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!

January 24th, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Public utilities - telephone
- Sentencing
- Speedy trial - double jeopardy - corrupt activity - similar import
- Sufficiency of the evidence
- Postconviction relief
- Civil protection order violation
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

Discount Cellular, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (Jan. 24, 2006) (2007-Ohio-53)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2007/2007-ohio-53.pdf
-  Public utilities - Deregulation of telephone services - Retroactivity of order of Public Utilities Commission granting exemption from regulations - R.C. 4927.03 - Procedural requirements for exemption order under former R.C. 4927.03(A)(1) - Motion for rehearing as prerequisite to appeal from decision of Public Utilities Commission.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

*** Judgment Entries ***

State v. Leach (Jan. 24, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050163.pdf
-  Following a bench trial, defendant-appellant Thomas P. Leach, Jr., was convicted of abduction, kidnapping, gross sexual imposition, and the accompanying firearm specifications. The trial court sentenced Leach to three years in prison for abduction, to three years in prison for the merged firearm specifications, to five years in prison for kidnapping, and to one year in prison for gross sexual imposition. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively, for a total of 12 years' incarceration. After review of the record and for the reasons set forth below, we affirm the findings of guilt, but vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

State v. North (Jan. 24, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050413.pdf
-  North was originally convicted of possession of cocaine under R.C. 2925.11(A) in case number B-0401663. The trial court sentenced him to four years' community control. Subsequently, in case number B-0408495B, he was convicted of theft under R.C. 2913.02(A). The trial court sentenced him to serve twelve months' imprisonment in that case. Because of the new conviction, the trial court revoked North's community control in case number B-0401663. It sentenced him to serve twelve months' imprisonment to be served consecutively to the sentence in case number B-0408495B. North contends that his sentences were unconstitutional under State v. Foster because he received the maximum prison term on each offense and consecutive sentences. Sentence VACATED and REMANDED.

State v. Thomas (Jan. 24, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050769.pdf
-  Thomas was convicted of ten counts of communication fraud, five counts of theft, and one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. Thomas argues that his right to a speedy trial was violated because he was not tried within the 270 days as required by statute, that he was not served with a complaint within time, and that Ohio did not have him extradited within the statutory time period. Thomas asserts that he was tried in Ohio for the same charges that had previously been dismissed by federal authorities, and that this constituted double jeopardy. Thomas challenges his conviction for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, arguing that a pattern was not proved at trial, and there was inadequate proof that he had engaged in an enterprise. Thomas contends that he should not have been convicted of theft, telecommunication fraud, and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, because they were allied offenses of similar import. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State v. Foster (Jan. 24, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-050998.pdf
-  Foster was convicted of criminal trespass, in violation of R.C. 2911.21(A)(1). She contends that her conviction was based on inadmissible hearsay. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State v. Robinson (Jan. 24, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-051000.pdf
-  Robinson appeals from the trial court's order sentencing her to seven years' incarceration for violating the terms of her community control. Robinson was sentenced under an unconstitutional statute, we sustain her assignment of error, vacate her sentence, and remand the case for resentencing consistent with this judgment entry.

State v. Weaver (Jan. 24, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-060162;%20C-060163;%20C-060164.pdf
-  Weaver appeals from three judgments of the trial court, the first denying his postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, in appeal number C-060162, the second denying a motion to correct the imposition of consecutive sentences of imprisonment following a community-control violation, in appeal number C-060163, and the third denying his petition for postconviction relief, in appeal number C-060164. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State v. Stefanopolus (Jan. 24, 2006)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/Decisions/C-060280.pdf
-  Stefanopoulos appeals from the trial court's order convicting him of attempting to violate a civil protection order. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

No Opinions.
 

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

 

USA v. Lang  (Jan. 24, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0035p-06.pdf
-  Petitioner Brett Lang appeals the district court's denial of his motion to vacate his resentencing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner contends that because he argued that the principle announced in Booker applied to his resentencing, he is entitled to have Booker apply retroactively despite the fact that Booker was decided after his resentencing became final. We disagree and AFFIRM the decision of the district court.

Hamilton v. Morgan (Jan. 24, 2007) (Appeal from M.D. Tenn.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0036p-06.pdf
-  Petitioner Quinn Hamilton appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondent Warden Jack Morgan (hereinafter "the State") on his habeas corpus petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking relief from a state court conviction for armed robbery and evading arrest. Because the decision of the Tennessee courts to allow prior testimony of a witness deemed unavailable for trial was neither "contrary to" nor "an unreasonable application of" federal law, we affirm the denial of Hamilton's writ.

Daily Case Updates