Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated murder with firearm specifications. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief, which was denied. Appellant then made a request for additional discovery and filed motions to compel discovery. Appellant subsequently filed a petition in mandamus requesting a writ ordering the Hamilton County prosecutor to produce the discovery relevant to his case. The court of appeals dismissed the petition on the grounds that the issues raised in the petition had been decided on direct appeal and in the appeal of the denial of Appellant’s petition for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor had no legal duty to provide discovery, and Appellant had no legal right to discovery; and (2) Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, precluding mandamus. View "State ex rel. Littlepage v. Deters" on Justia Law

In 1979, Appellant was convicted of aggravated burglary and attempted murder. In 2015, Appellant filed a motion to vacate the attempted-murder conviction. Judge John D. Sutula denied the motion. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against Judge Sutula, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him of attempted felony murder. The court of appeals granted summary judgment for Judge Sutula. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s claim was without merit; and (2) Appellant could appeal the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence, which was sufficient to preclude a writ of mandamus. View "State ex rel. Williams v. Sutula" on Justia Law

In 2002, Appellant was indicted on one count of aggravated murder with firearm specifications. The jury did not find Appellant guilty of aggravated murder but found him guilty of the lesser offense of murder. In 2015, Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the jury’s failing to find him guilty of aggravated murder was an acquittal barring the jury from finding him guilty of the lesser included offense of murder. The court of appeals dismissed Appellant’s petition, finding that Appellant had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s failure to satisfy section 2969.25(C)(1) required dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus; and (2) Appellant’s argument failed on the merits. View "State ex rel. Bates v. Eppinger" on Justia Law

In 1983, Appellant was convicted of aggravated murder, aggravated burglary, two counts of aggravated robbery, and two counts of felonious assault. Appellant’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. Throughout the years, Appellant filed various motions and petitions challenging his convictions. In this action, Appellant alleged that his sentence and conviction were void because there was no record “of a jury rendering verdict(s) on September 10, 1983” in his case. The court of appeals dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him without a jury lacked merit; (2) Appellant had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of the law; and (3) Appellant’s timely failure to file an affidavit containing each civil action or appeal of a civil action that he had filed in the previous five years mandated dismissal of his petition. View "State ex rel. Walker v. Sloan" on Justia Law

In 2002, Appellant pleaded guilty to attempted murder and kidnapping. Appellant filed this action in mandamus seeking a writ ordering Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge David Matia to vacate his sentence under State v. Nolan and resentence him. The court of appeals granted summary judgment in favor of Judge Matia because Appellant was sentenced for attempted murder, not attempted felony murder, and therefore, Nolan did not apply. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that, under the facts of this case, Appellant was not entitled to a writ of mandamus. View "State ex rel. Tucker v. Matia" on Justia Law

In 2009, Appellant was convicted of aggravated murder. The court of appeals affirmed. The amended death certificate listed the time of death as “morning,” as had been indicated in the original death certificate. In 2008, the coroner reexamined the case and estimated that the time of death was between “2:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.” In 2015, Appellant filed a habeas corpus petition claiming that his conviction was obtained by fraud and trickery because the coroner did not have authority to amend the victim’s death certificate or alter the estimated time of her death, and therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to state a claim in habeas corpus because the coroner’s allegedly unlawful actions raised an evidentiary matter that could have been considered on direct appeal. View "State ex rel. Cutis v. Bunting" on Justia Law

After a trial, Appellant was found guilty of several offenses. Prior to trial, Appellant had filed a motion to represent himself, but the trial court never ruled on it. On appeal, Appellant, who was represented by appellate counsel, filed a supplemental pro se brief containing arguments regarding his motion for self-representation, but the supplemental brief was stricken because Appellant failed to comply with the page limitation set by the court, and the court of appeals did not rule on Appellant’s arguments regarding his self-representation motion. The court of appeals denied Appellant’s subsequent motion to reopen the appeal on the grounds that his appellate counsel had failed to rule that the trial court erred in not ruling on his motion for self-representation. Appellant then filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus compelling a ruling on his motion to represent himself. The court of appeals dismissed Appellant’s complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way of appeal. View "State ex rel. Cowan v. Gallagher" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder, among other offenses. Appellant was sentenced to two life terms of incarceration, to run consecutively. Appellant filed in the trial court in his criminal case a motion to modify his sentence, asserting that he should have been sentenced as if he had been convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. Appellant further argued that, under Ohio Rev. Code 2929.61(A), none of his sentences should have been greater than one to twenty years and that they should have been imposed to run concurrently rather than consecutively. The trial judge overruled the motion. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus based on the same argument he made in his motion to modify his sentence. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Appellant’s argument misinterpreted section 2929.61(A), sentencing errors are generally not remediable by extraordinary writ, and Defendant had access to an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. View "State ex rel. Ridenour v. O'Connell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of attempted murder and several other offenses. Appellant now filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he was convicted of attempted felony murder and that because the Supreme Court determined in State v. Nolan that attempted felony murder is not a crime in Ohio, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to convict him. The court of appeals dismissed the petition, concluding that Appellant did not allege a defect in the subject-matter jurisdiction of the sentencing court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction over Appellant’s case and, moreover, Appellant could not argue that his conviction for attempted murder was void under Nolan because he committed, and was convicted of, attempted murder. View "State ex rel. Nichols v. Eppinger" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of creating nudity-oriented material involving a minor, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2907.323(A)(1), and possession of criminal tools, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2923.24(A). The convictions arose from Defendant surreptitiously recording video of a eleven-year-old female while she was undressed in a bathroom. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court did not apply the proper definition of nudity in convicting him of violating section 2907.323(A)(1). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, with respect to section 2907.323(A)(1), the statutory definition of nudity applies, rather than the narrower definition set forth in State v. Young. View "State v. Martin" on Justia Law