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 Update - Criminal

Lots of stuff the past week or so... 

1st District rejects contention that sexual predator law violates Blakely, holds that while law requires judicial findings, designation is "remedial" and therefore doesn't implicate 6th Amendment... 2nd District rules that RC 2929.22, which specifies when maximum sentence can be imposed for misdemeanors, violates Blakely, but holds that defendant waived issue by not raising it at sentencing...  6th District holds that even if probation revocation proceedings were instituted before probation period terminated, court lost jurisdiction to impose sentence for violation once period expired, unless it extended period before expiration...

8th District reverses grant of motion to suppress where police began search before warrant arrived; since warrant was valid, evidence could come in under inevitable discovery doctrine... 1st District also holds that court can't order probation department to calculate restitution, must hold hearing on issue... 5th District holds that judge may not impose reduced sentence upon violation of judicial release... 8th District holds that 1-year firearm spec isn't lesser-included offense of 3-year spec, defendant not entitled to instruction on it as a lesser offense...

Speaking of lesser-included offenses, 3rd District holds that counsel's failure to request charge on one is matter of trial strategy, not subject to review for ineffective assistance of counsel claim... 9th District holds that, on no contest plea to felony theft offense, court can't determine stolen property was a lesser amount and reduce charge to misdemeanor...  

Call us the minute you get out.  From the headnotes of the 1st District's decision last week in State v. Walker

When a defendant convicted of rape has been ordered under R.C. 2950.031 not to reside within 1000 feet of any school premises, his argument that the restriction violates his constitutional  rights is not ripe for appellate review because of the defendant's incarceration for a 24-year term.

Search

Recent Entries

  • April 20, 2017
    The Supreme Court takes a look at the trial tax
    And you thought this was the week you only had to worry about income taxes
  • April 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Remembering Warren Zevon, and the Fourth Amendment lives
  • April 17, 2017
    Case Update
    Structural error, prejudice, and police run amok.
  • April 13, 2017
    Some arguments on sentencing
    Why oral arguments can be fun, even when they're not yours
  • April 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Oh fun: declarations against interest v. non-hearsay. Also, the difference between not guilty and innocent, and Ohio's statute penalizing the refusal to take chemical test in a DUI case goes bye-bye
  • April 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Filibusters, and appellate cases on all the ways lawyers can screw up.
  • April 7, 2017
    Change of course
    A new approach in my client-attorney relationships
  • April 4, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A true rocket docket, and Anthony Sowell pops up again
  • April 3, 2017
    Case Update
    Free merchant speech, an argument on Brady, another look at Creech
  • March 28, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Pro se motions, pro se defendants, and advice for deadbeat dads