the plain language of Ohio Rev. Code 2953.08(G)(2) in concluding that the record supported the trial court's consecutive sentence findings.Appellant pleaded guilty to seventeen counts of second-degree burglary, among other offenses. The trial court made the findings required under Ohio Rev. Code 2929.14(C)(4) for imposing consecutive sentences and ordered the felony sentences to be served consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of sixty-five years. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in Gwynne IV, holding on de novo review that the findings required by section 2929.14(C)(4) to impose consecutive prison sentences on an offender must be made in consideration of the aggregate term. The Supreme Court then granted the State's motion for reconsideration, vacated its decision in Gwynne IV and affirmed the court of appeals, holding (1) Ohio Rev. Code 2953.08(G)(2) requires an appellate court to defer to a trial court's consecutive sentence findings, and those findings must be upheld unless they are clearly and convincingly not supported by the record; and (2) the appellate court properly applied that standard. View "State v. Gwynne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied mandamus relief in this action brought under Ohio's Public Records Act, Ohio Rev. Code 149.43, by Kevin Payne against Kelly Rose, an inspector at the Richland Correctional Institution (RCI), holding that Payne did not have a cognizable claim in mandamus.Payne, an inmate at RCI, sent a public-records request to Rose for a copy of, among other things, JPay support ticket number MACI 1220002928. Rose responded that she obtained the requested record and provided a copy of it to Payne. Payne brought this action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering Rose to produce the requested record and statutory damages. The Supreme Court denied mandamus relief, holding (1) because Payne received his requested record before instituting this action he never had a cognizable claim in mandamus; and (2) statutory damages did not accrue. View "State ex rel. Payne v. Rose" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction for violating Ohio Rev. Code 2907.06(A)(2), holding that a jury can reasonably infer that a defendant knew a victim to be substantially impaired so as to convict him of sexual imposition under the statute.Defendant was charged with violating Ohio Rev. Code 2907.06(A)(1) and (2) for his sexual contact with woman who was blind and suffered from unspecified developmental disabilities. The jury found Defendant guilty of both counts of sexual imposition. The court of appeals reversed Defendant's conviction for violating section 2907.06(A)(2), concluding that the victim was not substantially impaired. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) knowledge of a victim's "substantial impairment" can be proved both by the defendant's knowledge of the victim's blindness and evidence of the nature of the interactions between the defendant and the developmentally disabled victim; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to find that Defendant knew that the victim's blindness, together with her developmental disabilities, substantially impaired her ability to appraise the nature of and control of Defendant's conduct. View "State v. Jordan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals concluding that Acuity was not required to provide coverage for the car accident in this case, holding that Acuity must provide coverage for the accident.Ashton Smith, who was insured by Acuity and had borrowed a friend's car, was involved in an accident. The car's owner was insured by Progressive Speciality Insurance Company. Under the Progressive policy, Smith was not an "insured person" when he was driving his friend's car, but he was covered by the plain language of the Acuity policy. The trial court found Acuity responsible for providing liability coverage. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that under the plain language of the two policies at issue, Acuity was responsible for providing coverage. View "Acuity, A Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Specialty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the Ohio Power Siting Board approving two large solar farms that were proposed to be built in Preble County, holding that the Board's order was neither unlawful nor unreasonable.The General Assembly authorized commercial solar farms in Ohio but made their construction conditional on the Board's approval. The Board approved the solar farms after its staff agreed to stipulations imposing a number of conditions on the construction and operation of the facilities. Certain citizens appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was nothing unlawful about the Board's adherence to its own regulations and that the Board did not act unreasonably in making the determinations required by Ohio Rev. Code 4906.10(A). View "In re Application of Alamo Solar I, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition ordering the trial court to vacate his criminal sentence, holding that Appellant was not entitled to a writ of mandamus or prohibition.Appellant was convicted of escape, retaliation, and other offenses and sentenced to 26.5 years in prison. Appellant later brought the current action seeking writs of prohibition and mandamus ordering the trial court to vacate his sentencing entries and to grant any other relief to which he was "entitled." The court of appeals dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law through direct appeal to raise his claim that the Sixth Amendment requires that a defendant be expressly informed of his right to counsel at each critical stage of the proceeding and that the trial court's failure to do so in his case rendered his sentence void. View "State ex rel. Rarden v. Butler County Common Pleas Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the trial court to grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this complaint alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with business contacts, tortious interference with business relationships, and conversion, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff, Hanneman Family Funeral Home and Crematorium, purchased a funeral home but did not retain the funeral home's director, Patrick Orians. Orians accepted employment at another funeral home, Chiles-Laman Funeral & Cremation Services, and used Plaintiff's customer information to solicit business for Chiles-Laman. Plaintiff sued Orians and Chiles-Laman (collectively, Defendants). The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the information at issue was not protected by the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act as a trade secret; and (2) Plaintiff's tort claims were preempted by the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act. View "Hanneman Family Funeral Home & Crematorium v. Orians" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal challenging the decision of the court of appeals denying his motion for leave to continue a mandamus action, holding that Appellant's appeal was prohibited under Ohio Rev. Code 2323.52(G).Appellant filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus alleging that he made a public-records request to Appellee, Franklin County Prosecutor G. Gary Tyack, under Ohio's Public Records Act, Ohio Rev. Code 149.43, for certain documents, and that Tyack had failed to answer his request. Thereafter, in a separate case, Mobley was declared a vexatious litigator. Mobley filed a motion for leave to continue his mandamus action as a vexatious litigator, but the court of appeals denied the motion and dismissed the mandamus action. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal. View "State ex rel. Mobley v. Tyack" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that the trial court in which he was convicted lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition for Appellant's failure to comply with Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C).Appellant was convicted on two counts of aggravated murder and sentenced to two concurrent life sentences. Appellant later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and failed properly to journalize his sentencing entry. The court of appeals dismissed the petition for Appellant's failure to comply with section 2969.25(C). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petition was properly dismissed due to Appellant's failure to submit a certified statement of his inmate account, as required by section 2969.25(C)(1). View "Grinnell v. Cool" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a limited writ of mandamus ordering Respondent James Wesson, the warden's assistant at the Grafton Correctional Institution (CGI), to, within fourteen days, either produce records in response to a December 2022 public-records request or show cause why the records could not be produced, holding that Relator was entitled to the writ.Relator, an inmate at CGI, sent a public-records request by electronic kite to Wesson requesting three records. Relator subsequently commenced this mandamus action asking the Court to order Wesson to provide the requested records. The Supreme Court granted a limited writ ordering Wesson to produce a copy of a mental-health kite with reference number GCI0422002492 from April 21, 2022 or to show cause why it could not be produced, holding that Relator established that he was entitled to the writ. View "State ex rel. Barr v. Wesson" on Justia Law