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 - Appellate Edition

In criminal cases, the 6th District looks at the applicability of State v. Colon (I and II, discussed here), and essentially decides that the failure of an indictment to include a mens rea requirement is not a structural error if the defendant pleads guilty.  The 8th District holds that the prosecutor's reading from a file in a sex offender hearing does not constitute "evidence," but still upholds the trial court's finding on the basis of other evidence.  It also reverses a juvenile court's delinquency finding because the court failed to record the dispositional hearing.  The defendant had asked for expungement of an aggravated assault conviction, and the prosecutor had objected that the crime wasn't expungeable because it was a crime of violence, but withdrew that objection at the hearing; the 10th District says it doesn't matter, and reverses the grant, holding that the trial court lacked "jurisdiction," which couldn't be waived.  The 3rd District holds that a defendant's right to be present wasn't violated, where he appeared at a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea by video from prison.

On the civil side, there's a good case from the 8th District on when a tenant is entitled to equitable relief from the consequences of a failure to properly renew a commercial lease.  And the court also reverses a summary judgment and orders dismissal, holding that personal jurisdiction doesn't exist where a Minnesota homeowner mails payments on a home equity line to a bank in Ohio.  The 9th District rules that a plaintiff in a dog-bite case can't be compelled to choose between pursuing a statutory action and a common law action, but can pursue both.  The 3rd District holds that, in order to be awarded sanctions for a discovery violation, the moving party has to show that he actually paid or is obligated to pay attorneys fees. 

Last, I've bitched about attorneys filing Anders briefs, but if you want to see one done right, check out the 6th District's decision State v. McIntoshThe defendant faced charges which could have landed her in prison for 33 years.  She pled out to two third-degree felonies, changed her mind and filed a motion to withdraw the plea, then at the motion hearing changed her mind again and agreed to do the plea.  Her attorney obviously did a diligent job researching the law before filing his Anders brief, presenting seven potential assignments of error.  Instead of spending a paragraph or two noting that none had merit and affirming, the court examined each one in detail.  The result was the same, but you come away from the case believing that the defendant got every shot she was entitled to.

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