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!

May 12, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Insurance - endorsement
- Drugs
- Counsel
- Procedure/Rules - Counsel - Sex Offenses
- Sentencing
- Insurance - False Claims Act
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

Long v. Long (May 12, 2006) (2006-Ohio-2341)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-2341.pdf
-  Endorsements to an insurance policy will only be enforced if they are clear and exact:  The trial court properly refused to give effect to two endorsements purporting to limit coverage for permissive users of the insured automobile, when both endorsements were inconspicuously printed and placed within the policy, and when one of the endorsements was titled so ambiguously that a policy holder would not be alerted to the effect of the endorsement.  Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Mitchell (May 12, 2006) (2006-Ohio-2340)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-2340.pdf
-  Convictions for possessing cocaine and trafficking in cocaine were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, when two police officers saw the defendant take something from a garage can, exchange it with another person, and then put something in his jacket, and when, following his arrest, the defendant had money in his jacket pocket, and the garbage can contained a baggie of crack cocaine. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Jones (May 12, 2006) (2006-Ohio-2339)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-2339.pdf
-  Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a competency hearing for the defendant before he pleaded no contest to several community-control violations:  Although the defendant stated that he was unsure about why his actions constituted a violation of community control, the record did not contain sufficient indicia that the defendant was incompetent, or that the defendant was entering an unknowing plea. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State v. Allen (May 12, 2006) (2006-Ohio-2338)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-2338.pdf
-  The trial court did not error in allowing the joinder of separate offenses for trial:  The evidence of each offense was direct and uncomplicated, and the jurors were capable of segregating the proof and not cumulating the evidence for the offenses.  Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to a hearsay statement:  While the statement was technically hearsay, it was later admitted in the declarant's own testimony and thus did not prejudice the defendant. The trial court's classification of the defendant as a sexual predator was against the manifest weight of the evidence, when the offense in question was the defendant's first sexually-oriented offense, there was no court clinic evaluation, and the trial court did not articulate sufficient findings on the record to demonstrate the defendant's likelihood of recidivism. Judgment AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and Cause REMANDED.
 
State v. Miller (May 12, 2006) (2006-Ohio-2337)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-2337.pdf
-  The trial court erroneously imposed a maximum sentence for a misdemeanor based on statutory findings that were held unconstitutional in Blakely v. Washington. In light of the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Foster, the trial court's finding that the defendant committed the "worst form of the offense" under O.R.C. 2929.22(C) for a misdemeanor assault was analogous to a finding of "worst form of the offense" under O.R.C. 2929.14(C) for imposition of the maximum sentence for felonies*both are unconstitutional statutory findings. The improper sentence must be vacated and the case must be remanded for resentencing, but trial courts now have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or to give their reasons for imposing maximum sentences. Sentence VACATED and Cause REMANDED.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

USA v. Ward (May 12, 2006) Appeal from W.D. Tennessee
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0160p-06.pdf
-  A federal grand jury returned a two count indictment against Raymond Harry Ward ("defendant"). Joint Appendix ("J.A.") at 6-7. He was charged in count one of the indictment with armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a), and in committing, or in attempting to commit, the offense by the use of a dangerous weapon or device, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(d). Id. at 6. In the second count of the indictment, defendant was charged with brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Id. at 7. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to the first count of the indictment. Id. at 91. On appeal, defendant does not argue that the district court incorrectly calculated the UNITED STATES SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL ("Guidelines") range. Defendant, instead, argues that the district court treated the Guidelines as presumptively mandatory and that it did not properly consult the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Defendant also argues that his sentence is unreasonable. Defendant requests that this court vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Sanderson v. HCA (May 12, 2006) Appeal from M.D. Tennessee
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0161p-06.pdf
-  In this False Claims Act suit, Philip Sanderson charged that the defendants, HCA * The Healthcare Company (now HCA, Inc.) and its corporate predecessors, Columbia Health Care Corporation, Hospital Corporation of America, and HealthTrust, Inc. (collectively "HCA"), had violated the Act by filing "hospital cost reports" based on the allocation of corporate debt expense to its individual facilities rather than to the "home office," a practice that Sanderson contends was in violation of Medicare and similar federal programs from which HCA was claiming reimbursement. The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that, as amended, it failed to meet the pleading standards for allegations of fraud under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), that it failed to state a cause of action under Rule 12(b)(6), and that it was filed outside the applicable six-year statute of limitations. Because we conclude that the complaint was subject to dismissal for failure to conform to the requirements of Rule 9(b), we affirm the judgment of the district court. Having made that determination, we decline to address the remaining questions raised on appeal.

Daily Case Updates