Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Weekly Roundup

Nothing to report from the Supreme Court this week, except a bunch of lawyers getting sanctioned, so let's get to the cases.

8th District holds that insurance company is estopped from claiming that it had no notice of default judgment against its insured... 5th District holds that trial court erred in calculating child support by not including spousal support as income to wife... grant of civil protection order proper even where no evidence of physical harm, says 12th District, where defendant's comments to victim, an Alzheimer's patient, caused her mental distress... 1st District rejects claim of retaliatory discharge for filing workers compensation claim... 10th District rules that ex-employee's use of memorized client info was violation of Ohio Trade Secrets act...

Pyrrhic victory?  Defendant faces 58 years in prison, works out deal and gets 8, then appeals, and court vacates plea because trial judge didn't advise him of post-release controls... 5th District allows judge to determine restitution 17 months after sentence imposed, where sentence originally ordered defendant to pay restitution but did not specify an amount... misdemeanor menacing by stalking conviction cannot be expunged, 10th district holds... Court cannot sentence defendant to prison for community control violation if no sentence was specified at time of sentencing hearing, says 8th District...

Of the 60 criminal cases handed down by the Ohio courts of appeals in the past week, over one-third of them -- 22, to be exact -- involved a Foster sentencing issue.

Finally, a tip of the hat to appellant's counsel in State v. Delgado, who argued, unsuccessfully, that the trial court violated defendant's constitutional rights when it advised him that he had the right to testify or the right not to testify, and that "the judge and jury could not have drawn any inference from your decision to testify or not"; the appellant's brief argued that "the message conveyed to Mr. Delgado was that his testimony at trial would have no bearing on the verdict."  That's two points for creativity, and three for having the ability to argue something like that with a straight face.

Search

Recent Entries

  • January 17, 2018
    What's Up in the 8th
    When not to decide cases on allied offenses and pre-indictment delay
  • January 11, 2018
    Case Update
    Three new decisions from the Ohio Supreme Court
  • January 10, 2018
    To the barricades!
    Why I'm a threat to the Ohio state government
  • January 5, 2018
    Search and seizure in the digital age
    Do the cops need a warrant to get cell phone data?
  • January 3, 2018
    What's Up in the 8th
    We talk about me a lot, but there's some other stuff, too
  • January 2, 2018
    He's baaaack
    So I thought I'd start my first post in six weeks by explaining why it's my first post in six weeks. Ever run into somebody and ask the obligatory question, "How are you doing?" And they proceed to tell you...
  • November 15, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Plea withdrawals (again), sexual predator hearings, and an appellate law question
  • November 7, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Don't listen to prosecutors about the law, good new/bad news jokes on appeal, and the Byzantine course of a death penalty case
  • October 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Trying to change the past
  • October 16, 2017
    En banc on sentencing
    The 8th District takes a look at what State v. Marcum means