Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint of Appellant for a writ of prohibition or mandamus seeking a writ requiring dismissal of an adoption proceeding concerning his biological child, holding that the complaint was properly dismissed.The adoption case was probate in the probate division of the court of common pleas. Appellee in this action was the judge of that court. In his complaint, Appellant argued that because an adoption cannot be granted under Ohio Rev. Code 3107.06 without the biological father’s consent, he deprived the probate court of jurisdiction by withholding his consent to the adoption. The court of appeals dismissed the prohibition claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the probate court clearly possessed jurisdiction to determine whether Appellant’s consent was required and because Appellant could appeal any adverse judgment, the court of appeals correctly dismissed the prohibition claim; and (2) mandamus was not proper because Appellant had no legal right to such a dismissal, nor did the common pleas court judge have any legal duty to grant it. View "State ex rel. Roush v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo to compel the Bureau of Sentence Computation of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) to recalculate his maximum sentence, holding that the court of appeals properly denied Appellant’s request.At issue in this case were Appellant’s sentences he received in 1989, 1992, and 2008. In affirming the denial of Appellants' petition for a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo, the Supreme Court held (1) Appellant argument that the DRC altered the trial court’s 1992 judgment entry was without merit; (2) because DRC did not alter the trial court’s 1992 judgment entry, the court of appeals did not violate Appellant’s due process rights; and (3) a writ of procedendo was not appropriate because DRC is not a court. View "State ex rel. Hunley v. Department of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s complaint for a writ of habeas corpus against Respondent, warden of the Noble Correctional Institution, holding that the allegations in Appellant’s petition did not state a claim for a writ of habeas corpus.Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of rape. Appellant was incarcerated at the Noble Correctional Institution when he filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging he was tried and sentenced as an adult without ever appearing in juvenile court for a bindover hearing. The court of appeals granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the common pleas court had subject matter jurisdiction over Appellant in the underlying proceedings. View "Bear v. Buchanan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the writ for failure to state a claim upon which habeas relief can be granted.In his complaint for a writ of habeas corpus Appellant alleged that the Interstate Agreement of Detainers (IAD) required the state to bring him to trial within 180 days, and because the state failed to do so, the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction to try him. The Supreme Court held (1) a violation of the IAD speedy-trial requirement is not jurisdiction and may be remedied by way of direct appeal; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to relief on his remaining propositions of law. View "Dean v. Marquis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals sua sponte dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion when it sua sponte dismissed the petition.Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to fifteen years to life. The trial court entered a nunc pro tunc entry to correct an error of omitting the manner of conviction. Appellant later filed an original action for writ of mandamus to compel the common pleas judge to issue a corrected ruling on his motion for a final, appealable order. The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the petition, ruling that the trial court had properly filed the nunc pro tunc entry to correct the error in omitting the manner of conviction and concluding that the nunc pro tunc entry misstated of the date of the sentencing hearing but that the error was a mere “scrivener’s error.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals properly denied the writ. View "State ex rel. Allen v. Goulding" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus against Appellees, the director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and the acting chair of the Ohio Parole Board (collectively, DRC), seeking to compel DRC to correct purported factual errors in his parole file and grant him a new hearing, holding that the court of appeals did not err in denying the petition.In 1998, a jury found Appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to fifteen years to life. After a parole hearing in 2015, the parole board concluded that Appellant was not suitable for release. Appellant then sought reconsideration from DRC alleging that there were several factual errors in his parole record. In 2017, Appellant filed his petition for writ of mandamus. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to a writ of mandamus requiring the parole board to correct the alleged errors. View "State ex rel. Brust v. Chambers-Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus that he filed against the warden of the Chillicothe Correctional Institution, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.Appellant was convicted of felonious assault with a gun specification, having a weapon under disability, and carrying a concealed weapon. Appellant later filed a habeas corpus petition alleging, among other things, that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for felonious assault. The court of appeals granted the warden’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Appellant’s claims were not cognizable in a habeas action because he had adequate remedies at law to raise those claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals properly dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim. View "Handcock v. Shoop" 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 Toledo Correction Institution, holding that the petition was correctly dismissed for noncompliance with Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25.Appellant was serving a term in prison for several criminal convictions. Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus asserting eight claims. The court of appeals dismissed the petition, among other reasons, because Appellant had failed to file an affidavit of prior civil actions required by section 2969.25(A). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s references to some of the prior civil actions he filed failed to satisfy all the requirements of section 2969.25(A). View "State ex rel. Dixon v. Bowerman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a certified question of law by holding that a defendant is not entitled to jail time credit for pre-sentence detention time when held on bond if, during the same period of time, he is serving a sentence on an unrelated case.On appeal from his sentence, Defendant argued that he was entitled to an award of jail time credit from the time that his bond was revoked on felony charges, regardless of the fact that he was already incarcerated for a probation violation. The appellate court determined that Defendant was entitled to credit for the entire time he was incarcerated since his bail was revoked. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant was not entitled to jail time credit while held on bond because, at the same time, he was serving a sentence on an unrelated case. View "State v. Cupp" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence of Appellant, who murdered his mother, but reversed an aggravated robbery charge against him that was used as one of three specifications supporting the prosecution’s effort to seek the death penalty.The Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) no prejudicial error occurred during jury selection; (3) the trial court erred in admitting certain other acts evidence, but the errors were harmless; (4) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument; (5) Defendant’s sentence was appropriate; (6) any error on the part of defense counsel during the penalty phase was harmless; (7) cumulative errors did not render Defendant’s trial unfair; and (8) the evidence failed to support the finding that Defendant “deprived” the victim of property or that Defendant’s “purpose” was to deprive the victim of the property at issue. View "State v. Tench" on Justia Law