http://briefcase8.com/2010/02/11/the-supreme-court-takes-a-look-at-ice/ Case analysis with an attitude Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:47:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://briefcase8.com/2010/02/11/the-supreme-court-takes-a-look-at-ice/comment-page-1/#comment-89148 The Briefcase » Case Update Sun, 12 Sep 2010 12:29:41 +0000 http://briefcase8.com/?p=2647#comment-89148 [...] All quiet on the Columbus front, and in DC for that matter, but things get rolling in the former locale this week, with arguments on tap in several interesting cases.  In State v. Poole, Poole and her boyfriend were charged in a methampetamine operation; after she pled guilty to manufacturing, she testified in his trial and claimed that stuff found in a pocket of a coat he was wearing actually belonged to her.  For her troubles, she was indicted for possession, and the trial judge in her second case suppressed her testimony in BF’s trial, claiming she should have been advised of her 5th Amendment rights.  The 11th District said no.  In State v. Miller, the defendant agreed to pay restitution at the plea, but the judge forgot to impose it at sentencing, and modified the entry to include it several weeks later.  The 8th said that’s okay.  The big case, though, is State v. Hodge, which concerns the impact of Oregon v. Ice on State v. Foster.  (Discussed here). [...] [...] All quiet on the Columbus front, and in DC for that matter, but things get rolling in the former locale this week, with arguments on tap in several interesting cases.  In State v. Poole, Poole and her boyfriend were charged in a methampetamine operation; after she pled guilty to manufacturing, she testified in his trial and claimed that stuff found in a pocket of a coat he was wearing actually belonged to her.  For her troubles, she was indicted for possession, and the trial judge in her second case suppressed her testimony in BF’s trial, claiming she should have been advised of her 5th Amendment rights.  The 11th District said no.  In State v. Miller, the defendant agreed to pay restitution at the plea, but the judge forgot to impose it at sentencing, and modified the entry to include it several weeks later.  The 8th said that’s okay.  The big case, though, is State v. Hodge, which concerns the impact of Oregon v. Ice on State v. Foster.  (Discussed here). [...]

]]> http://briefcase8.com/2010/02/11/the-supreme-court-takes-a-look-at-ice/comment-page-1/#comment-70200 Jim Trotter Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:31:48 +0000 http://briefcase8.com/?p=2647#comment-70200 Would Foster be Ice if the Ohio Supreme Court applied the requested remedy of mandatory minimum concurrent sentences? The State had no reason to appeal the constitutional claim , which they lost, only because of the remedy. Why would the state care about the constitutional claim and the Defendant's could not appeal the constitutional argument because that was exactly what they asked for. Food for thought. Would Foster be Ice if the Ohio Supreme Court applied the requested remedy of mandatory minimum concurrent sentences? The State had no reason to appeal the constitutional claim , which they lost, only because of the remedy. Why would the state care about the constitutional claim and the Defendant’s could not appeal the constitutional argument because that was exactly what they asked for. Food for thought.

]]>