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 »

×

What's up in the 8th

Party-goers in Cleveland will be shocked -- shocked -- to learn that such events often degenerate into gunfights, at least according to the 8th District's most recent spate of decisions.  Rare reversals on evidence, one for insufficiency and the other for manifest weight, plus the lesson for judges that if you're going to screw up telling a defendant about post-release controls at a plea hearing, highball it rather than lowball it, are the features this week.

Edith Kupay-Zimmerman's German shepherd bit a 10-year-old kid who was sleeping over; instead of getting him medical care, she told the boy to lie to his mother about what happened.  He didn't see a doctor until 20 hours later, by which time it was too late to suture the wounds, leaving scarring to his arms and back.  I'm surprised that this particular judge didn't give her prison time; I probably would have.  She appeals, complaining about the 15 days jail-time (to be served on weekends) that she did get, and also argues that her plea should be vacated because the judge told her that post-release controls would be mandatory if she went to prison, and if she violated PRC, she could be sentenced to an additional 4½ years.  In State v. Kupay- Zimmerman, the court gives short shrift to her sentencing arguments, and provides the down-and-dirty on PRC's and pleas:  if the judge doesn't say anything, or doesn't tell a defendant that PRC is mandatory, it's a do-over, but if the court simply gives inaccurate information, the defendant has to show a prejudicial effect.  It's tough to believe that Kupay-Zimmerman would've changed her mind about pleading if she knew that PRC wasn't nearly as onerous as the judge told her, so there you go.

Other quick lessons:  merger of allied offenses and merger of gun specs work differently, says the court in State v. HamiltonIf you shoot at a person and rob them, you can be convicted of both felonious assault and aggravated robbery; those crimes don't merge, but the firearms specifications for each of them do, since they're part of a single "transaction."  In State v. Bowden, the defendant's conviction for stealing a car is reversed, the lesson being that if you take someone's car to buy drugs and promise to return it in 30 minutes, and you don't return it for two hours, that's just unauthorized use, the difference being that theft can't be based on exceeding the scope of consent unless "the purpose in exceeding that consent was to ultimately deprive the owner of the property in question."  And in State v. Nicholson, the court reiterates that a judge is not required to advise the defendant of the elements of a crime at a plea hearing, and that a defendant needs to do more to get a plea vacated than simply profess a change of heart. 

And finally, some lessons for lawyers, too.  In State v. Carpenter, the defendant was convicted of felonious assault and abduction, and sentenced to six years in prison, based upon the testimony of the alleged victim, Teresa Ferguson, that Carpenter was her pimp, held her hostage for six months, and beat her with a metal mop handle.  She managed to escape through a window, and got treatment at a hospital, where x-rays revealed that the beating had fractured her ribs.

The medical records had been introduced in evidence, and while the defense lawyer apparently never read them, the appellate panel did, and they revealed a starkly different story:  Ferguson had gone to a different hospital from what she said, and there were no x-rays, or treatment for fractured ribs.  In fact, the only complaints were for psychiatric problems and asthma; there was no indication, and no complaint, of any physical injury.  The clincher was that Ferguson acknowledged that she suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and heard voices.  The court concluded that

this case presents the unusual circumstance where the jury clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice such that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Finally, we have appeals from two misdemeanor convictions.  Cleveland v. Smith is a pro se appeal from conviction for minor misdemeanor disorderly conduct, and if that doesn’t tell you everything you need to know, defendant’s third assignment of error that amending the charge from menacing to disorderly conduct “presents no outstanding congruence due to the obscure and nonspecific statement of plaintiff’s corresponding to case file record” should do the trick.   East Cleveland v. Waters stands for the proposition that characterizing an incident as a "Baby Mama Drama" -- which occurs in Cleveland with the frequency of parties breaking out into gunfights -- is not prosecutorial misconduct.

Search

Recent Entries

  • March 20, 2017
    Taking time off
    I'm taking the week off. Have a major brief due on Thursday, plus a trial in Federal court starting next Monday. Plus, I'm pretty sure that Obama wiretapped me, too, so I'm working on getting to the bottom of that....
  • March 17, 2017
    What's Up with the 8th?
    The 8th District cases come out every Thursday. By about ten o'clock in the morning, the court will have posted the "weekly decision list" on its web site. It will give a summary of the case, usually in a sentence...
  • March 14, 2017
    Rippo and Pena-Rodriguez
    SCOTUS issues decisions on judicial recusal and biased jurors
  • March 13, 2017
    Case Update
    A SCOTUS decision on career offenders, and appellate cases on what a judge can consider in sentencing, and untimely motions to suppress
  • March 9, 2017
    A switch in time
    The court reverses itself in Gonzalez
  • March 8, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    More sentencing stories, and the right way to handle an Anders brief
  • March 7, 2017
    Case Update
    Knock and announce and the Ohio Constitution, and Anders briefs.
  • March 6, 2017
    Never mind
    The Ohio Supreme Court reverses Gonzalez.
  • March 2, 2017
    Of bright lines and bookbags
    Oral argument in State v. Oles and State v. Polk
  • February 28, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A good outcome in a search case, probably a good outcome (to be) in a drug case, and a very bad outcome in a child rape case