Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Appellant was an adult when a complaint was filed charging him with delinquency in connection with a shooting death that occurred when Appellant was a minor. The juvenile court transferred Appellant to the adult court, where he was convicted of aggravated murder and other crimes. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the court of appeals dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to allege a jurisdictional defect in the juvenile court's transfer of his criminal case to the adult court; and (2) Petitioner had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. View "State ex rel. Parker v. Black" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the General Assembly-district plan adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission on May 5, 2022 was invalid in its entirety and ordered the commission to draft and adopt an entirely new General Assembly-district plan that meets the requirements of the Ohio Constitution, including Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B).On May 5, the Commission readopted the plan at issue, purportedly only for use in the 2022 election. The Supreme Court had earlier held the plan to be unconstitutional. Petitioners filed objections to the adoption of the plan. The Supreme Court sustained the objections, holding that the plan at issue was invalid in its entirety. View "League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission" on Justia Law

In this challenge to a foreclosure judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that the court of appeals did not err in denying Appellant's motion for relief from the judgment.In 2018, Appellant filed a prohibition action seeking to prevent a foreclosure sale. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint. In 2019, Appellant filed a second prohibition action seeking to prevent the foreclosure sale. The court of appeals dismissed the action. Appellant both filed a motion for relief from judgment in the court of appeals and a notice of appeal. The Supreme Court denied the appeal, and the court of appeals denied the motion for relief from judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion. View "Lundeen v. Turner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals determining that some evidence supported the determination of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation that Appellant, an underground cable installation provider, had misclassified its workers as independent contractors rather than as employees for workers' compensation purposes, holding that there was no error.The Bureau determined that cable installers who Appellant had characterized as independent contractors were Appellant's employees for purposes of Ohio's workers' compensation program. Appellant requested a writ of mandamus ordering vacated of the Bureau's decision. The court of appeals denied the writ, concluding that some evidence supported the Board's determination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish its entitlement to a writ of mandamus. View "State ex rel. Ugicom Enterprises, Inc. v. Morrison" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a reallocation of local-government funds regarding fines collected from the use of traffic cameras during the preceding fiscal year, called the "spending setoff," and the "deposit requirement" that municipalities file a civil action to enforce citations issued using traffic cameras to pay an advance deposit in the court are not unconstitutional.Appellees, municipalities that both operated programs to enforce their traffic laws with cameras, brought this action for a declaratory judgment and for injunction relief asserting that the "spending setoff" and the "deposit requirement" infringed on its municipal home rule powers, in violation of Ohio Const. art. XVIII, 3. Appellees requested a preliminary injunction, which the trial court denied. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that the spending setoff and deposit requirement unconstitutionally penalize municipalities for exercising their home-rule authority to enforce their traffic laws with cameras. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that neither the spending setoff nor the deposit requirement are unconstitutional. View "Village of Newburgh Heights v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals granting summary judgment against Appellant, an inmate seeking to compel the clerk of courts to produce certain records under the Public Records Act, Ohio Rev. Code 149.43, holding that the court of appeals erred in rejecting Appellant's statutory-damages claim.Appellant filed a complaint for writ of mandamus alleging that he sent ten public-records requests to the clerk of court, who did not respond. The court of appeals concluded that Appellant was not entitled to relief in mandamus because the only requested record that was subject to the Public Records Act was not properly requested. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals erred in its rejection of Appellant's statutory-damages claims on the ground that the requested documents were governed by the Rules of Superintendence. View "State ex rel. Ware v. Kurt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for, among other crimes, two counts of aggravated murder with four death-penalty specifications attached to each count and Defendant's sentence of death, holding that there was no reversible error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's argument that the Ohio Constitution limits the right to self-representation was not well taken; (2) Defendant failed to show plain error as to his argument that his standby counsel interfered with his trial preparation and strategy; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (4) there was no abuse of discretion in jury selection; (5) the court did not admit inadmissible victim-impact testimony from witnesses during the trial phase or commit other reversible evidentiary error; (6) there was no prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel; and (7) Defendant's remaining assignments of error were unavailing. View "State v. McAlpin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus, holding that Appellant did not show that the parole-revocation proceedings violated his constitutional right to due process.Appellant was convicted of aggravated murder and aggravated robbery and was later released on parole. Appellant was subsequently charged with violating the terms of his parole. After a revocation hearing, the parole board approved the hearing officer's recommendation that Appellant be ordered to serve an additional thirty-six months in prison before again becoming eligible for parole. The parole board approved the recommendation. Appellant filed an action for a writ of mandamus alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that reversible error occurred during the revocation hearing. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to show that the parole revocation proceedings violated his constitutional right to due process. View "State ex rel. Mango v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions, holding that the judge's comments and questions to witnesses during Defendant's criminal trial did not violate Defendant's right to a fair trial before an impartial judge.After a trial, Defendant was found guilty of felonious assault and associated firearm specifications and of having a weapon while under a disability. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Defendant argued that his due process right to a fair trial was violated because the trial court engaged in questioning that showed bias against him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not carry his burden of establishing a reasonable probability that but for the judge's actions he would not have been found guilty of the charged offenses. View "State v. West" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals upholding Defendant's conviction of involuntary manslaughter, holding that Defendant's argument on appeal was without merit.Defendant committed a felony when he fired his gun at the scene of a fatal shooting because he was under disability as a result of a prior, unrelated drug offense that prohibited him from having or using a firearm. On appeal, Defendant argued that his prior drug offense that formed the basis for his firearms disability was unrelated to the victim's death, and therefore, his involuntary manslaughter conviction was improper. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, by its plain terms, Ohio Rev. Code 2903.04(A) simply requires that a person cause the death of another "as a proximate result" of the commission of a felony. View "State v. Crawford" on Justia Law