The only decision from the Ohio Supreme Court this week was one involving the regulation of cellular phone service, and the day I start reading PUCO decisions is the day I stick a fork into a toaster.  One note about the Supreme Court, though; a few weeks back, I’d mentioned that the Court was scanning all documents, so that you had on-line access to them.  Turns out that they’re being scanned in image format, which means that you can download and read them, but you can’t edit them as you would a normal word-processing document.  Now, on to the cases:

Civil.  1st District reverses trial court for failure to grant protective order for trade secrets, holding that trial court’s statement “with discovery issues, I let people get what they want” wasn’t quite the detailed analysis required under Rule 26(C)… Husband who learned child he’d supported to majority wasn’t his didn’t have claim against biological father for unjust enrichment, 9th District rules… 10th District reverses award of $6000 in attorney fees for tenant who recovered $700 for security deposit wrongfully withheld, says that fees must bear a relationship to damages recovered… 12 District holds trial court abused discretion by refusing to consider social security benefits in determining spousal support when benefits were sole source of husband’s income…

Criminal.  Several cases on guilty pleas:  1st District holds that Foster has no effect on determining whether plea was voluntarily made, where plea was made before Foster; 8th District upholds guilty plea, says court not required to advise defendant of right to testify or availability of self-defense; and where case remanded for resentencing, trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain motion to vacate plea where that issue not raised on appeal, 3rd District holds…10th District rules that defendant opened door to testimony by detective that he was “sure” defendant was the shooter, by calling detective as witness and asking him if he’d taken gunshot residue tests from other people at scene…

And the Kenny Rogers award for You Gotta Know When to Hold ‘Em, You Gotta Know When to Fold ‘Em for this week goes to the defendant in State v. Brooks:

After imposing the one year sentence, appellant requested three days to get his affairs in order.  The trial court refused, stating, “Not after what you did when you were out, you think I’m going to trust you again?”  Appellant then asked, “So I have to go to prison with nothing?”  The trial court responded, “You go sit down, we will make sure you’ve got something when you go to prison. You will have your orange jumpsuit, go sit down. You don’t show me nothing, man.”  Thereafter, the following occurred:

“THE DEFENDANT: (Unintelligible mumbling).

“THE COURT: It’s about time for resentencing in this case. I misjudged this man. I thought he was worthy of a minimum sentence.

“THE DEFENDANT: I am.

“THE COURT: No. The sentence is two years in this case. He is unrepentant. He is a jerk. He thinks the world owes him a living. It doesn’t. The sentence is two years, Mr. Brooks.”

The appellate court upheld the sentence.  Guess that taught the guy to unintelligibly mumble.

Meanwhile, “you don’t show me nothing, man”?  Whatever happened to judicial decorum?  I guess it’s fortunate that the judge didn’t have to delve into his repertoire of “yo mama” jokes.