Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals construing the language of Ohio Rev. Code 2929.25(D)(4) as prohibiting the trial court from ordering a jail term for a violation of a condition of community control exceeding the maximum jail term imposed on the misdemeanant at sentencing, holding that the court's construction of the statute was incorrect.At issue was whether subsection 2929.25(D)(4) authorizes a trial court to impose a jail term for a violation fo a condition of a community-control sanction when the original sentence was directly imposed under subsection 2929.25(A)(1)(a) and no suspended jail time was reserved as contemplated under subsection 2929.25(A)(1)(b), regardless of whether notice has been provided under subsection 2929.25(A)(3)(c). The Supreme Court held that the limit on the total length of time that a misdemeanant may be incarcerated for both a misdemeanor offense and a violation of a condition of a community-control sanction imposed for that offense is the statutory maximum jail term for the offense, as set forth in section 2929.24, and this limit does not change based on the length of the jail term imposed at sentencing. View "Olmsted Township v. Ritchie" on Justia Law

In this case regarding the removal of a prospective juror based solely on his or her gender the Supreme Court held that when a party objecting to a peremptory challenge offers a bare allegation of gender discrimination without offering other relevant circumstances to support an inference of gender discrimination, that party fails to establish a prima facie case of purposeful gender discrimination.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the crime of sexual imposition. On appeal, Defendant argued that the prosecutor sought to exclude male jurors because they would tend to sympathize with him. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Defendant established a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination when the state exercised its peremptory challenge on a prospective juror and did not provide a gender-neutral explanation for its challenge. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred when it failed to recognize that Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), applied to Defendant's objections to the state's peremptory challenges, but the error was immaterial because Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. View "State v. Stalder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Warden Jay Forshey, holding that the court of appeals did not err granting Forshey's motion to dismiss.Appellant, an inmate, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking his immediate release from prison, arguing that his maximum sentence had expired. The court of appeals granted Forshey's motion to dismiss on the grounds that Appellant did not comply with Ohio Rev. Code 2725.04(D). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals was correct in finding that Appellant did not comply with the requirements of section 2725.04(D) and that this defect alone was a valid basis to dismiss Appellant's petition. View "State ex rel. Missimer v. Forshey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals dismissing this action in mandamus brought by Appellant, an inmate at the London Correctional Institution, against Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost asking Yost to provide him with names of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) employees who worked on a case Appellant had previously filed against the ODRC, holding that there was no error.In 2016, Appellant filed a pro se lawsuit alleging excessive force during an altercation with ODRC staff. After the parties settled, Appellant unsuccessfully requested from the attorney general's (AG) office the name of the ODRC employee who communicated with the attorney general's office during settlement negotiations. Appellant then filed the current action requesting an order requiring the AG to provide the ODRC employees' who made decisions regarding his settlement. The attorney general dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to show that he had a clear legal right to the requested information or that the AG had a clear legal duty to provide that information. View "State ex rel. Russell v. Yost" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus for noncompliance with Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(A) and remanded this case, holding that the record contained the required affidavit.Appellant, an inmate imprisoned for rape and other offenses, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling him to vacate the judgment of conviction because it was unsigned. The court of appeals dismissed the action based on Appellant's purported failure to file an affidavit of prior actions, as required by section 2969.25(A). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the affidavit Appellant filed with his petition supported his argument that he complied with section 2969.25(A). View "State ex rel. Woods v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus against Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Tom Heekin for failure to file an affidavit of prior civil actions as required by Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(A), holding that Appellant filed the required affidavit.Appellant, an inmate, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling Judge Heekin to vacate a judgment entry dismissing a malpractice case Appellant had filed against his criminal defense attorney. The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the petition based on Appellant's purported failure to comply with section 2969.25(A). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the affidavit Appellant filed with his petition supported his claim that he complied with section 2969.25(A). View "State ex rel. Woods v. Heekin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals granting Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus but denying his requests for statutory damages and court costs, holding that there was no error.Appellant, an inmate, sent a public-records request to Appellee, an employee of a private company that contracts with the state of Ohio to house state prisoners. Dissatisfied with the ultimate response, Appellant filed the current action asking for a writ of mandamus ordering Appellee to produce the records requested. The court of appeals granted the writ to a limited extent and denied Appellant's request for statutory damages and court costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in denying Appellant's request for statutory damages and court costs. View "State ex rel. Atakpu v. Shuler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for writs of prohibition and mandamus against the Ohio Parole Board and the Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency (collectively, the State) and denied Appellant's motions to strike the State's merit brief in whole or in part, holding that there was no error.Appellant was found guilty, after a jury trial, of the rape of two women, one of whom he impregnanted, kidnapping, and attempted rape. Appellant subsequently appeared before the parole board eight times and was denied parole each time. Appellant later filed an original action of writs of prohibition and mandamus arguing that the parole board improperly denied parole. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed and denied Appellant's motions to strike, holding that Appellant failed to establish that he was entitled to relief. View "State ex rel. Dodson v. Ohio Dep't of Rehabilitation & Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals denying Appellant's action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the Ohio Parole Board to reinstate his parole and hold a new revocation hearing, holding that there was no error.Appellant was released on parole in 2019 after his incarceration for murder and other crimes. He was subsequently arrested for violating the terms of his parole. After a hearing, the Ohio Parole Board revoked Appellant's parole, finding that he had engaged in sexual contact with a woman without her consent. The Tenth District denied Appellant's subsequent petition seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the parole board to reinstate his parole and hold a new revocation hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not show by clear and convincing evidence that he was entitled to a writ of mandamus. View "State ex rel. Cartwright v. Ohio Adult Parole Bd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel the common pleas court judge who sentenced him to correct what he alleged was an illegal sentence, holding that a court must give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard before taking notice of facts contained in another court's dockets and relying on those facts to sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25.Appellant filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus arguing that his sentence for attempted murder with specifications was unlawful. The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the complaint on the grounds that Appellant had failed to comply with section 2969.25(A). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred by consulting the record of another case in another court to determine the accuracy of Appellant's section 2969.25(A) and by dismissing Appellant's complaint based on information it obtained without first giving him notice and an opportunity to be heard. View "State ex rel. Roush v. Hickson" on Justia Law