Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count of manufacturing methamphetamine in the vicinity of a juvenile, a felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant to ten years’ imprisonment. The maximum possible term was eleven years. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a near-maximum prison term. The Court of Appeals refused to apply an abuse-of-discretion standard to felony-sentencing appeals and affirmed Defendant’s sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 2953.08(G)(2), an appellate court may vacate or modify a felony sentence on appeal only if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record did not support the sentencing court’s decision or that the sentence was otherwise contrary to law; and (2) the Court of Appeals applied the correct standard of review in this case. View "State v. Marcum" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to two counts of receiving stolen property, one a felony and the other a misdemeanor. The court of common pleas ordered Defendant to serve the felony and misdemeanor sentences consecutively. Defendant appealed, arguing that a sentencing order running a jail term for a misdemeanor consecutively to a prison sentence for a felony is contrary to Ohio Rev. Code 2929.41. The court of appeals reversed the part of the trial court’s order that imposed the two sentences consecutively and modified the sentence to run the terms of confinement concurrently. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a trial court may not impose consecutive sentences for felony and misdemeanor convictions under Ohio Rev. Code 2929.41(B)(1). Remanded. View "State v. Polus" on Justia Law

In 2006, Appellant was convicted of one count of rape and three counts of gross sexual imposition (GSI). Appellant was sentenced to life in prison for the rape conviction and four years for each of the three GSI convictions. The sentence for one of the GSI convictions was to be served concurrently with the life sentence, and the sentences for the other two GSI convictions were to be served consecutively to each other and to the life sentence. In 2015, Appellant filed this original action for a writ of habeas corpus asserting that he had served the minimum required eight years for two counts of GSI and was therefore eligible for parole. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief in habeas corpus because his maximum sentence had not expired and he had available various remedies to challenge his sentence by way of appeal and in postconviction relief and mandamus proceedings. View "State ex rel. Lockhart v. Sheldon" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of rape, attempted murder, kidnapping, and burglary. Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief, which was untimely. The trial judge denied the petition without issuing findings of fact or conclusions of law. Appellant subsequently filed this action requesting a writ of mandamus compelling the judge to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the denial of his postconviction relief petition. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus was properly denied where Appellant had no clear legal right to the relief he requested, the trial judge had no clear duty to provide it, and Appellant had an adequate remedy at law. View "State ex rel. Dillon v. Cottrill" on Justia Law

Appellant, who is serving a life sentence on a conviction for aggravated murder, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that he remained in prison solely under an order that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue. The claim was unsuccessfully raised in one of Appellant’s prior petitions for habeas corpus. The court of appeals dismissed the case on grounds of res judicata. The Supreme Court remanded the case for the appellate court to convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and to provide Defendant with notice and an opportunity to respond. The court of appeals again dismissed the petition on remand. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s habeas claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. View "Jefferson v. Bunting" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained against him, including laboratory and chemical tests of his alcohol level. The trial court granted the motion. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that the State had failed to establish substantial compliance with Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-05(F) because it allowed a blood sample to remain unrefrigerated for four hours and ten minutes before it was placed in the mail, and therefore, Defendant’s blood-alcohol test results were inadmissible. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State demonstrated substantial compliance with Ohio Adm. Code 3701-53-05’s requirement that blood be refrigerated, but, in conformity with State v. Burnside, the case is remanded to provide Baker with an opportunity to rebut the presumption of admissibility. View "State v. Baker" on Justia Law

A jury found Appellant guilty of aggravated murder, attempted murder, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping. The trial court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility for thirty years for the aggravated-murder conviction. Appellant later filed a motion for a final, appealable order and resentencing, arguing that because his sentencing entry did not state the reasons why the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating circumstances, it was not a final, appealable order. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that it was not required to file a written sentencing opinion where the jury recommended a sentence other than death. Thereafter, Appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling Judge Judge Michael Russo to issue a separate sentencing opinion. The court of appeals dismissed Appellant’s complaint for writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not have a clear legal right to a separate sentencing opinion and that the Judge Russo did not have a clear legal duty to provide one. View "State ex rel. Stewart v. Russo" on Justia Law

Relator was convicted of having an unlawful interest in a public contract and was sentenced to six months in jail. Relator sought writs of prohibition, mandamus, and habeas corpus. The Supreme Court denied the writs by ordered that Relator’s sentence be stayed pending resolution of her appeal. The court of appeals subsequently affirmed the conviction. Relator then filed a motion in the court of appeals for en banc reconsideration. Relator asked the trial court judge to stay execution of her sentence, but he declined. Thereafter, Relator filed this action for a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court judge from executing her sentence until, among other conditions, the court of appeals decided her motion for en banc reconsideration. The Supreme Court denied the writs and dismissed the case, holding (1) because there was no order of this Court prohibiting the trial court judge from exercising judicial authority there was no basis upon which to issue a writ of prohibition to the judge; and (2) because the sheriff would not be exercising judicial authority in admitting Relator into jail, the issuance of a writ of prohibition against him would be inappropriate. View "State ex rel. Hunter v. Dinkelacker" on Justia Law

This appeal involved Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of a gun that was found in a search of a car legally parked on a public street that Defendant was sitting in just before his arrest on a warrant for domestic violence. After Defendant was arrested, an officer conducted an inventory search of the car, during which he found a handgun. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress, concluding that there was probable cause to arrest Defendant based on the domestic-violence warrant and that, pursuant to that arrest, the inventory search of the car prior to towing was proper. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the warrantless inventory search of the lawfully parked vehicle in this case was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Ohio Const. art. I, 14. View "State v. Leak" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of tampering with evidence for concealing heroin within a body cavity. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant’s tampering conviction, concluding that at the time Defendant concealed the heroin in her body cavity, Defendant had constructive knowledge of an impending investigation. At issue on appeal was whether a person who hides evidence of a crime that is unmistakable to him or her commits tampering with evidence in the absence of evidence that a victim or the public would report a crime. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Ohio law does not impute constructive knowledge of an impending investigation based solely on the commission of an offense, and therefore, the fact that an act was unmistakably a crime does not in itself establish that the defendant knew of an investigation into that crime or that such an investigation was likely to be instituted; and (2) in this case, Defendant’s tampering conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence because there was no evidence that, at the time she concealed the heroin in her body, Defendant knew or could have known that a state trooper would stop her car and begin an investigation of her for drug trafficking and drug possession. View "State v. Barry" on Justia Law