Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
State v. Makin 104010R.C. 2941.1410; major drug offender specification; aggregation of transactions; Crim.R. 16(D); R.C. 2923.03(D); jury instructions; confidential informant; accomplice; and prior convictions credibility; prosecutorial misconduct; ineffective assistance of counsel; manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence; race based jury challenge. The jury verdict was not against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence. The trial court's instructions to the jury regarding confidential informants, accomplices, and prior convictions credibility did not constitute plain error and, as a result, counsel was not ineffective. Based on the language of R.C. 2941.1410, and the absence of clarification by the Ohio Supreme Court or the state legislature, the state may conduct several transactions over a period of time until sufficient contraband has accumulated to qualify for a major drug offender specification. The state's closing argument referring to the defense theory as laughable did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct. The trial court's determination to allow the removal of two minority jurors was not clearly erroneous as the trial court posed the appropriate inquiry, the state provided a race-neutral basis for removal, and six minorities remained on the panel.Laster Mays 5/4/2017
State v. Williams 104078 & 104849Guilty Plea; Crim.R. 11; Judicial Release; R.C. 2929.20. Where defendant stopped plea to ask about judicial release, then obtained erroneous information that he was eligible after seven years of his sentence, his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntarily and intelligently entered, and he suffered prejudice from the erroneous information.Blackmon 5/4/2017
State v. Jackson 104132Trial court; res judicata; prison; cumulative error; ineffective; evidentiary hearing; substance abuse; intelligence; postconviction; death penalty; evaluation; jury waiver; discovery; direct appeal; mitigation; sentence; mitigating evidence; proportionality; phase; postconviction proceedings; trial strategy; alternative; cumulative evidence; expert. The trial court did not err by denying the inmate's petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 based on ineffective assistance of counsel during the mitigation phase of his capital trial because he failed to show how the evidence, if presented, would have resulted in a different outcome. The inmate failed to present sufficient operative facts to warrant a hearing on whether his jury waiver was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. The inmate's allegations of judicial bias are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The inmate was not entitled to postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt phase of his trial. Although, because the evidence was outside of the record, the trial court erred by concluding that res judicata barred the claims, the evidence did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court did not err by denying the inmate's petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 based on the disproportionate nature of Ohio's death penalty as the inmate presented no evidence to demonstrate that the death penalty was applied in a discriminatory manner in this case. Because the inmate failed to support his petition with evidence demonstrating multiple constitutional deprivations, the trial court properly denied his argument regarding cumulative error.Gallagher 5/4/2017
State v. Asadi-Ousley 104267Motion to continue trial; sufficiency of evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; merger, ineffective assistance of counsel; Strickland; sexually violent predator specification; rape; kidnapping; felonious assault. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part. Defense counsel affirmatively waived defendant's third motion to continue on the day of trial when he told the trial court that they were prepared to go forward that day. The trial court considered the harm defendant caused to the victim and defendant's prior criminal record when finding defendant guilty of the sexually violent predator specification. The jury did not lose its way as defendant was found guilty based on the evidence of several witnesses and corroborating DNA testing. The rape and kidnapping convictions merge for purposes of sentencing. The kidnapping was incidental to the rape.Gallagher 5/4/2017
State v. Habbas 104532Sentencing package; Saxon; concurrent; consecutive. Defendant's sentence was not the product of an unlawful sentencing packaging and therefore did not violate State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824.Gallagher 5/4/2017
In re C.L. 104661R.C. 2923.02; 2907.02(A)(1)(b); attempted rape; delinquent; adjudication; exception; R.C. 2151.356(A); seal; record; expungement; juvenile; eligibility. The juvenile court was barred from sealing records of appellee's attempted rape delinquency, as the "main" offense of rape is listed as an excepted offense under R.C. 2151.356(A).Gallagher 5/4/2017
State v. Crymes 104705Preindictment delay The trial court applied the two part burden shifting test for preindictment delay and found appellee suffered actual prejudice and the prosecution had no justifiable reason for the 20 year delay in prosecution. The trial court properly dismissed the case on the ground of unconstitutional preindictment delay.McCormack 5/4/2017
State v. Richmond 104713Motion to disqualify court-appointed counsel; Crim.R. 11(C)/ acceptance of plea; R.C. 2929.41(A)/consecutive sentences/statutory findings; R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i) and (ii)/motion for jail-time credit; motion to dismiss. The trial court conducted two extensive hearings on appellant's allegations against his court-appointed counsel; the trial court determined that appellant was represented by competent and experienced counsel and it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny appellant's motion. Where the trial court misstated about the maximum sentence appellant could receive, it was not error. Appellant was sentenced to a term less than that which the trial court misspoke. The trial court failed to make the required findings where it imposed consecutive sentences; additionally, the trial court failed to place computation of appellant's jail-time credit in its sentencing entry. Appellant's allegations failed to meet the actual prejudice standard for preindictment delay.Jones 5/4/2017
State v. Miller 104721Competency to stand trial; hearing; due process; harmless error. Trial court erred in failing to hold competency hearing before accepting defendant's guilty plea where there were indicia of incompetency and no indicia of competency.Gallagher 5/4/2017
State v. Blalock 104773Motion for new trial; Crim.R. 33; res judicata. Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for new trial, or alternatively, petition for postconviction relief without a hearing.Blackmon 5/4/2017
State v. Jackson 104782Motion for new trial; Crim.R. 33(A); abuse of discretion; Brady v. Maryland. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that there was "no evidence that the key witness [defendant's girlfriend] in this case received any benefit for her testimony." The girlfriend's juvenile record was not discoverable because the state asked her about it on the record during trial.Kilbane 5/4/2017
State v. Silver 104749R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), sentence contrary to law; R.C. 2929.12(C), sentencing factors; R.C. 2947.23, waiver of costs due to indigence, failure to impose costs at community control violation hearing. A community control violation hearing is effectively a second sentencing. The trial court did not err in revoking community control sanctions and sentencing appellant to prison for violating where appellant was advised of same at sentencing. The trial court advised appellant of the fine and costs at sentencing but did not reiterate same in open court at the violation hearing, therefore, the matter is remanded for the limited purpose of vacating the imposition of costs through the issuance of a nunc pro tunc entry.Laster Mays 5/4/2017
State v. Stovall 104787Ineffective assistance of counsel; affidavit of indigency; reasonable probability; guilty plea; postsentence motion to withdraw; Crim.R. 32.1; manifest injustice; change of heart; felony sentencing; purposes and principles; R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; contrary to law. Appellant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel resulted from trial counsel's failure to file an affidavit of indigency where the record did not demonstrate a reasonable probability the trial court would have found him indigent. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the appellant's postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea where the record demonstrates the appellant's request was a mere change of heart, and thus, he failed to demonstrate a manifest injustice. The trial court properly considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 before imposing sentence, and therefore, the sentence was not contrary to law.McCormack 5/4/2017
State v. Williams 105025Conceded error; plea agreement; sentence. Before the trial court imposed a sentence longer than what was recommended in the plea agreement, due process required the court to put the defendant on notice of that possibility before accepting the guilty plea. The case is remanded to the trial court to resentence appellant under the plea agreement or to allow him to withdraw the guilty plea.McCormack 5/4/2017
State v. Quinnie 105104Complaint; indictment; felony; jurisdiction. Appellant claimed the trial court lacked jurisdiction in this aggravated murder matter because the state did not file a criminal complaint against him. Appellant was indicted for aggravated murder by a grand jury as was required for felony charges. Although appellant is correct that issues of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, the existence of a complaint is irrelevant in regards to the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction in felony cases. Therefore, the trial court acted properly when it denied appellant's motion to vacate void judgment.McCormack 5/4/2017
State v. Patterson 105109Res judicata, double jeopardy, writ of habeas corpus. Appellant's claims are barred by res judicata because he could have argued these claims in his prior appeal. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus because the appellant is incarcerated in a different county than he was convicted.Laster Mays 5/4/2017
State v. Melton 102396App.R. 26(B); untimely application; good cause; pro se representation; ineffective assistance of counsel. Because appellant fails to demonstrate good cause for his untimely filing of the application to reopen, this court must deny the application. Even if good cause had been shown, appellant's application still fails because he cannot satisfy App.R. 26(B)(5). Appellant represented himself in the appeal and therefore is precluded from arguing ineffective assistance of counsel.McCormack 5/2/2017