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!

February 25, 26 & 27, 2008

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

TOPICS:
- Community-control violation
- Miranda warnings
- Evidence / Manifest weight / Insufficient
- Sexual-predator-classification
- Arbitration Award
- Motion to withdraw as counsel
- Family Law / Permanent custody
- Right to privacy
- Hobbs Act / de minimis standard
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act /Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
- Writ of habeas corpus
- Search and Seizure
- Contract / commission agreement
- Sentencing Guidelines
- Immigration / Petition for adjustment of status
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

***See Supreme court of Ohio website ***
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/NEWPDF/default.asp
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

*** Judgment Entries ***
 
State of Ohio vs. Cameron Knight (February 27, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2006/C-060705_02272008.pdf
-  Knight entered a plea of guilty to three counts of theft and one count of attempted theft. The trial court placed Knight on three years of community control. A community-control violation was filed against Knight. Following a hearing, the trial court revoked Knight’s community control and imposed an aggregate sentence of four years’ imprisonment. Knight argues that the trial court erred in revoking his community control and the trial court erred in imposing more than the minimum sentence without make the requisite findings of fact. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Jerome Shade (February 27, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070067_02272008.pdf
-  Shade appeals the sentence that he received under a plea agreement. Shade pleaded guilty to one count of attempted felonious assault and was sentenced to three years’ community control. Shade violated his community control and received five years’ incarceration. Shade argues that (1) his plea was not voluntary, and (2) his sentence should be vacated because, at the original hearing, sentencing the trial court had failed to notify him of the specific prison term that would be imposed for a community-control violation. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Vincent Pannell (February 27, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070133_02272008.pdf
-  Plaintiff-appellant the city of Cincinnati appeals from the trial court’s entry granting defendant-appellee Vincent Pannell’s motion to suppress his confession. The city argues that the trial court improperly applied a subjective standard to determine whether Pannell had been in custody during his interrogation, and hence whether Miranda warnings had been required. The judgment of the trial court is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for a new hearing on Pannell’s motion to suppress so that the court can properly apply an objective, “reasonable person” standard to determine whether Pannell had been subject to a custodial interrogation.
 
State of Ohio vs. Mark Doyle (February 27, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070267_02272008.pdf
-  Doyle was found guilty of two counts of felonious assault. Doyle received an aggregate sentence of three years’ imprisonment. Doyle argues that the guilty verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence were not supported by sufficient evidence.  He also argues that the trial court erred by allowing Sackleh and Specialist Phillips to testify regarding the certainty of Sackleh’s identification of Doyle. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Lones Mills (February 27, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070309_02272008.pdf
-  Mills appeals the trial court’s decision adjudicating him a sexual predator. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
FIA Card Services, Inc. vs. Adriene L. Zuberi (February 27, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070391_02272008.pdf
-  Plaintiff-appellant, FIA Card Services, Inc., filed an application under R.C. 2711.09 to confirm an arbitration award of $10,875.92, plus interest. The award was for credit-card debt owed to it by defendant-appellee, Adriene L. Zuberi. FIA attached a copy of the arbitration award and a generic credit-card agreement that contained an arbitration provision. The agreement was not signed. The magistrate denied FIA’s application to confirm the arbitration award and dismissed the case without prejudice. The trial court overruled FIA’s objections to the magistrate’s report and adopted the magistrate’s decision. FIA contends that the trial court erred by dismissing its application to confirm the arbitration award. We REVERSE the trial court’s judgment and remand the case to the trial court to grant FIA’s application for confirmation of the arbitrator’s award and for further proceedings consistent with this judgment entry.
 
In Re: William D. Jackson ( a minor child ) (February 27, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070396_02272008.pdf
-  Jackson was charged with delinquency on the basis of conduct that, if committed by an adult, would have constituted one count of aggravated robbery and an accompanying firearm specification. Appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel pursuant to Anders, and he now asks us to review the record independently. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
In Re: Mariah Powers Robey and Devyn Robey (only) (February 27, 2008)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/cinlawlib/resources/cases/firstdistrict/2007/C-070808_02272008.pdf
-  Powers challenges the trial court’s judgment adopting a magistrate’s decision, over her objection, to terminate Powers’ parental rights and to award permanent custody of Mariah and Devyn Robey to the Hamilton County Department of Jobs and Family Services. Powers claims that the trial court should not have adopted the magistrate’s finding under R.C. 2151.414(E). Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

Lambert v. Hartman (February 25, 2008) (Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0089p-06.pdf
-  Cynthia Lambert appeals the district court’s dismissal of her complaint against Greg Hartmann in his official capacity as the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts (the “Clerk”) and against the Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners (the “County”) (collectively the “Defendants”). In September of 2003, Lambert received a traffic citation for speeding. She later discovered that this citation, which contained personal identifying information (including her Social Security number), had been published on the Clerk’s public website. Lambert sued the Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the publication of the citation violated her constitutional right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. She further asserted that her identity had been stolen by a third party as a direct result of the Clerk’s publication of the citation, and that she had consequently suffered economic damages, damage to her personal credit rating, and damage to her reputation. Lambert also raised state-law claims and sought to certify her complaint as a class action. The Defendants moved to dismiss Lambert’s complaint on the basis that she had failed to state a claim under § 1983. Concluding that Lambert’s § 1983 claim must fail because her alleged privacy interest was not of a constitutional dimension, the district court granted the Defendants’ motion. The court then dismissed her pendent state-law claims without prejudice. Lambert argues that the court erred in dismissing her complaint and renews her claim that the Defendants violated her constitutional right to privacy. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
 
USA v. Baylor (February 26, 2008) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0090p-06.pdf
-  Following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Rajah Baylor was convicted on one count of interfering with commerce by robbery, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and one count of using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Baylor was subsequently sentenced to a term of 140 months of imprisonment. He now appeals his convictions, arguing that the requirement of a de minimis effect on interstate commerce under the Hobbs Act is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). Baylor argues further that, even assuming that the de minimis standard is appropriate, the government failed to show that his activity had such an effect on interstate commerce. Finding each of Baylor’s arguments to be devoid of merit, we affirm his convictions.
 
Kistner v. Law Offices (February 26, 2008) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0091p-06.pdf
-  In January of 2005, Amanda Kistner received a collection letter from The Law Offices of Michael P. Margelefsky, LLC related to her Cincinnati Bell account. The letter, printed on The Law Offices of Michael P. Margelefsky letterhead, contains a block signature declaring that the letter was sent by an “Account Representative.” Kistner subsequently filed the present lawsuit as a putative class action against The Law Offices of Michael P. Margelefsky (the Law Offices) and Michael Margelefsky individually, alleging numerous violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA), Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.01. The district court granted summary judgment both to the Law Offices and to Margelefsky after concluding that the collection letter did not make any misrepresentations and was not deceptive. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Specifically, we conclude that Margelefsky can be held individually liable as a “debt collector” under the FDCPA and that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the collection letter was deceptive.
 
Bies v. Bagley (February 27, 2008) (Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0095p-06.pdf
-  Respondent Margaret Bagley, warden of the prison where Petitioner Michael Bies is incarcerated, appeals the order of the district court granting Petitioner a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, vacating his sentence of death, and ordering that he be resentenced to receive a sentence other than death. Respondent claims that, even though Petitioner was found to be mentally retarded on direct appeal, Ohio should be permitted to relitigate this finding now that it has taken on new legal significance in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). For the reasons which follow, we hold that Respondent’s claim is precluded by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution, and AFFIRM the decision of the district court granting habeas relief to Petitioner.
 

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

 

USA v. Caldwell (February 26, 2008) (Appeal from E.D. KY)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0092p-06.pdf
-  Robert Caldwell challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence uncovered during a search of his hotel room (consented to by a co-occupant of the room) as well as its denial of his motions for a mistrial and acquittal. Because the district court did not err in denying any of these motions, we affirm.
 
Eungard v. Open Solutions Inc (February 26, 2008) (Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0093p-06.pdf
-  Scott Eungard, a salesman, seeks commissions on products and services ordered by a client on the same day he was fired. Because ambiguity in Eungard’s compensation agreement precludes summary judgment for Open Solutions, we reverse and remand.
 
USA v. Alexander (February 26, 2008) (Appeal from W.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0094p-06.pdf
-  Defendant-Appellant Donald Wayne Alexander pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with sexual abuse of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a). The district court departed upward and sentenced Alexander to forty-two months’ imprisonment. Because the district court failed to provide notice of the variance as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h) we VACATE Alexander’s sentence and REMAND to the district court for re-sentencing.
 
Ramirez-Canales v. Mukasey AND
Garcia Correa v. Mukasey (February 27, 2008) (Appeal from Immigration & Naturalization Service)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0096p-06.pdf
-  Francisco Ramirez-Canales and Jose Luis Garcia Correa both appeal the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals to reject their application for adjustment of status. Subsequent to oral argument before this panel, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a precedential interpretation of the statutes in question. We now defer to this interpretation and AFFIRM the Board’s decision denying the petitioners adjustment of status. However, we REMAND the case of Ramirez-Canales for consideration of equitable relief nunc pro tunc.
 

Daily Case Updates