Daily Case Update Archive

As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State First District Court of Appeals, and the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  You can read the latest summaries or archived summaries from 2005 , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009 , 2010 , 2011.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Subscribers-Only discussion list.  Not a subscriber?  Join today!

November 3rd, 2006

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States
 

TOPICS:
-Elections - break tie vote
- Appellate Review/Crim. - Crim. Rule 11 - Sentencing
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

State ex rel. Brady v. Blackwell (Nov. 3, 2006) (2006-Ohio-5752)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-5752.pdf
-  Elections - Prohibition - Secretary of State's authority under
O.R.C. 3501.11(X) to break tie vote of county board of elections -
O.R.C. 111.04 - Cause remanded to court of appeals to provide parties
opportunity to submit evidence on whether secretary of state properly
delegated his authority to assistant secretary of state.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State v. Simmons (Nov. 3, 2006) (2006-Ohio-5760)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-5760.pdf
-  When agreed sentences are within the statutory range of allowable
sentences, R.C. 2958.08(D) puts the sentences beyond appellate review,
even if they implicate the sentencing statutes the Ohio Supreme Court
has found unconstitutional in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1,
2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470. While generally an appellate court is
without jurisdiction to review a judgment or order that is not
designated in the notice of appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that
if the other party is reasonably apprised of what judgment the appellant
is appealing, the purpose of the notice of appeal is accomplished, and
any technical defects are not jurisdictional. Judicial release is
distinct from sentencing because it reduces a prison term that a court
has already imposed; therefore, the trial court need not inform a
defendant under Crim.R. 11(C) about his eligibility for judicial release
unless it is incorporated into a plea bargain. The defendant's plea
was not rendered involuntary because the trial court told him it was
"decision time" and that he would have to decide between taking a
plea bargain and going forward with a jury trial that had been scheduled
for several months. Though a court speaks only through its journal,
Crim.R. 36 allows for the correction at any time of clerical mistakes
made through oversight or omission, and App.R. 9(E) allows an appellate
court to direct that a misstatement in the journal be corrected.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Ohio Cases

 

No Opinions.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases

 

No Opinions.