Subscribe


Recent Posts

  • What’s Up in the 8th
  • Case Update
  • Original sin
  • Case Update
  • Open discovery — pushing the envelope?
  • What’s Up in the 8th
  • Friday Roundup
  • A new look at child porn sentencing?
  • Allied offenses: sifting through the record
  • What’s Up in the 8th


  • Archives

  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006


  • Less Money, Less Money

    September 14th, 2006

    A few quick notes today; I’m going on vacation at the end of next week, and have some stuff to wrap up before then.  First, I was apparently premature in my exultation the other day over the increase in appointed counsel fees.  Yes, the County Commissioners did approve an increase of $100 in the maximum fee, making up for the cuts which had been imposed in 2001, and restoring fees to the level that had been set back in the 1970′s.  But the judges turned it down.  That’s right, the judges refused to restore the fees.  I don’t know at this point whether it was all of them or a committee of them or merely the administrative judge, but that’s where it stands.  I’m going to do some more digging, but this might be something to keep in mind the next time you get a letter inviting you to give $100 to a judicial candidate in return for getting to eat crappy food and having him smile, shake your hand, and pretend that seeing you has been the best thing that’s happened to him in weeks. 

    Speaking of judicial candidates, the betting here is that sometime in the next two weeks the Plain Dealer is going to run a story with the following lead:  “In another embarassment to the campaign of judicial candidate Christine Agnello Russo, her former in-laws allege that they have documentary evidence showing she is a spawn of Satan.”  Film at 11.

    As a follow-up to my post of yesterday, I talked to Jim Hardiman, the lawyer who represented Robbie Moore.  As I mentioned, the maximum consecutive sentences initially imposed on Moore were reversed by the court of appeals, and the case is back in front of the trial court for resentencing.  A sentencing hearing was supposed to have been held last week, but was continued to give each side an opportunity to file a sentencing memorandum.   Part of the reversal was based upon the trial court’s not giving an adequate explanation for the maximum or consecutive sentences, but Foster takes that out of the picture.  The remaining issue is consistency.  If the trial court imposes the same sentence, it’ll go up again, at which point the court of appeals will have another opportunity to expound upon the issue of consistency in sentencing.

    Also, a shout-out to attorney Brian McGraw, who was kind enough to send me a sheet containing a breakdown of appointed counsel fees for all 88 Ohio counties.  We’ll talk about that next week.  Hint:  if you’re thinking of relocating your practice, Guernsey County might be a nice place to put down roots, but Coshocton, not so much…

    And last, good news for all of you lawyers who are working hand in glove with al Qaeda to replace the government of our Founding Fathers with an Islamic caliphate.  In an effort to flush out the traitors in our ranks, the Bellefontaine Municipal Court began requiring all attorneys seeking to represent indigent defendants to fill out a form, pursuant to the Ohio Patriot Act, certifying that they do not provide material aid to terrorist organizations.  No, I’m not making that up.  In a 4-3 per curiam decision, the Supreme Court decided this was a bit much, and issued a writ of prohibition. 

    Leave a Reply


    Search Posts




    Court Links

    Cuyahoga County
    Court of Appeals
    General Division
    Domestic Relations
    Juvenile
    Probate

    Ohio Courts
    Supreme Court
    Geauga Common Pleas
    Lake Common Pleas
    Lorain Common Pleas
    Summit Common Pleas

    Links to all Ohio Courts

    Ohio Revised Code

    Federal Courts
    Supreme Court
    6th Circuit
    Ohio Northern District
    Ohio Southern District



    Law Blogs

    Sentencing Law & Policy
    Volokh Conspiracy
    CrimLaw
    Grits for Breakfast
    Concurring Opinions
    Simple Justice
    A Public Defender
    Defending People
    CrimProf Blog
    How Appealing
    Lowering the Bar
    Crime and Consequences
    Drug War Rant
    Snitching Blog
    Overlawyered
    Balkinization
    Legal Blogwatch
    ScotusBlog

    Ohio Law blogs

    Jeff Gamso's Blog
    Cleveland Law Library
    6th Circuit - Criminal
    6th Circuit - General
    Bullseye Blog (PI law)
    Ohio Family Law Blog
    Ohio Employment Law Blog
    Ohio Practical Business Law
    Ohio Environmental Law Blog
    Other Ohio law blogs


    Criminal Defense Bars

    Ohio (OACDL)
    Cuyahoga County (CCDLA)
    National (NACDL)


    Legal Discussion Forum

    Attorneys Forum - Legal Help and Law Discussion Forums.


    Blogfinder

    Law Blog Metrics



    lawyer blogs