Quick trip around the courts the past week or so… 

8th District finds sufficient corroborating evidence for conviction of sexual imposition; opinion shows how little evidence is required… Proving that premises are a residence isn’t sufficient to prove “likely to be present” element in burglary, as mentioned here earlier this week, but it it is to prove element that premises are “occupied,” as this decision from the 9th District shows… 1st District says that failure to advise defendant that he couldn’t appeal denial of his suppression motion after guilty plea did not render plea involuntary… Trial judge can terminate post-release controls under RC 2929.141, but not parole, so 8th District vacates plea where judge told defendant she would “take care of” his parole violation…

1st District applies “attendant circumstances” rule to question of whether less than 2″ deviation in sidewalk was substantial… Good case from the 2nd District on considerations to be used by courts in determining whether child support obligor is voluntarily underemployed… 2nd District holds that former auto salesman could testify as expert, under Rule 701, that dealership was doing shady stuff, but rejects argument that court could take judicial notice of same under Rule 201 (okay, I made that last part up)…

And the captain of the Dummy Team this week is the defendant in this case, who argued that the judge unfairly terminated his community control sanctions.  Part of the sanctions, imposed for a weapons disability conviction, was the requirement that the defendant attend the Victims of Violent Crime Impact Panel.  The defendant did indeed report to the probation department when the program was scheduled.  Unfortunately, he was intoxicated at the time. 

Probably one of those guys who, when told that they’ve blown a .25 on the breathalyzer, respond with, “Wow, I’m only 25% drunk!”

Have a good weekend.