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 or 2006.

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

Jan. 20, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Divorce - Jurisdiction
- Sentencing
- Criminal - DNA evidence
- Hyde Amendment
- Writ of habeas corpus
- Employment Retirement Income Security Act
- search warrant - probable cause
- Immigration - Constitution -due process of law

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.

 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

Collins v. Collins (January 20, 2006)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-181.pdf
-  Where the husband was domiciled in Ohio and the wife was domiciled in Germany, the domestic relations court had in rem  jurisdiction to terminate the parties' marriage. In order to determine financial issues such as spousal support and property  division, the domestic relations court must have personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a divorce proceeding:   Where the trial court had no personal jurisdiction over the wife due to a failure of international service under the Hague  Convention, the court had no authority to distribute property to which she arguably had a claim, to issue orders regarding  spousal support, or to issue orders regarding the parties' pensions. Judgment AFFIRMED in Part, REVERSED in Part, and CAUSE  REMANDED.

State v. Shelton (January 20, 2006)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-182.pdf
-  The trial court erred by ordering 500 hours of community service as part of the defendant's felony sentence, when, at the  time of the offense, the applicable statutory provisions for the permissible amount of community service were ambiguous and  could not be read in harmony; because the provisions were ambiguous, they had to be construed in the defendant's favor and  should have limited the court to imposing only 200 hours. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State v. Price (January 20, 2006)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-180.pdf
-  The trial court erred by failing to follow the statutory procedures set forth in O.R.C. 2953.74 through 2953.81 for  determining whether to grant an eligible inmate's application for postconviction DNA testing.  The trial court erred in  denying the defendant's application for DNA testing by failing to first require the state to file a report with the court  regarding whether any biological material had been collected from the crime scene or the victim and whether that biological  material still existed for testing, see O.R.C. 2953.75(A) and (B); the defendant's statement in his application that no DNA  evidence existed did not relieve the state of its obligation to undertake an independent investigation. The trial court erred  in failing to state its reasons in the judgment entry for denying the defendant's application for postconviction DNA testing.   See O.R.C. 2953.74(D). Judgment REVERSED and CAUSE REMANDED.

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

 

USA v. Isaiah (January 20, 2006) (Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0026p-06.pdf
-  Sharmila Isaiah, who was judicially acquitted of two criminal charges, appeals the district court's denial of her request  for expenses and attorneys' fees arising from her criminal defense. The United States charged Isaiah with participation in a  money laundering conspiracy and with bank fraud. After the government rested its case, the district court, pursuant to Fed. R.  Crim. P. 29, acquitted Isaiah because it determined that the government had failed to present sufficient evidence of Isaiah's  specific intent to enter into a conspiracy and to defraud a financial institution. Isaiah then moved to recover costs and  attorneys' fees under the Hyde Amendment, Pub. L. No. 105-119, § 617, 111 Stat. 2519 (1997) (reprinted in 18 U.S.C. § 3006a,  Statutory Notes). The district court, however, denied her request because, as "the question of Isaiah's intent was a close  one," the government had not engaged in a vexatious, frivolous, or bad faith prosecution. We affirm.

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

In re: Bowen, Edward v.(January 20, 2006) (Appeal from W.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0027p-06.pdf
-  Petitioner Edward O'Neal Bowen timely filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in 1999 after  exhausting his state remedies on the majority of his claims. Following consideration on the merits, his petition was denied  first by the district court, and then by this court. Bowen then returned to state court to pursue post-conviction relief  based on, inter alia, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, which were not exhausted at the time of his  original habeas petition. He subsequently filed another petition for habeas relief on those two issues in federal district  court in 2004, after our decision in Austin v. Mitchell, 200 F.3d 391 (6th Cir. 2000), but before our decision in Cowherd v.  Million, 380 F.3d 909 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc). Finding that Bowen's petition was either second or successive, the district  court transferred the petition to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. For the reasons that follow, we deny Bowen's  motion to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district court as unnecessary, because his petition is not "second  or successive," and transfer his petition to the district court.

USA v. Till (January 20, 2006) (Appeal from W.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0028p-06.pdf
-  We affirm the conviction and sentence of Jerome Dwight Till for being a felon in possession of a firearm. We hold further  that district judges who imposed sentences during the post-Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), pre-United States v.  Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), period need not have made explicit reference to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors in  order for their identical, alternative sentences to be free of error under Booker.

 Evans v. Unumprovident Corp (January 20, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Tennessee)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0029p-06.pdf
-  In this action under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461, plaintiff Mona Evans  claims that her long-term disability ("LTD") benefits were wrongfully terminated by defendant UnumProvident Corporation  ("UnumProvident"). The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record. Determining that defendant's  decision to terminate plaintiff's LTD benefits was arbitrary and capricious, the district court granted plaintiff's motion  for judgment on the administrative record and denied defendant's motion. The district court ordered defendant to reinstate  plaintiff as a participant and beneficiary under its LTD and life insurance policies and to pay to her past due benefits,  plus accrued interest. The district court also awarded plaintiff reasonable attorney fees. UnumProvident's timely appeal  followed. We affirm.

USA v. Coffee (January 20, 2006) (Appeal from E.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0030p-06.pdf
-  Defendant John Joseph Coffee, Jr., was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine  base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §  922(g)(1). The district court denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 29. Defendant  now appeals, alleging that (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because the search warrant  for the premises was issued without probable cause, (2) the evidence was insufficient for a rational trier of fact to find  defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) he is entitled to resentencing under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct.  738 (2005). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm defendant's convictions, but vacate defendant's sentences and remand  for resentencing in light of Booker.

 Sako v. Gonzales (January 20, 2006) (Appeal from Board of Immigration)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0031p-06.pdf
-  The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees due process of law to aliens in a removal proceeding. Reno v. Flores,  507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993). When an alien makes a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a removal proceeding he  "carries the burden of establishing that ineffective assistance of counsel prejudiced him or denied him fundamental fairness  in order to prove that he has suffered a denial of due process." Allabani v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 668, 676 (6th Cir. 2005). In  this case, petitioner Raid Sako does not assert prejudice because an appeal of his removal proceeding would have been  successful. Rather, the only claimed prejudice is denial of an opportunity to remain in this country while awaiting the  outcome of the appeal-the appeal that his attorneys failed to file. We hold that denial of this opportunity does not  constitute a denial of due process. Morever, we hold that the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") did not abuse its  discretion in denying Sako's motion to reopen based on its finding that Sako had not shown prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm.

Daily Case Updates