Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of eleven counts of aggravated murder, each containing death-penalty specifications. The trial court sentenced Defendant to death on each of the eleven counts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) courtroom closures did not deny Defendant his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial; (2) pretrial publicity did not deny Defendant a fair trial, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s requests for a change of venue; (3) the trial court did not impermissibly restrict voir dire of prospective jurors or abuse its discretion in denying challenges for cause to a number of prospective jurors; (3) the trial court did not act arbitrarily by permitting jurors to use their initials to signify assent to verdicts; (4) Defendant’s arguments regarding the manner in which the death specifications were alleged in the indictment and with the instructions submitted to the jury were unavailing; (5) the trial court did not err in its instructions to the jury during the penalty phase; (6) Defendant’s counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel; (7) Defendant’s constitutional challenges to death penalty statutes failed; and (8) the death sentences in this case were appropriate and proportionate when compared with similar capital cases. View "State v. Sowell" on Justia Law

In 1998, Appellee was sentenced to thirteen years in prison on various drug and weapons charges. The district court granted Appellee’s writ of habeas corpus and ordered the state to release Appellee or grant him a new trial within a certain time. The state did not retry Appellee, and the charges against him were dismissed with prejudice. Thereafter, Appellee filed a complaint seeking a determination that he was a wrongfully imprisoned individual. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the state. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded with instructions to apply Mansaray v. State. On remand, the court of appeals again reversed the grant of summary judgment to the state, ruling that Appellee had satisfied all five elements of Ohio Rev. Code 2743.48(A). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellee failed to satisfy all five elements of section 2743.48(A). View "James v. State" on Justia Law

During the course of grand jury proceedings, the state issued eight grand jury subpoenas seeking documents and testimony to individuals associated with Appellants. Appellants moved to quash the subpoenas, arguing that they required Appellants and their former attorneys to disclose information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and the common-interest doctrine. The trial court denied the motions. Appellants appealed the trial court’s order. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final order. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that an order denying a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena and ordering a party to testify or produce documents is a final order that may be appealed. Remanded. View "In re Grand Jury Proceedings of John Doe" on Justia Law

In 1995, Defendant was convicted of felonious assault on a police officer. After being released on parole, Defendant pleaded guilty in 2011 to resisting arrest, was given a suspended sentence, and was placed on community control. In 2013, Defendant stipulated to a violation of his community-control sanctions and was ordered to serve the sentence for the 2011 resisting-arrest conviction. In 2015, after Defendant had completed his resisting-arrest sentence, the parole board found that Defnedant had violated his parole for the 1995 sentence and imposed an additional term of confinement on that basis. Defendant filed this action in habeas corpus claiming that the board did not have authority to extend his incarceration. The court of appeals dismissed the action on the basis that Defendant failed to attach all his commitment papers to his petition. The Supreme Court affirmed on another ground, holding that Defendant failed to comply with the requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25 by filing an affidavit of indigence without attaching a statement of his inmate balance for each of the preceding six months. View "Robinson v. Miller" on Justia Law

Appellant was the defendant in a criminal case in which he was found not guilty by reason of insanity and found to be a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization by court order. In 2014, Appellant filed a motion asserting that the trial court lacked authority to order his original commitment. The trial court denied relief, and Appellant appealed. In 2015, Appellant filed a motion to terminate his involuntary confinement. The trial court stayed the action pending the outcome of Appellant’s appeal from the denial of the 2014 motion. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for writs of mandamus and procedendo requesting that the trial court judge be ordered either to grant or hold a hearing on the 2015 motion. The court of appeals ultimately affirmed the trial court’s denial of the 2014 motion. In 2016, the court of appeals dismissed Appellant’s petition for writs of mandamus and procedendo, concluding that the request for a writ of procedendo was moot and that the judge had not abused his discretion in issuing the stay. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the case was moot, and the the trial court did not err in failing to consider the 2015 motion earlier. View "State ex rel. Rohrer v. Holzapfel" on Justia Law

Defendant, a legal resident of the United States, was indicted on two counts of robbery. Defendant admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt in order to enroll in a diversion program. Defendant later moved to vacate his plea, arguing that his admission of guilt operated as a conviction under federal law and that the trial court erred by failing to provide him the advisement contained in Ohio Rev. Code 2943.031(A), which requires courts to alert noncitizens that a guilty plea or no-contest plea may affect their immigration status. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 2943.031(A) required the trial court to advise Defendant that his admission of guilt made for purposes of entering into the pretrial diversion program may affect his immigration status; and (2) because the trial court failed to give that advisement, the trial court must vacate the dismissal of the case against Defendant and vacate the admission of guilt executed as part of the pretrial diversion program process. Remanded. View "State v. Kona" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated and one count of murder in connection with the killing of Darian Polk. The trial court ordered the convictions merged for the purposes of sentencing. The State elected to have Defendant sentenced for the aggravated murder charged in count three. The trial court, however, imposed concurrent sentences on each of the three offenses instead of sentencing on only one offense. Defendant moved to correct his sentences, arguing that all of which convictions should be merged as allied offenses into a single conviction for aggravated murder. The trial court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the appellate court to vacate the sentences imposed for murder in count one and aggravated murder in count two, holding (1) imposing separate sentences for allied offenses of similar import is contrary to law, and those sentences are void; (2) Defendant’s convictions were allied offenses of similar import; and (3) because the State designated one allied offense for sentencing, a remand for resentencing was not necessary in this case. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a petition in the court of appeals seeking a writ of mandamus against Judge Christopher Gee and the Miami County Court of Common Pleas. Specifically, Appellant sought a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Gee to grant him an appeal as of right in his underlying criminal case and to appoint counsel to represent him in the appeal. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to show a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of Judge Gee to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. View "State ex rel. Cain v. Gee" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition and was sentenced to sixteen months’ imprisonment. In addition, the trial court imposed five years of mandatory postrelease control. In 2014, Appellant pleaded guilty to attempted failure to provide a notice of change of address and was sentenced to one year. The trial court also imposed a prison term for the remainder of the period of postrelease control that Appellant was serving for the gross sexual imposition conviction. Appellant did not appeal. Appellant later filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus seeking a writ ordering Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Kathleen A. Sutula to vacate his sentence for violating the terms of his postrelease control because he was not advised of the possibility of this sentence at his prior sentencing. The court of appeals granted summary judgment for Judge Sutula. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, a writ of mandamus was unavailable. View "State ex rel. Cornwall v. Sutula" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of burglary and other offenses and has been released on parole and convicted of new crimes at least five times. Appellant has filed at least three habeas corpus petition over the years, all of which have been denied. In 2015, Appellant filed the habeas petition that is the subject of this appeal, alleging primarily that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the indictment for his 1979 conviction was not proper. The court of appeals dismissed Appellant’s habeas petition with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that habeas corpus was not an appropriate avenue for challenging the validity of an indictment, that Appellant could have raised his arguments in a direct appeal, that Appellant’s petition was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and that Appellant’s habeas petition was defective. View "State ex rel. Robinson v. LaRose" on Justia Law