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 15th and 16th, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Attorneys at law * Misconduct
- Criminal law * Sufficiency of indictment
- Workers' compensation
- Qualified Domestic Relations Order
- Motion to reinstate motion to withdraw Plea
- Money-Laundering
- OVI
- Sentencing unconstitutional
- Evidence - single picture identification
- Probate - not appealed from a final order
- Sexual predator
- Meritorious appeal
- Sufficiency of the evidence
- Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
- Immigration - Eligibility for asylum
- Customs Declaration
- Sex Discrimination
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

Columbus Bar Assn. v. Cooke (Nov. 15, 2006)(2006-Ohio-5709)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-5709.pdf
-  Attorneys * Multiple violations of the Disciplinary Rules * Indefinite suspension.
 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Sturgeon (Nov. 15, 2006)(2006-Ohio-5708)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-5708.pdf
-  Attorneys at law * Misconduct * Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law * Accepting employment if the exercise of professional judgment on behalf of a client may be affected by the lawyer's personal interests * Permanent disbarment.
 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Carlson (Nov. 15, 2006)(2006-Ohio-5707)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-5707.pdf
-  Attorneys at law*Misconduct*Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation*Conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law*Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice*Collecting an excessive fee*Failure to disclose information required by law*Indefinite suspension. 
 
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Crossmock (Nov. 15, 2006)(2006-Ohio-5706)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-5706.pdf
-  Attorneys * Misconduct * Multiple disciplinary violations * Indefinite suspension. 
 
Dayton Bar Assn. v. Korte (Nov. 15, 2006)(2006-Ohio-5705)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-5705.pdf
- Attorneys at law * Misconduct * Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice * Failure to disclose that which attorney is required by law to reveal while representing a client * Public reprimand. 
 
Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ake (Nov. 15, 2006)(2006-Ohio-5704)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-5704.pdf
-  Attorneys at law * Misconduct * Violations of court orders committed as a party to litigation * Stayed suspension. 
 
State v. Colston (Nov. 15, 2006)(2006-Ohio-5703)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-5703.pdf
-  Criminal law * Sufficiency of indictment * Indictment that tracks language of the charged offense and identifies predicate offense by referring to statute number is not defective for failure to include each element of predicate offense * Court of appeals' judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Buehner. 
 
State ex rel. Poneris v. Indus. Comm.(Nov. 15, 2006)(2006-Ohio-5702)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-5702.pdf
-  Workers' compensation * Permanent and total disability compensation * Denial of application to reset compensation start date * No abuse of discretion.
 
State ex rel. Wainer v. Indus. Comm. (Nov. 15, 2006)(2006-Ohio-5701)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-5701.pdf
-  Workers' compensation * Court of appeals' judgment affirmed. 
 
State ex rel. Englemon v. Queen City Barrel Co.(Nov. 15, 2006)(2006-Ohio-5700)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-5700.pdf
-  Workers' compensation * Court of appeals' judgment affirmed. 
 
State ex rel. Ward v. Dorman Prods. (Nov. 15, 2006)(2006-Ohio-5699)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-5699.pdf
-  Workers' compensation * Court of appeals' judgment affirmed. 
 
Rose v. Garfield Hts. (Nov. 15, 2006)(2006-Ohio-5698)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-5698.pdf
-  Appeal dismissed as improvidently accepted. 
 
State ex rel. Smith v. Veach Trucking, Inc.(Nov. 15, 2006)(2006-Ohio-5697)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2006/2006-ohio-5697.pdf
- Worker' compensation * Court of appeals' judgment affirmed. 
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

*** Judgment Entries ***
 
Rhodes v. Rhodes (Nov. 15, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050114.pdf
-  Rhodes appeals from the trial court's order modifying an existing Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Plaintiff-appellee Marilyn J. Rhodes had moved to modify the QDRO to provide her with post-retirement survivorship benefits. In this appeal from the order that granted the modification to the QDRO, William claims that the court by its order "set aside the division of property set forth in the decree of divorce" in violation of R.C. 3105.171(I). He alleges that the court did not have jurisdiction under Ohio law to do this. The judgment entry William has appealed from is not a final appealable order. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.
 
State v. Sanks (Nov. 15, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050627.pdf
-  Sanks appeals from the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court's judgment overruling his "Motion to Reinstate Motion to Withdraw Plea." We affirm the court's judgment.
 
State v. Lonneman (Nov. 15, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050641.pdf
-  Lonneman appeals her conviction for theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A), a first-degree misdemeanor. Lonneman challenges the weight and the sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Torbeck (Nov. 15, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050732,%20C-050733.pdf
-  Torbeck was cited for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol (OVI), in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). In three assignments of error, Torbeck now challenges the weight and sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, as well as the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Jordan (Nov. 15, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050794.pdf
-  Jordan was indicted two counts of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1); two counts of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2); two counts of kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(3); and one count of aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(2). Jordan alleges that he was denied his constitutional right to the effective assistance of trial counsel and the trial court erred in imposing a 47-year sentence. After Jordan's sentencing hearing, the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Foster held that R.C. 2929.14(B) and (C) were unconstitutional, and the court severed these two provisions from the statutory scheme. Because Jordan was sentenced under these unconstitutional provisions, his sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
 
Collins v. Conrad, et al. (Nov. 15, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050829,%20C-050865.pdf
-  Plaintiff-appellant, Connie Collins, and defendant-appellant, James Conrad, Administrator of the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, both appeal the trial court's judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, Western Southern Life Insurance Company. A jury had held that Collins was not entitled to participate in the workers' compensation fund for the conditions "cervical disc syndrome without myelopathy" and "degenerative disc disease of the thoracic region." We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
State v. Mays (Nov. 15, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050900.pdf
-  Mays appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery. Mays now asserts that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the single-picture identification of Richards and the show-up identification of Mays and Richards and his conviction was based on insufficient evidence, and that it was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
In Re:  Estate of Edward Tyrone Shelton (Nov. 15, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050966.pdf
-  Appellant Reginald P. Shelton appeals from the entry of the probate court overruling his objections and adopting a magistrate's decision scheduling this case for trial. The primary issue to be determined at trial will be the apportionment of proceeds from a $1 million settlement received by the estate of Edward Tyrone Shelton, who died intestate from injuries he received in an automobile accident. Because Shelton has not appealed from a final order of the probate court, we are without jurisdiction over this case, and we must dismiss the appeal.
 
State v. Parr (Nov. 15, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050991.pdf
-  Parr appeals his designation as a sexual predator. While Parr did complete a sex-offender program while in prison and claimed to no longer have substance-abuse issues, we are satisfied that the trial court had sufficient credible evidence before it to conclude that Parr is a sexual predator. Therefore, we overrule Parr's assignment of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
State v. Smith (Nov. 15, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-060344.pdf
-  As part of a plea agreement, defendant-appellant, James W. Smith, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of nonsupport of dependents under R.C. 2919.21(B). The trial court sentenced him to serve eight months' incarceration. As provided in Anders v. California,1 Smith's appointed counsel has advised this court that, after a thorough review of the record, she can discern no arguable assignments of error to present on appeal. We hold that no grounds exist to support a meritorious appeal. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment and overrule counsel's motion to withdraw.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

USA v. Seymour (Nov. 15, 2006) (Appeal from W.D. Mich)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0422p-06.pdf
-  Joseph Lee Seymour was charged in a two-count indictment with aggravated sexual abuse of a minor and with aggravated sexual abuse of an adult by force. A jury convicted Seymour on both counts. The district court sentenced Seymour to 262 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Seymour now challenges (1) the admission of evidence regarding uncharged prior sexual assaults against two other adult victims to prove the child-molestation charge, (2) the exclusion of testimony relating to whether the adult victim in the present case consented to sexual behavior with Seymour, (3) the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the child-molestation charge, and (4) the length of his sentence. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
 
USA v. Ganier (Nov. 15, 2006) (Appeal from M.D. Tenn)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0423p-06.pdf
-  The United States appeals the district court's decision excluding certain evidence from the criminal trial of Defendant-Appellee Albert Ganier, III ("Ganier"). Ganier is charged with one count of endeavoring to obstruct justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503(a) and 2 and three counts of altering, destroying, or concealing documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519 and 2 for, among other acts, allegedly deleting certain computer files with intent to impede a federal investigation. On the morning on which Ganier's trial was to begin, Ganier filed a motion to exclude the proposed testimony of a government computer specialist, arguing that it was expert testimony for which the government had not provided a written summary as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(G). The district court granted the motion, bringing the proceedings to a halt while the government filed this interlocutory appeal. We agree that the proposed testimony was expert testimony for which a written summary should have been provided, but because less severe remedies were not given adequate consideration, we VACATE the decision of the district court excluding the evidence and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 
Berri v. Gonzales (Nov. 16, 2006) (Appeal from Board of Immigration)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0424p-06.pdf
-  Husband and wife Sami and Tina Berri, citizens of Lebanon, claim eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their claims, and a member of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed without opinion. The Berris appeal the denial of their claims. They also appeal the IJ's denial of their motion for continuance and the BIA's affirmance without opinion. For the following reasons, we DENY the Berris' petition for review. We also AFFIRM the IJ's denial of a continuance and the BIA's use of its affirmance without opinion procedure.
 
USA v. Ely (Nov. 16, 2006) (Appeal from W.D. Tenn)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0425p-06.pdf
-  Michael Ely was convicted by a jury of bulk cash smuggling and making a false and fictitious material statement and representation to a Customs and Border Protection officer in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5316 and 5332, and 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The jury also found that Ely's interest in the property was subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to section 5332. The district court subsequently sentenced Ely to five months imprisonment and five months of home detention to be served as a condition of supervised release, as well as ordering the forfeiture pursuant to the jury verdict. Ely now appeals the forfeiture and his sentence.
 
Henderson v. Walled Lake (Nov. 16, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Mich)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0426p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff-appellant Teresa Anne Henderson brings suit alleging she was subjected to sexual harassment by her high school soccer coach. She asserts various claims under state and federal law, alleging the coach, the school district and several school administration officials are liable for sexual harassment, civil rights violations, gross negligence and slander. The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted by the district court because plaintiff had failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact on any of her claims. On appeal, we affirm.