Case Update
Almost all of the attention at the Supreme Court was focused
on the oral argument two weeks ago in Shelby
County v. Holder, which will determine the continued constitutionality of
the 1965 Voting Rights Act. No oral
arguments last week, and although Monday was designated "Opinion and Orders
Day," only one was handed down, concerning a medical malpractice suit under the
Federal Tort Claims Act. Oral arguments
begin anew next week, but no criminal cases are on tap; in fact, the next one, Salinas v. Texas, doesn't come until the
middle of April. The first two cases on
gay marriage will be argued at the end of this month, which might be worth a
post or two, simply because of the significance of the issue.
Down in Columbus, the only criminal decision was a
non-decision. When I'd written about the
Supreme Court's acceptance of State v.
Lindstrom, I'd said the case presented a "decidedly bizarre factual situation,"
which was probably an understatement.
Lindstrom's sister complained to the police in 2010 that, when he was
between the ages of ten and fourteen, he'd repeatedly raped her. Just six days shy of Lindstrom's 21st
birthday, the State filed a complaint against him in juvenile court. It later indicted Lindstrom, but Lindstrom
moved the common pleas court to transfer the case back to the juvenile
division, which it did. The issue was
whether Lindstrom had been "apprehended" by the issuance of the summons in the
juvenile case, in which case the juvenile court would continue to have
jurisdiction. The 8th District decided
he had been, and the State's contention that he hadn't been met with an
incredulous response by the Supreme Court justices during oral argument. Last week, the court decided that it been
improvident in granting the appeal, and dismissed it, taking the unusual step
of specifying that the appellate court decision was not to be cited as authority
except between the parties.
In the courts of appeals...
One issue the Supreme Court probably
won't be able to sidestep is the effect of a prior felony on newly-amended RC
2929.13(B)(1), which makes community control sanctions mandatory if the
defendant unless, among other things, the defendant has been convicted of a
felony or of a misdemeanor crime of violence within the past two years. The phrasing of the statute leaves it unclear
whether the two-year period refers only to misdemeanor crimes of violence, or
to any felony. A few weeks ago, the 8th
District held that it applied to both in State
v. Johnson (discussed here).
Last week, the 6th District came to a
contrary conclusion in State
v. Lumpkin. The analysis in Lumpkin is lacking, though; the court
simply states that Lumpkin's three prior felony cases make him ineligible,
without even engaging in any discussion of the wording of the statute. (But see Update Below).
In State
v. Hughes, the 2nd District decides that the defendant's use of heroin
just prior to his being questioned didn't affect his ability to understand and
intelligently waive his Miranda rights...
Where a court denies an expungement petition without conducting the mandatory hearing,
the denial isn't entitled to any res
judicata effect, and doesn't bar a subsequent petition, the 8th District
holds in State
v. M.S... About the only way you're going to see an appellate court reverse
a trial judge's denial of a motion to withdraw a plea is if the judge doesn't
even hold a hearing on the motion. You've
got to at least do that, the 10th District says in State
v. Hurlburt... In State
v. Marlow, the 12th District holds that defendant's convictions for
voyeurism and illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, arising from
his secretly taping his sister-in-law while she was in the bathroom, were
allied offenses and should've merged.
Bet that'll be a fun family gathering next Thanksgiving... You can do a
lot of things with sentencing, but one of the things you can't do is banish the
defendant from the State of Ohio for life, the 9th District says in State
v. Mose...
Comments