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!

June 16, 2006

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

TOPICS:
- Habeas petition
- Prison Litigation Reform Act
- Automobile insurance
- Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinion.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinion.
 

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

 

DiCenzi v. Rose (June 16, 2006) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0197a-06.pdf
-  Petitioner-Appellant Alfred DiCenzi appeals the district court's dismissal of his habeas petition on the ground that the petition was not timely filed. Following a guilty plea to vehicular homicide, DiCenzi was given the maximum sentence under Ohio law, but claims he was never informed by either the trial court or his attorney that Ohio affords those sentenced to a maximum sentence a non-waivable right to a direct appeal of their sentences. When DiCenzi finally became aware of this right, he filed a motion for delayed direct appeal, but this motion was denied by the Court of Appeals of Ohio and the Supreme Court of Ohio. He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in federal district court, alleging that his constitutional rights had been violated both by the trial court when it did not inform him of his right to appeal, and by the state appellate court when it refused to consider his delayed appeal. The district court determined that the petition was untimely, and dismissed it without reaching the merits. Because we find that the portion of DiCenzi's petition relating to the Ohio appellate courts' decisions was timely, and because we find that the district court failed to determine conclusively whether DiCenzi was diligent during the time when he claims to have been unaware of his appeal rights, we VACATE the district court's dismissal of the petition and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Bell v. Konteh (June 16, 2006) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0198p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff-Appellant Christopher Bell, an Ohio state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action against Defendants-Appellees Khelleh Konteh and Carl Shaffer, officials with the Trumbull Correctional Institution ("TCI"). Bell argues that the district court erroneously concluded that he failed to satisfy the Prison Litigation Reform Act's ("PLRA") administrative exhaustion requirement. Because the district court's exhaustion determination was correct as to Shaffer but not as to Konteh, we AFFIRM the dismissal without prejudice with respect to Shaffer and REVERSE the dismissal with respect to Konteh. We REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 

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

 

Shields v. Govt Employees (June 16, 2006) (Appeal from W.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0196p-06.pdf
-  Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), appeals a December 10, 2004 order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Stefanie Shields("Shields") and holding that Shields' no fault automobile insurance policy with State Farm obligates State Farm to cover the cost of Shields' medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in an automobile accident. For the reasons set forth below, this Court AFFIRMS the order of the district court.

USA v. Matheny (June 16, 2006) (Appeal from M.D. Tennessee)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0199p-06.pdf
-  This case concerns (1) whether defendant Jerry Matheny received adequate notice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h), of specific grounds for an upward departure from the advisory guidelines recommended range, (2) whether the sentence imposed was reasonable, and (3) whether the district court's consideration of Matheny's prior arrest requires reversal under plain error review. Matheny pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, distributing marijuana, and possessing dihydrocodeinone with the intent to distribute. The district court determined that, under the federal sentencing guidelines, the proper sentencing range was from 24 to 30 months' imprisonment. The district court, nevertheless, decided that the guidelines range failed to account for the seriousness of Matheny's criminal history. The district court thus imposed an upward departure and sentenced Matheny to thirty-six months' imprisonment. We affirm Matheny's sentence. First, Matheny received sufficient notice of specific grounds for an upward departure. Second, the district court's sentence was reasonable. Finally, although the district court may have committed error in considering one of Matheny's prior arrests when imposing sentence, this error does not require reversal because it was not plain and did not affect Matheny's substantial rights.
 

Daily Case Updates