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!

May 29th & 30th, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Procedure / Rules / Evidence / Instructions
- Criminal Rule 11 / Sentencing / Constitutional Law / ORC 2941.25
- Weapons
- Civil Service
- Writ of habeas corpus
- Warrantless search
- Marriage / Sufficiency of evidence / Jury Instructions
- Bankruptcy / Chapter 13 plan / Expenses
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

Columbus Bar Assn. v. Hayes (Slip Opinion)(May 29, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2466)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-2466.pdf
-  Attorneys at law * Misconduct * Multiple violations of the Disciplinary Rules * Suspension, partially stayed, imposed, followed by probation.
 
Disciplinary Counsel v. LoDico (Slip Opinion)(May 29, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2465)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-2465.pdf
-  Attorneys at law*Misconduct*Criminal convictions and prior disciplinary record*Indefinite suspension.
 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Goldblatt (Slip Opinion)(May 29, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2458)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-2458.pdf
-  Attorney misconduct * Engaging in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude * Engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law * Indefinite suspension.
 
Polaris Amphitheater Concerts, Inc. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)(May 29, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2454)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-2454.pdf
-  Taxation * Valuation of real property as distinct from improvements * Scope of appellate review is determined by the notice of appeal * Record does not support findings of the Board of Tax Appeals regarding land value * Decision reversed, and cause remanded.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State of Ohio vs. Price Moorer (May 30, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2560)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2560.pdf
-  There was insufficient evidence to convict the defendant of discharging a firearm “at or into” a habitation under R.C. 2923.161(A)(1), where the state’s evidence proved only that defendant had fired a weapon “in” an apartment; to obtain a conviction under R.C. 2923.161(A)(1), the firing must come from outside the habitation.
 
State of Ohio vs. Christopher Smith (May 30, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2561)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2561.pdf
-  The trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) where the court informed the defendant that he faced mandatory prison time and that he was ineligible for community-control sanctions, and where the defendant clearly understood the implications of his no-contest pleas and the rights he was waiving. The defendant’s sentences, which amounted to an aggregate term of 85 years’ incarceration, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 9, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, where the sentences fell within the terms of valid statutes, and where they were not so greatly disproportionate to the offenses as to shock the community’s sense of justice. Felonious assault under R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and felonious assault under R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) are allied offenses of similar import that must be merged for purposes of sentencing, where the offenses involve the same conduct perpetrated against the same victim. Where the defendant’s conduct against the same victim constituted aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) and robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2), the crimes were allied offenses of similar import that should have been merged for sentencing purposes. A written, filed, and recorded plea form signed by the defendant and acknowledged in open court fulfills the jurisdictional requirements of a valid jury waiver, where it sets forth in writing the rights that the defendant is waiving by pleading no contest, including the right to a jury trial.
 
State of Ohio vs. Delrico Robertson (May 30, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2562)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2562.pdf
-  The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled the defendant’s motion for relief from joinder: The evidence for each of the three charged offenses was discrete; and because the counts were joined, there was no improper other-acts evidence introduced at trial. Testimony of a victim’s sister in which she stated that the victim, who did not testify at trial, had identified the defendant violated Crawford v. Washington, but there was no plain error; similar testimony from a police officer was harmless. A police officer’s opinion testimony about the truthfulness of two witnesses was not improper: it was probative of the conduct of the investigation and came in response to questioning by defense counsel. The trial court did not err when it gave an instruction on flight as consciousness of guilt, where the record supported the instruction. The trial court erred in sentencing the defendant for two counts of felonious assault for each of two victims he had assaulted. Because the counts involving each particular victim were allied offenses of similar import, the court should have merged them and sentenced the defendant for one count of felonious assault against each victim.
 
Diane Gaither Thompson vs. Ohio Civil Rights Commission (May 30, 2008)(2008-Ohio-2559)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2008/2008-ohio-2559.pdf
-  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in affirming a state employee’s discharge for cause, when the decision of the State Personnel Board of Review was supported by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence that the employee had been insubordinate, had failed to follow agency rules, had refused to carry out her assignments, had made abusive statements, had engaged in menacing or threatening behavior toward fellow employees, and had treated the public discourteously. R.C. 124.34 does not require a state agency to follow the rules of progressive discipline unless the agency agrees otherwise in a collective-bargaining agreement.
 

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

 

Scuba v. Brigano (May 29, 2008)(Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0204p-06.pdf
-  Robert S. Scuba was convicted in Geauga County, Ohio, on one count of aggravated robbery and one count of felonious assault. After a lengthy appeals process, Scuba filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court dismissed Scuba’s petition, finding that he had procedurally defaulted his state court claims. Because we agree, the dismissal of Scuba’s habeas petition is affirmed.
 

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

 

USA v. Purcell (May 29, 2008)(Appeal from E.D. KY)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0202p-06.pdf
-  In this case we are asked whether the discovery of men’s clothing in a bag that a female claimed to own erases for future bags the apparent authority that justified the officers’ warrantless search of the first bag, thereby making a subsequent search illegal. We hold that the discovery of men’s clothing eviscerated any apparent authority, but that the officers could have reestablished apparent authority by asking the supposed bag owner to verify her control over the other bags to be searched. Furthermore, we hold that exigent circumstances did not justify the illegal search. Because the officers in the instant case did not reestablish apparent authority and could not justify proceeding with a warrantless search by claiming an exigency, we hold that district court did not err when it suppressed the firearm that officers discovered after any apparent authority dissipated, and we AFFIRM the district court’s partial grant of the defendant’s motion to suppress.
 
USA v. Dedman (May 29, 2008)(Appeal from E.D. KY)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0203p-06.pdf
-  This unusual case arises from the marriage between defendant Darlene Dedman’s (“Dedman”) adopted daughter (who was actually Dedman’s cousin) and Dedman’s adoptive father. Dedman appeals her conviction on the counts of conspiracy to defraud the United States Department of Defense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286, and making material false statements to a federal agent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. For these offenses she was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment and ordered to pay over $200,000 in restitution. The government alleged that Dedman orchestrated the marriage as part of a plan to collect her adoptive father’s, John Watson’s (“Watson”), military pension. Dedman argues that she could not be guilty of conspiracy because the marriage between her adopted daughter and her adoptive father was valid and, therefore, there was no false claim. Furthermore, Dedman asserts that if the marriage was statutorily invalid, then the marriage law is unconstitutional. Dedman also contends that the government failed to produce evidence sufficient to support her convictions. In addition, she maintains that the jury instructions regarding the marriage amounted to a directed verdict against her. Lastly, Dedman avers that the district court miscalculated the government’s loss during her sentencing. Although both the government and the district court made some mistakes in their handling of this case, we conclude that none of the mistakes amount to reversible error. We therefore AFFIRM Dedman’s convictions and sentence.
 
Ford Motor Credit Co v. Bankruptcy Estate (May 30, 2008)(Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0205p-06.pdf
-  In this bankruptcy case, Ford Motor Credit Company challenges the denial of its motion for administrative expenses arising from Clayton and Lydia Parmenter’s default on a lease that they assumed direct responsibility for paying as part of their Chapter 13 plan. Because the terms of this confirmed Chapter 13 plan bind Ford, we affirm.