Justia Ohio Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court dismissed this original action in which Relators sought a writ of mandamus against the Ohio State Senate and its thirty-three members individually, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.Relators sought a writ of mandamus to compel the House respondents to uphold Ohio Const. art. I, 21. The Supreme Court concluded that the request could be read either as a request to compel the House respondents to enact legislation prohibiting the practices to which Relators objected or as a request to prohibit the respondents from enacting legislation that would conflict with Article I, Section 21. The Supreme Court dismissed this action, holding that, under either theory, the relief sought was beyond the Court's jurisdiction to grant. View "State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio State Senate" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this original action in which Relators sought a writ of mandamus against the Ohio House of Representatives and ninety-eight of members individually, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction over the complaint.Relators sought a writ of mandamus to compel the House respondents to uphold Ohio Const. art. I, 21. The Supreme Court concluded that the request could be read either as a request to compel the House respondents to enact legislation prohibiting the practices to which Relators objected or as a request to prohibit the respondents from enacting legislation that would conflict with Article I, Section 21. The Supreme Court dismissed this action, holding that, under either theory, the relief sought was beyond the Court's jurisdiction to grant. View "State ex rel. Jones v. Ohio House of Representatives" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals upholding Defendant's sentence, holding that a defendant's display of disrespect toward a trial court is not a permissible sentencing factor that the court may consider under Ohio Rev. Code 2929.11 and 2929.12.The trial court in this case increased Defendant's prison sentence by six years in response to Defendant's misbehavior while reacting to the length of a previously-imposed prison sentence. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a defendant's outburst or other courtroom misbehavior may not result in an increased sentence for the underlying crime; and (2) the six-year increase in Defendant's sentence was contrary to law. View "State v. Bryant" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to hold a new sentencing hearing, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the mandamus petition.Appellant was convicted of child endangering and felony murder. The trial court merged the offenses and determined that the sentences should run concurrently. Appellant later moved to vacate the "void sentences." The court of appeals concluded that the judgment of conviction was void because only one sentence could be imposed for the merged offenses. On remand, the trial court modified the sentence. Appellant subsequently brought this mandamus action asking the court of appeals to order the trial court to vacate its previous judgment and hold a new sentencing hearing. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's appeal of the modified sentencing order constituted an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. View "State ex rel. Cherry v. Bryant" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of habeas corpus against the current prison warden for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, holding that there was no error.Appellant pleaded guilty to several crimes, including two counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of rape. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept his plea and sentence him because his competency had been called into question. The court of appeals granted the warden's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that habeas corpus will not lie in this case. View "Rance v. Watson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part a writ of mandamus ordering the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) to provide certain records that Relator requested under the Public Records Act, Ohio Rev. Code 149.43, holding that Relator was entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling DRC to produce inmate master file documents.After Relator's request for documents was denied he commenced this action seeking a writ of mandamus compelling DRC to provide a copy of his inmate master file and all kites, grievances and appeals filed by him through the electronic-kite system. The Supreme Court granted the writ in part, holding (1) Relator failed to show a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus to compel the produce of the grievance-related records; (2) the DRC must produce the requested records; and (3) Relator was entitled to an award of the statutory maximum of $1,000 in damages. View "State ex rel. Mobley v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for writs of mandamus and/or procedendo against Franklin County Common Please Court Judge Carl A. Aveni II, holding that mandamus nor procendendo did not lie where Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.Appellant was found guilty of felony murder and felonious assault and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of twenty-five years to life. Appellant later filed the underlying complaint alleging that he was entitled to a new sentencing entry because the sentencing entry did not identify the felony underlying his felony-murder conviction. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law that he could have pursued in the ordinary course of the law. View "State ex rel. White v. Aveni" on Justia Law

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