Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction for attempted aggravated murder, holding that the statute of limitations for attempted aggravated murder and attempted murder is six years under Ohio Rev. Code 2901.13(A)(1)(a).The attempted murder in this case occurred in 1993. The victim was also kidnapped and raped, but the case went cold until 2014. When new DNA evidence revealed Defendant as a possible perpetrator, he was indicted for attempted murder. The prosecuting attorney did not seek an indictment against him for rape and kidnapping due to the expiration of the respective statutes of limitations. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment based on the statute of limitations, but the lower court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute of limitations for attempted aggravated murder is six years, and therefore, Defendant's prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations. View "State v. Bortree" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss the criminal case against him based on an alleged violation of his statutory speedy-trial right, holding that the State did not violate Defendant's speedy-trial rights.The day before trial was set to begin, Defendant moved to dismiss the case base on an alleged violation of his statutory right to a speedy trial. The trial court denied the motion. Thereafter, Defendant entered a plea of no contest to a single felony count. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no violation of Defendant's statutory speedy-trial rights in this case. View "State v. Belville" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals vacating the trial court's judgment finding Defendant guilty of various sex crimes and remanding the case for a new trial without the testimony of the state's expert witness, holding that Crim.R. 16(K) precludes an expert witness from testifying at a trial commencing fewer than twenty-one days after the disclosure of the expert's written report.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in allowing Dr. Stuart Bassman, the state's expert witness, to testify when the state failed to provide Defendant's attorney with the expert's report until six days before trial. The court of appeals agreed and remanded the case for a new trial without Dr. Bassman's testimony. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the court os appeals' judgment precluding Dr. Bassman's testimony but otherwise affirmed, holding that Crim.R. 16(K) precludes an expert witness from testifying only at the trial commencing fewer than twenty-one days after the required disclosure is made and does not preclude otherwise admissible expert testimony at a defendant’s retrial. View "State v. Bellamy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the warden of the Lake Erie Correctional Institution, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition.Appellant, who was serving an aggregate prison term of up to fifty-six years for criminal convictions dating back to 1976, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 2021, arguing that his prison term expired in 2011 and that he was entitled to immediate release. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that where Appellant had been transferred to the Mansfield Correctional Institution in Richland County, the court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim. View "State ex rel. Robinson v. Fender" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for aggravated murder with death specifications and her sentence of death, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant raised sixteen propositions of law. The Supreme Court rejected each proposition of law, holding, among other things, that (1) there was no prejudicial error in the trial court's evidentiary rulings; (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims; (3) although significant mitigating factors existed, the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt; and (4) the death sentence was appropriate and proportionate. View "State v. Drain" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant's petition was moot.Appellant pleaded no contest to several drug-related offenses and was sentenced to six years' imprisonment. Appellant later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that sentencing errors entitled him to immediate release. The court of appeals granted the warden's motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a valid claim in relief. After he appealed, Appellant was released from prison. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' dismissal of the action, holding that Appellant's release from incarceration meant that his habeas claim was moot. View "State ex rel. Johnson v. Foley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC), holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery with a firearm specification and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of ten years. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, arguing that he had completed his maximum sentence. The court of appeals dismissed the petition, seeing no need to correct DRC's sentence calculation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the DRC correctly calculated what Appellant's aggregate sentence should be. View "State ex rel. Scott v. Ohio Dep't of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals determining that the evidence should have been suppressed in the underlying criminal case based on a statutory violation, holding that there was no violation of Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights in this case.While Defendant was serving community control, his probation officer conducted a random home-check on Defendant, searched his cell phone, and discovered child pornography. Defendant moved to suppress the uncovered evidence on the grounds that the suspicion-less search violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the suppression motion. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the search violated Ohio Rev Code 2951.02(A)'s requirement that a probation officer may conduct a search only when there are "reasonable grounds to believe" that a probationer is violating the law or conditions of control. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the probation officer exceeded the scope of her authority when she searched Defendant's cell phone without reasonable grounds to believe that he had violated the law or the conditions of probation; and (2) because there was no constitutional violation, there was no basis to exclude the evidence obtained as a result of the search. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Defendant was properly sentenced for murder and that the failure of a sentencing entry to track precisely the language of the applicable criminal sentencing statutes does not render the sentence contrary to law.Defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to "life in prison with eligibility [for] parole after 15 years." The sentencing entry, however, did not precisely track the language of the applicable criminal sentencing statute. The court of appeals vacated Defendant's murder sentence, concluding that the trial court's sentencing language regarding the murder count was dissimilar enough from the language of Ohio Rev. Code 2929.02(B)(1) to require vacation of that sentence and a remand for resentencing. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) whatever difference existed between the language of section 2929.02(B)(1) and the language in Defendant's sentencing entry, the difference was de minimis; and (2) Defendant's murder sentence complied with section 2929.02(B)(1). View "State v. Leegrand" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's mandamus complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which mandamus relief can be granted, holding that the court of appeals did not err or abuse its discretion.Appellant, an inmate, commenced this mandamus action alleging that the parole board erred in determining the date of his first eligibility for parole. DRC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court of appeals granted the motion after noting that the crux of Appellant's argument was that his second parole hearing should take place four years earlier than currently scheduled because his initial parole hearing was four years too late. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed Appellant's complaint for failure to state a valid claim for mandamus relief. View "State ex rel. Shine v. Ohio Dep't of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law