Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Paul Bunting sought a writ of mandamus ordering Tuscarawas County Prosecuting Attorney Ryan Styer to prosecute Thomas Weaver for theft of a motorcycle. The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the complaint after the prosecutor untimely filed a motion to dismiss. Bunting appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint because Styer’s failure to prosecute in this case was not an abuse of discretion, and therefore, Bunting did not have a clear legal right to a writ. View "State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer" on Justia Law

Appellant sought a writ of procedendo requiring Judge Kelly Cottrill to rule on his motion to vacate or set aside the judgment of his conviction. Judge Cottrill had ruled on Appellant’s motion but failed to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court of appeals dismissed Appellant’s petition, finding that the petition was moot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a writ of procedendo was inappropriate because Judge Cottrill did not refuse to enter judgment but, rather, Appellant was dissatisfied with the entry that she issued. View "State ex rel. Poulton v. Cottrill" on Justia Law

In 2016, Defendant was indicted of several offenses. Before trial, the prosecuting attorney obtained a second indictment. The trial court subsequently granted the State’s motion to dismiss the first indictment. Defendant then pleaded guilty to five counts of gross sexual imposition charged in the second indictment. Defendant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that the doctrine of res judicata precluded his convictions because his first indictment was dismissed with prejudice and included the same charges and was based on the same facts and circumstances as the second indictment. The court of appeals dismissed the petition, concluding that Defendant’s argument was a double jeopardy claim and that double jeopardy claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the first indictment was dismissed not on the merits but to prevent a double jeopardy violation, the doctrine of res judicata did not preclude Defendant’s convictions. View "State ex rel. Steele v. Eppinger" on Justia Law

In 2002, Defendant was indicted for murder. After a series of mistrials that were declared in Defendant’s case during the fourteen years since his arrest, Defendant moved to dismiss his indictment, alleging a violation of the Due Process and Double Jeopardy Clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that a mistrial or hung jury does not bar retrial or retrials. Defendant appealed, arguing that yet another trial would violate the “fair play” guaranteed by the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a double jeopardy challenge to the retrial of a defendant following a mistrial is analyzed under the Double Jeopardy Clause rather than the Due Process Clause; and (2) the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar a defendant’s retrial after several mistrials have been properly declared. View "State v. Anderson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder and aggravated murder. After the mitigation phase and the jury recommendation, the trial court sentenced Defendant to death for the aggravated murder. Defendant appealed, raising twenty-one propositions of law. The Supreme Court rejected each of Defendant’s propositions and affirmed his convictions and sentence of death, holding (1) no prejudicial error occurred during the pretrial phase; (2) there was no prejudicial error in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings; (3) the jury instructions and verdict forms did not violate Defendant’s constitutional rights; (4) cumulative prosecutorial conduct did not violate Defendant’s due process rights; (5) trial counsel provided effective assistance; (6) nothing in the record supported Defendant’s claim of trial court bias; and (7) Defendant’s death sentence was proportionate and appropriate. View "State v. McKelton" on Justia Law