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

A slow week in the 8th; only six decisions in criminal cases.  That includes State v. Rodgers, in which the defendant files an untimely application to reopen his appeal, a task rendered even more forlorn than customary by the fact that there was no appeal to reopen:  the court had earlier denied his motion to file an untimely appeal.  And it includes State v. Taslitz, an affirmance of two convictions for misdemeanor assault against a manifest weight challenge, the most noteworthy aspect of the opinion being a warning to stay away from Black Velvet whiskey in the Jumbo Family Size:  the two victims allegedly consumed a half-gallon of the stuff each day.  

State v. Penn has a bit more meat on the bones.  Penn was arrested at the Beachwood Mall in August 2012 - the opinion says nothing more than that it was "a result of an incident" - and the police discovered he had a number of gift cards, as well as a counterfeit Pennsylvania driver's license.

The former led to the placement of a "felony investigative hold," while the latter resulted in a charge of obstruction of official business, a second-degree misdemeanor, to which Penn pled no contest three days later, and was placed in a first-offender program.

Meanwhile, the felony investigation proceeded apace:  a few days after Penn's arrest, the investigating detective found that the gift cards had been recoded with someone else's actual credit card number.  Exactly a month after the arrest, the detective turned the case over for review by prosecutors, having verified that the gift cards were fraudulent, and a warrant was issued for Penn's arrest.

In January of 2014, some sixteen months later.

The judge tossed the felony charges on speedy trial grounds, and that provides the only reversal of the week.  The law here is that if the State files additional charges which arise from the same facts of the original charge, speedy trial time for the additional charges runs from the date of arrest on the original charge.  But if the additional charges are based on different facts, or the State did not know of the facts at the time of the initial charge, then speedy trial time doesn't start to run until the new charges are filed. 

The panel decides that this falls into the latter category, concluding that the original charge was based on Penn's lying to the police about his identity.  While the police suspected something was wrong with the credit cards, their suspicions weren't confirmed until after the obstruction of justice charge was resolved, and speedy trial time stopped upon its resolution; it didn't begin again until the new charges were filed.

I think that's drawing some pretty fine lines.  It seems likely that the "incident" giving rise to Penn's arrest was his suspected use of the fraudulent gift cards; the charge of obstruction for using the fake identity was a throw-in.  The police immediately began investigating the cards, and within days determined that they had been recoded.  To be sure, they didn't have absolute confirmation, but they got that within a month, leaving plenty of time on the speedy trial clock.  Instead, they did nothing for almost a year and a half.

And this is one of those times where the court engages in line-drawing without looking at the broader picture.  The whole purpose of the speedy trial statute is to encourage speedy prosecutions.  That didn't happen here.

In State v. Colegrove, the prosecution tries an interesting tactic:  confronted with the victims' reluctance to testify because of threats made by the defendant's family, they ask the court to permit the hearsay statements of the victims.  The opinion doesn't state the basis for this, but I'm guessing it's the exception for forfeiture by wrongdoing.  The judge doesn't buy it, but does issue material witness warrants for the victim.  Colegrove decides to try the case to the bench - not a choice I would have made - and gets convicted of one count of robbery and sentenced to prison for five years.

Colegrove's manifest weight argument on appeal meets the fate you'd anticipate, so he focuses on the judge's allowance of the victims' testimony as to the intimidation, claiming it's improper 404(B) evidence.  It's not; as the panel points out, "evidence of threats or intimidation of witnesses reflect a consciousness of guilt and are admissible as admission by conduct," and "attempts by persons other than the accused to suppress evidence is admissible against the accused  where the accused is connected to such attempts."  How was Colegrove connected to the attempts?  Through his jailhouse phone calls.  Toss in a conviction for felonious stupidity, too.

You may not be able to go home again, but you sure as hell can go back to prison, and that's what happens to the defendant in State v. Gibson.  He'd been sentenced to three years imprisonment for kidnapping and gross sexual imposition, the sentences to run concurrently, but the case got reversed for failure to merge allied offenses.  So back it goes, and the State unsurprisingly elects to have the Gibson sentenced on the kidnapping count.  By then, Gibson is 30 months into his 36-month sentence, and his lawyer pleads for the judge to put him on community control sanctions at this point.

The judge opts not to, sending him back for the remainder of the term.  Gibson appeals, and makes several arguments about why the judge shouldn't have sent him back, but if you know anything about Ohio sentencing law, you know that there's nothing anybody's going to do about that.

Search

Recent Entries

  • May 22, 2017
    Case Update
    Is SCOTUS looking for a forfeiture case? Plus, appellate decisions on expungement and restitution, plain error, and what a judge has to tell a defendant about sex registration
  • May 19, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th - Part II
    Decisions on lineups and prior calculation and design, and two out of eight (eight!) pro se defendants come up winners,
  • May 17, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th - Part I
    Taking a first look at some of the 8th District's decisions over the past two weeks
  • May 16, 2017
    Case Update
    Stock tips, Federal sentencing reform goes dormant, schoolbag searches, and the retroactivity of State v. Hand
  • May 8, 2017
    Case Update
    Death in Arkansas, a worrisome disciplinary decision, and appellate cases on speedy trial, arson registration, use of prior testimony, and the futility of post-conviction relief
  • May 2, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Nothing but sex
  • May 1, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS closes out oral argument for the Term, the Ohio Supreme Court has seven of them this week, and we report on a decision where you'll probably want to play Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years" in the background while you read about it
  • April 26, 2017
    MIA
    Like Mark Twain, rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. Except I am pretty sure he's actually dead, while I am not, and for that matter, nobody's spreading rumors that I am. Great lead, huh? The nice thing about...
  • 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