Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the trial court to issue a final, appealable order for his 1986 convictions and sentence. In his petition, Appellant argued that the 1986 judgment entry was unsigned and therefore void. The court of appeals concluded that the trial court’s 1986 judgment was a final judgment and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, even accepting as true Appellant’s assertion that the entry was unsigned, res judicata barred Appellant from raising his claim that the entry did not comply with Ohio R. Crim. P. 32. View "State ex rel. Woods v. Dinkelacker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ denial of Appellant’s petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition. In his original action for writs of mandamus and prohibition, Appellant alleged, among other things, that the judge who presided over his 1981 jury trial had never pronounced judgment or sentenced him. The court of appeals granted summary judgment for Defendants and denied the requested writs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) with one possible exception, the claims Appellant was making were barred by res judicata; and (2) summary judgment was proper on the only allegation that Appellant raised in the present case that may not have already been litigated. View "State ex rel. Jackson v. Ambrose" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to an indefinite term of a minimum of fifteen years to life, to be served consecutively to the sentence he was then serving on federal charges. Appellant later filed this action against the Bureau of Sentence Computation (BSC) requesting a writ of mandamus to compel BSC to calculate his term served under his state sentence as if the sentence were being served concurrently with, and not consecutively to, the federal sentence. The court of appeals dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s arguments on appeal were unavailing. View "State ex rel. Sanford v. Bureau of Sentence Computation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking an order releasing him on bond and suspending execution of his sentence pending appeal. Petitioner, who was convicted of aggravated possession of drugs, appealed, seeking the reversal of his conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied Petitioner’s motion for bail pending appeal, and the court of appeals denied a similar motion filed by Petitioner. The Supreme Court held that Petitioner failed to show that the court of appeals abused its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion for bond pending appeal and thus denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied as moot his motion for an expedited ruling. View "Small v. Hooks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals granting judgment in favor of Michael Clay in this action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the release of autopsy records by the Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner’s Office’s (ME) under Ohio Rev. Code 313.10(C)(1). On appeal, the ME argued, among other things, that the court should use the in pari material rule of statutory construction in determining the meaning of section 313.10(C)(1), which governs access to records held by a coroner’s office. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the in pari material rule of statutory construction and the absurdity exception to the plain-language rule of statutory construction are not applicable to section 313.10(C)(1); and (2) because section 313.10(C)(1) is plain and unambiguous, it is applied as written. View "State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner's Office" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of Appellant for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant was granted parole on the condition of “zero tolerance for any positive drug test.” The next month, he tested positive for drug use. After a revocation hearing, Appellant was reincarcerated. Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming violations of his due process, equal protection, and confrontation rights. The court of appeals concluded that habeas corpus was not available to grant the relief Defendant sought. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that Defendant failed to state a proper claim in habeas corpus. View "State ex rel. Womack v. Sloan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ denial of a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Shannon Gallagher to declare Appellant’s sexual-predator classification void. In his first proposition of law, Appellant argued that Judge Gallagher was under a clear legal duty to declare his classification void. In his second proposition of law, Appellant argued that various errors and constitutional violations occurred at his sex-offender-classification hearing. The Supreme Court held (1) regarding Appellant’s first proposition of law, Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way of appeal; and (2) regarding Appellant’s second proposition of law, Appellant’s claims were not raised in the complaint and were therefore waived. View "State ex rel. Sevayega v. Gallagher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals that affirmed Defendant’s felonious assault conviction for knowingly engaging in sexual conduct with his girlfriend without disclosing to her that he had tested positive as a carrier of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2903.11(B)(1). On appeal, Defendant argued that section 2903.11(B)(1) (1) is a content-based regulation that compels speech in violation of the First Amendment, and (2) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the state and federal Constitutions because there is no rational basis for a distinction between HIV positive individuals and individuals with other infectious diseases such as Hepatitis C or between the methods of transmitting HIV. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the statute regulates conduct, not speech, and therefore does not violate the First Amendment; and (2) the statute does not violate constitutional equal protection guarantees because it is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in preventing the transmission of HIV to sexual partners who may not be aware of the risk. View "State v. Batista" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of Appellant for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant was charged with drug trafficking and drug possession while on parole for an earlier offense. The Ohio Adult Parole Authority (APA) found that Appellant violated the terms of his parole by having illegal drugs under his control and ordered him to serve the remainder of his original maximum sentence. The State subsequently dismissed the drug charges for insufficient evidence. In his habeas petition, Petitioner argued that the APA violated his due process rights by finding a parole violation based on insufficient evidence. The court of appeals dismissed the petition on several grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in determining that Appellant’s petition (1) did not comply with the mandatory filing requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C) and 2725.04(D); (2) was not properly captioned in accord with Ohio R. Civ. P. 10(A); and (3) failed to state a claim for relief in habeas corpus. View "Greene v. Turner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant’s petition for a writ of prohibition against Appellee, Court of Claims Judge Patrick McGrath. Appellant, an inmate, filed a negligence action against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Judge McGrath dismissed the action. The appellate court reversed and remanded the cause for further proceedings. On remand, Judge McGrath denied Appellant’s motion for summary judgment. In his petition for a writ of prohibition Appellant argued that Judge McGrath lacked jurisdiction to deny his summary judgment motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ dismissal of the prohibition petition, holding that Appellant failed to comply with Ohio Rev. Coe 2969.25(C)(1) and that Appellant’s noncompliance was not excused. View "State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath" on Justia Law