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 »

×

Case roundup

Apparently, there have been a lot of changes of heart among criminal defendants in the 2nd District; there were about five decisions last week from there on withdrawals of guilty pleas.  One of them even worked, a DWI in muni court, where the judge apparently took the defendant in chambers and took a plea without a record.  The others... well, not so much.  This one gives a good discussion of the factors to be used in determining the issue.  Now, on to the other courts:

Civil.  Whether clear puddle of water on floor was "open and obvious" was question for jury, 8th District rules, reversing grant of summary judgment; much better result than this one last year from 1st on same facts... 10th District reverses grant of summary judgment on cause of action not put in issue by defendant's motion... Mortgage interest, utilities, and insurance paid by sellers after buyers breached contract to purchase home not recoverable items of damages, 12th District holds... 5th District reaffirms public policy exception to at-will employment, prohibiting discharge for employee's statement that she would consult an attorney because of reduction in her bonus...

Criminal.  3rd District holds that failure to provide suspect's name to police not affirmative act required for conviction of obstructing official business... Agreed sentence does not implicate Apprendi/Blakely/Foster cases, 8th District holds, and is not appealable... Good discussion of adoption of statement by silence in this 9th District case, with a reminder that if you're in jail, it's not a good idea to discuss your case on the phone... 10th District rejects claim that applying Foster to crimes committed before its date, so as to raise potential sentences, violates rule that criminal statutes be strictly construed against state (rule of lenity)...

Reason #113 why I don't do work in Juvenile Court anymore.  In 1998, Archie Harrison filed a motion in the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court to modify his child support payments.  He retired the following year.  In 2005, the court finally got around to ruling on the motion he'd filed seven years earlier, decided that it could only consider his income from 1998, and raised his child support payments by $200 a month.

The 8th District reversed.

Search

Recent Entries

  • July 21, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Computers and sex offenders, civil forfeiture, and phrases that should be put out to pasture
  • July 20, 2017
    Case Update
    A look at the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Oles, and did you know that Justice Ginsburg has a .311 batting average with runners in scoring position? Oh, wait...
  • July 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Judicial bias, RVO specs, 26(B) stuff, waivers of counsel... And more!
  • July 17, 2017
    No more Anders Briefs?
    I have a case now in the 8th District where I came close to filing an Anders brief the other week. It's an appeal from a plea and sentence. The plea hearing was flawless. The judge imposed consecutive sentences, and...
  • July 13, 2017
    Sex offenders and the First Amendment
    Analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Packingham v. North Carolina
  • July 12, 2017
    Removing a retained attorney
    What does a judge do if he thinks a retained attorney in a criminal case isn't competent?
  • July 11, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    The court does good work on a juvenile bindover case, and the State finally figures out that it should have indicted someone in the first place
  • July 10, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS ends its term; the Ohio Supreme Court issues another opinion, and likely the last one, on the trial tax
  • June 28, 2017
    Plea Bargaining -- The defendant's view
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision last week in Lee v. United States
  • June 27, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A worrisome decision on expert funding, and, mirabile dictu, a court's dismissal of a case for a discovery violation is upheld