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 any of his three propositions of law.Appellant was convicted of an aggravated murder that he committed when he was a juvenile. In his habeas petition, Appellant argued that he was entitled to immediate release because the court of common pleas had lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his case for several reasons. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint, determining that the premise of Appellant's claim was false. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals properly found that the judgment of conviction and sentence were not void ab initio for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Stever v. Wainwright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus sought by Katie O'Neill ordering the Athens County Board of Elections to declare that she was an eligible candidate for the Democratic nomination to the office of state representative for the 94th Ohio House District and to include in its official canvass of the primary election the votes cast for O'Neill, holding that the board abused its discretion by rejecting O'Neill's petition.On December 18, 2019, O'Neill filed her petition seeking to run for the Democratic nomination for the office of state representative for the 94th Ohio House District. The Board unanimously certified O'Neill's name to the primary ballot. Keith Monk filed a protest against O'Neill's candidacy. After a hearing, the Board voted in favor of the protest, concluding that O'Neill was not an eligible candidate for the nomination because she had not resided in the district for one year next preceding the November 3, 2020 general election and that the petition was invalid because O'Neill was not a registered voter in Athens County when she began circulating her part-petitions. The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus, holding that the Board abused its discretion and disregarded applicable law by upholding the protest to O'Neill's candidacy. View "State ex rel. O'Neill v. Athens County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted in part a writ of mandamus sought by Ohioans for Secure and Fair Elections (Ohio-SAFE) seeking, among other things, to compel the Ohio Ballot Board to certify to the Attorney General that the Ohio-SAFE petition contained only one proposed constitutional amendment, holding that Ohio-SAFE had a clear legal right to certification of the proposed amendment as written and the Board had a clear legal duty to make that certification.Ohio-SAFE submitted to the Attorney General an initiative petition and summary, which would amend Ohio Const. art. V, section 1 to eliminate the thirty-day registration requirement to be eligible to vote. In addition, the proposed amendment would guarantee certain rights to every United States citizen who was or was eligible to become an elector in Ohio. The Secretary of State made a motion for the Board to find that the Ohio-SAFE amendment contained four separate proposals. The Board approved the amendment. The Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to grant a writ of mandamus directing the Board to certify the Ohio-SAFE amendment as a single amendment, holding that mandamus should issue. View "State ex rel. Ohioans for Secure & Fair Elections v. LaRose" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstated Defendant's guilty pleas and convictions, reaffirming that trial courts in felony cases must strictly comply with the plea colloquy required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) and holding that a trial court strictly complies with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) when it orally advises the defendant in a manner reasonably intelligible to the defendant that the plea waives the rights enumerated in the rule.At issue in this case was whether strict compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) requires that the plea colloquy include particular words. Defendant pleaded guilty to certain crimes. On appeal, Defendant argued that the pleas should be vacated because the trial court failed to ensure that he understood that by pleading guilty he was waiving the constitutional rights enumerated in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). The court of appeals vacated Defendant's guilty pleas and reversed his convictions, concluding that the trial court failed to strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2) by failing to advise Defendant that he would waive his constitutional trial rights by pleading guilty. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) by using easily understood words conveying to Defendant that he would be waiving certain constitutional rights if he were to plead guilty. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the Libertarian Party of Ohio's complaint asking the Supreme Court to invalidate Directive 2020-06 and establish procedures for completing the 2020 primary election, holding that subsequent actions by the secretary of state and the general assembly rendered those requests moot.On March 16, 2020 the director of the Ohio Department of Health issued an order closing polling places in Ohio to avoid the threat of exposure to COVID-19. That same night, the Secretary of State issued Directive 2020-06, which purported to extend absentee voting through June 1 and set June 2 as the date for in-person voting at polling places. On March 17, this expedited election case was filed seeking a writ of prohibition to invalidate the directive and establish procedures for completing the 2020 primary election. Thereafter, the General Assembly passed House Bill 197, an emergency act that voided Directive 2020-06 and established how the primary election will proceed. The governor signed House Bill 197 into law on March 27. The Supreme Court dismissed this cause, holding that the Libertarian Party's complaint was moot. View "State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing as moot Appellant's complaint for writs of mandamus and procedendo against Clark County Court of Common Pleas Judge Richard J. O'Neill, holding that the court of appeals correctly determined that Appellant's claims were moot.Appellant was found guilty in consolidated cases of murder with a firearm specification and attempted aggravated burglary. Appellant later filed under both case numbers a motion to vacate his postrelease control and a motion for a final, appealable order. The trial court denied the motion for a final, appealable order and granted in part the motion to vacate postrelease control, but the judgment entry did not refer to the motions that Appellant had filed in one of the two cases. Appellant filed a complaint for writs of mandamus and procedendo, arguing that Judge O'Neill had not yet ruled on his motions. Judge O'Neill filed a motion to dismiss, attaching a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry in which the judge effectively denied Defendant's motion to vacate his postrelease-control sentence in the second case. The court of appeals dismissed the claims as moot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claims were moot. View "State ex rel. Hibbler v. O'Neill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus, holding that Appellant's claim was barred by res judicata.Appellant was convicted of aggravated murder with two firearm specifications. The indictment had contained a count of having a weapon while under disability (WUD), but the court's sentencing entry did not refer to the WUD charge. Appellant later filed a motion for a final, appealable order, arguing that the sentencing entry was void because it failed to dispose of the WUD charge. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant then filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus arguing that the sentencing entry did not dispose of the WUD charge and was not a final, appealable order. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint because Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law and because Appellant's claim was barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that res judicata barred Appellant's mandamus claim because he had raised the same claim multiple times previously. View "State ex rel. Peoples v. Schneider" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals convicting Defendant of one count of murder in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2903.02(A) and one count of murder in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2903.02(B), holding that the trial court's admission of expert opinion testimony that was not set forth in a written report was harmless error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the state's failure to supply a written report providing the expert's opinions and scientific reasoning violated Crim.R. 16(K) and that the admission entitled him to a new trial. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) it is error to admit expert opinion testimony when the expert's opinion was not submitted in compliance with Crim.R. 16(K); but (2) in the instant case, the trial court's admission of testimony that went beyond the scope of the expert's written report was harmless error. View "State v. Boaston" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Wood County Prosecuting Attorney Paul Dobson's request seeking a peremptory writ of prohibition against Judge Peter Handwork, who presided in two criminal cases finding Andrew Schuman guilty of seven felony counts and who later modified the judgment of sentence, holding that Judge Handwork patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to issue the postjudgment orders.After entry of the judgment of sentence and Schuman's appeal was filed, Judge Handwork considered two motions filed by Schuman and issued two orders modifying the judgment of sentence. Dobson sought a writ of prohibition to vacate the post judgment orders and to prohibit any further exercise of jurisdiction by Judge Handwork. Because Judge Handwork did not file an answer, Dobson also filed a motion for default judgment. The Supreme Court granted the motion for default judgment and issued a peremptory writ of prohibition, holding that Handwork's absence of jurisdiction was patent and unambiguous. View "State ex rel. Dobson v. Handwork" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of prohibition to vacate judgments in two civil cases, holding that Appellant's claim was barred by res judicata.Appellant previously tried to vacate the civil judgments at issue in this case by filing a mandamus claim. The Supreme Court's dismissal of the mandamus complaint operated as an adjudication on the merits. The Supreme Court held that because Appellant's prior lawsuit attacking the validity of the same underlying judgments had been adjudicated on the merits, Appellant's current claim was barred by res judicata. View "State ex rel. Kerr v. Kelsey" on Justia Law