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!

March 2, 2007

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

TOPICS:
- Evidence
- Drugs - Search & Seizure
- Procedure / Rules - Sentencing
- Adoption
- Constitutionality of Ohio's lethal injection protocol
- Clean Air Act
- Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
- Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
- United States Sentencing Guidelines
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State v. Roberts (March 2, 2007)(2007-Ohio-856)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-856.pdf
-  When the identity of the defendant was at issue, and when a prior rape committed by the defendant and the charged murder offense shared common features and an identifiable pattern, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of the prior rape for the purpose of establishing the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of the murder. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State v. Cabrales (March 2, 2007)(2007-Ohio-857)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-857.pdf
-  Probable cause supported the issuance of a search warrant for the defendant's home, when individuals caught transporting marijuana to Ohio identified the defendant as the person who had arranged for the delivery of the drugs, monitored the transportation of the drugs from California to Ohio, and gave instructions concerning the details of where and to whom the drugs were to be delivered. Ohio had jurisdiction to prosecute a California resident on various drug-trafficking charges, when it was shown that the defendant had been actively involved in a conspiracy to transport over 300 pounds of marijuana to Ohio. The trial court erroneously imposed separate sentences for possessing marijuana, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), and trafficking in marijuana, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), when the crimes were allied offenses of similar import. The trial court did not err in refusing to give the defendant's requested jury instruction on what he viewed as the lesser-included offense of attempted trafficking in marijuana, when an attempt was effectively subsumed in the definition of the charged offense of trafficking under R.C. 2925.03(A)(1). Judgment AFFIRMED in Part, Sentence VACATED, and Cause REMANDED.

State v. Spurling (March 2, 2007) (2007-ohio-858)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-858.pdf
-  The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea, when, after a fair and impartial hearing, the court was satisfied that he had entered his plea voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. A defendant cannot challenge an agreed sentence unless it is not authorized by law:  when the defendant agreed to two year's incarceration for possession of crack cocaine, a third-degree felony, and that sentence was within the appropriate range of one to five years, the sentence was authorized by law and not subject to appellate review. The trial court did not err in amending the indictment, where the defendant had entered into an agreement under which he pleaded guilty to an amended drug charge in exchange for the dismissal of a second charge and a two-year agreed sentence. Judgment AFFIRMED.

In Re:  Crandall (March 2, 2007) (2007-Ohio-855)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2007/2007-ohio-855.pdf
-  The probate court did not err when it held that a mother's consent to adoption was not required: Under R.C. 3107.07(A), the petitioner proved that the parent either had not communicated with the children or had not provided for their maintenance and support for either the year preceding the petition to adopt or the year preceding the placement of the children in the petitioner's home.
 

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

 

Cooey v. Taft (March 2, 2007)(Appeal from S.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0085p-06.pdf
-  Richard Cooey, an Ohio inmate under sentence of death, filed this action against Ted Strickland, Governor, Terry J. Collins, Director, and E. C. Voorhies, Warden (collectively "Defendants" or "State") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the constitutionality of Ohio's lethal injection protocol. The issues before us in this interlocutory appeal are (1) whether a death row inmate's claim against lethal injection itself*as opposed to a precursor procedure*is properly considered to be a habeas action or one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (2) whether a death row inmate's § 1983 method-of-execution challenge accrues, for statute of limitations purposes, when execution is imminent or at some earlier stage in state and federal proceedings, and (3) whether res judicata is a bar to a death row inmate's claim concerning the means and methods of execution when similar issues were raised, or the specific claim could have been raised, in a previous habeas action.
 

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

 

Natl Parks v. TVA (March 2, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Tenn.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0086p-06.pdf
-  Three environmental organizations brought this suit under the Clean Air Act's citizen-suit provisions, alleging that the Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA") shirked its duty to obtain appropriate pollution limitations at a power plant it operates in Clinton, Tennessee. The district court granted summary judgment to TVA, concluding that the statute of limitations had run on the plaintiffs' claim for statutory penalties and that the concurrent remedy rule barred their claim for injunctive relief. We conclude that the district court's ruling on the statute of limitations was in error, REVERSE its grant of summary judgment, and REMAND this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Bd Ed Fayette v. L. M. (March 2, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Ky.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0087p-06.pdf
-  This appeal is brought by a child with a disability within the meaning of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court insofar as it upheld the hearing officer's determination regarding the extent of the School District's violation of the IDEA, but REVERSE the court's affirmation of the compensatory-education award and REMAND the case with instructions to have the appropriate administrative body craft a remedy that complies with the IDEA.

USA v. Rice (March 2, 2007) (Appeal from W.D. Ky.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0088p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff-Appellant United States of America ("the government") brings this interlocutory appeal challenging an order to suppress the fruits of a wiretap used in the government's case against the Defendants-Appellees,1 and an order denying the government's motion for reconsideration. Because the district court did not err in suppressing the fruits of the wiretap, and because there is no good-faith exception for warrants obtained pursuant to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, codified as 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq. ("Title III"), we AFFIRM the district court's orders.

USA v. Husein  (March 2, 2007) (Appeal from E.D. Mich.)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0089p-06.pdf
-  Fadya Husein pled guilty to federal charges relating to her role in the distribution of 763 pills of ecstasy, a controlled substance. A probation officer calculated her advisory Guidelines range to be between 37 and 46 months in prison. Prior to sentencing, Husein moved the district court to grant a downward departure based on extraordinary family circumstances. Husein alleged that her father was totally incapacitated due to the effects of several strokes that he had recently suffered, and that the round-the-clock care that she provided both to him and to her three younger minor siblings was "irreplaceable." A court-ordered home visit by Husein's probation officer subsequently confirmed these allegations. Acting pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) §§ 5H1.6 and 5K2.0, aswell as 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court concluded that Husein's family circumstances were in fact extraordinary, and therefore granted her motion for a downward departure. The result was a noncustodial sentence of 3 years' supervised release, which included an initial term of 270 days of home confinement. As a formality, the district court also imposed a one-day term of custodial imprisonment, but Husein was given credit for already having served that time. The government argues on appeal that certain post-sentencing discoveries and developments undermine the basis for Husein's sentence and, in the alternative, that even based on the facts in the record alone, the departure granted by the district court was an abuse of discretion and/or unreasonable in light of Booker. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
 

Daily Case Updates