Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Following a mistrial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated burglary and rape. Judge Ethna Cooper presided over the mistrial and the retrial. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Appellant later filed a motion to issue a final appealable order and to vacate a void judgment. Judge Cooper denied the motion. Appellant then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals was correct in dismissing Appellant’s petition because Appellant had available an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. View "State ex rel. Bevins v. Cooper" on Justia Law

In 1995, Jeffrey Keith was found guilty of arson and grand theft. In 2015, after a long procedural history, Keith petitioned the Court of Appeals to order the original judge in his case, Judge Gaul, to rule on his motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial. When Keith filed his motion in 2002, Judge Gaul had been assigned to the case, but the case was later assigned to Judge Russo. Judge Russo filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court of appeals granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because a ruling on Keith’s 2002 motion would be constrained by the law-of-the-case doctrine, issuing a writ ordering such a ruling would be a “vain act.” View "State ex rel. Keith v. Gaul" on Justia Law

In 2014, Defendant was convicted of first-degree-felony rape and kidnapping for offenses he committed in 1993. The trial court sentenced Defendant in accordance with the sentencing law in effect at the time of the 1993 offenses. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that he should have been sentenced under the law in effect at the time of his 2014 sentencing. The law in effect in 2014 reduced the potential prison sentences for Defendant’s offenses as compared with the potential prison sentences for those offenses under the law in effect in 1993. The Court of Appeals agreed with Defendant, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was entitled to the benefit of the shorter potential sentences under the law in effect at the time of sentencing. Remanded. View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Hand entered no-contest pleas in Montgomery County to first-degree felonies (aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping) and two second-degree counts of felonious assault. Each count had a three-year firearm specification attached, to which Hand also entered no-contest pleas. During the plea hearing, the parties agreed to a total six-year prison term with three of the years being mandatory because they are related to the merged firearm specifications, R.C. 2929.14 and 2941.145. The parties disputed whether the three years for the other offenses was also a mandatory term, based on whether Hand’s prior juvenile adjudication for aggravated robbery under R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) should operate as a first-degree felony conviction to enhance his sentence. The court ruled that Hand’s prior juvenile adjudication required imposition of mandatory prison terms under R.C. 2929.13(F). The appeals court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed. Treating a juvenile adjudication as an adult conviction to enhance a sentence for a later crime is inconsistent with Ohio’s system for juveniles, which is predicated on the fact that children are not as culpable for their acts as adults and should be rehabilitated rather than punished. In addition, juveniles are not afforded the right to a jury trial. View "State v. Hand" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated murder with two death-penalty specifications. The trial court sentenced Appellant to death. On appeal, the court of appeals vacated the death sentence, concluding that the trial judge’s use of the assistant prosecutor to assist in preparation of the sentencing opinion was improper. On remand, the trial court again sentenced Appellant to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) in regards to the trial court’s resentencing of Appellant, the court in the sentencing opinion improperly failed to consider Appellant’s allocution, but the error was harmless; and (2) there was no other prejudicial error. View "State v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant was entered a guilty plea to charges of murder, domestic violence, and aggravated murder with capital specifications for the murders of his former girlfriend, their two-year-old son, and his girlfriend’s nine-year-old daughter. A three-judge panel unanimously sentenced Defendant to death of the aggravated murders of the two children and to fifteen years to life for his girlfriend’s murder. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentence of death, holding (1) the panel did not err by failing sua sponte to order Defendant to undergo a competency evaluation; (2) the evidence presented during the plea hearing was sufficient to convict Defendant of the escaping detection specification attached to an aggravated murder, and defendant’s conviction of that specification was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; (3) defense counsel provided constitutionally effective assistance during the plea and mitigation hearings; (4) Defendant was not denied due process of law and a fair trial when the panel admitted and considered graphic photographs during the plea and mitigation hearings; and (5) Defendant’s death sentence was appropriate and proportionate. View "State v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

Defendant, a police officer, was charged with one count of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and one count of sexual battery. A bench trial resulted in Defendant’s conviction for sexual battery under Ohio Rev. Code 2907.03(A)(13), which makes peace officers strictly liable for sexual conduct with anyone under the age of eighteen when the offender is more than two years older. The appellate court reversed, concluding that section 2907.03(A)(13) violated equal protection and was facially unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute is an arbitrarily disparate treatment of peace officers that violates equal protection principles under the state and federal constitutions. View "State v. Mole" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that his aggregate sentence had expired and that he was entitled to immediate release. Appellee, Warden Brigham Sloan, moved to dismiss the petition, arguing, among other things, that Appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because his sentence did not expire until 2039. The court of appeals granted the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the habeas petition was properly dismissed because Appellant failed to attach all his required commitment papers to the petition. View "State ex rel. Jackson v. Sloan" on Justia Law

Appellee was charged with rape and kidnapping. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the indictment based on unconstitutional preindictment delay. The court of common pleas dismissed the charges, concluding that the State’s indictment of Appellee one day before the expiration of the applicable twenty-year statute of limitations prejudiced Appellee. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Appellee suffered actual prejudice as a result of the nearly twenty-year delay between the alleged offenses and the indictment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals applied an incorrect standard in its analysis of Appellee’s preindictment-delay claim. Remanded. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging constitutional violations with regard to his conviction and requesting the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the propriety of the criminal proceedings brought against him. Appellant filed an affidavit of indigence requesting a waiver of fees and costs but failed to comply with the requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C)(1). The court of appeals’ magistrate recommended that the court dismiss the case for Appellant’s failure to satisfy the statutory requirements. The court of appeals accepted and adopted the magistrate’s decision and recommendation and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the case on the basis recommended by the magistrate. View "State ex rel. Davenport v. State" on Justia Law