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!

Feb. 9th - 11th, 2009

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

TOPICS:
- Motion to dismiss
- Discretionary appeal
- Final appealable order
- Juvenile due process rights
- Miranda warning / Evidence / Guilty plea waives the right to appeal
- Jury / Due-process / Ineffective counsel / Evidence / Sentencing
- Failed to file a transcript
- motion to withdraw the guilty plea / Sentencing / Ieffective counsel
- Bankruptcy / Debt Discharge / Jurisdiction
- Sanctions / Jurisdiction / Damages Award
- Sentencing / Motion for new trial
- Attorney Fees
- Armed Career Criminal Act
- Attorney malpractice / Statute of limitations / Jurisdiction / Rooker-Feldman doctrine
- Lack of subject matter jurisdiction / Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

State v. Cargile (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 10, 2009)(2009-ohio-477)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-477.pdf
-  Motion to dismiss denied.
 
State v. Lester (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 10, 2009)(2009-ohio-478)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-478.pdf
-  Motion to dismiss denied.
 
State v. Rohrbaugh (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 10, 2009)(2009-ohio-479)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-479.pdf
-  Motion to dismiss denied.
 
State v. Bradley (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 11, 2009)(2009-ohio-504)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-504.pdf
-  Appeal dismissed as improvidently accepted.
 
State v. Owens (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 11, 2009)(2009-ohio-505)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-505.pdf
-  Discretionary appeal accepted, judgment of the court of appeals reversed, and cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with State v. Colon.
 
Dohme v. Eurand Am., Inc. (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 11, 2009)(2009-ohio-506)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-506.pdf
-  Judgment of the court of appeals vacated on the authority of Pattison v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., and cause remanded to the trial court.
 
In re Burt (Slip Opinion)(Feb. 11, 2009)(2009-ohio-507)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-507.pdf
-  R.C. 2152.02(F) * A juvenile’s due process rights are not violated when she is charged with delinquency under R.C. 2152.02(F)(2) for violating a prior court order.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 
*** Judgment Entries ***
 
State of Ohio vs. Guillermo Estanislao (Feb. 11, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080174_02112009.pdf
-  Estanislao, a Mexican citizen, was charged with various drug offenses including trafficking in marijuana and possession of marijuana, each punishable as a third-degree felony. In exchange for Estanislao’s guilty plea he recieved a four-year term of imprisonment. Estanislao asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress. A defendant who enters a plea of guilty waives the right to appeal all nonjurisdictional issues arising at prior stages of the proceedings. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Robert Rogers (Feb. 11, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080312_02112009.pdf
-  A jury found defendant-appellant Robert Rogers guilty of trafficking in heroin, for which he was sentenced to 18 months' incarceration. Rogers appeals his conviction, arguing that the trial court improperly communicated with the jury; that his due-process rights were violated; that his counsel at trial was ineffective; that the conviction was against the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence; that the trial court improperly overruled his acquittal motion; that his sentence was contrary to law; and that he was prejudiced when the state did not provide the name of a confidential informant. Judgment affirm.
 
State of Ohio vs. Michael L. Buchanan (Feb. 11, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080398_02112009.pdf
-  Buchanan was found guilty of speeding. The trial court imposed a fine and ordered Buchanan to complete 30 hours of community service. Buchanan has appealed from his speeding conviction. But he has failed to file a transcript of the proceedings that occurred before the trial court. Without a transcript, this court has nothing to review and must presume regularity in the proceedings below. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Terry Jones (Feb. 11, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080478_02112009.pdf
-  Jones appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of trafficking in cocaine. Jones now argues that (1) the trial court erred in overruling his motion to withdraw the guilty plea, (2) the trial court erred in sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment, and (3) he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

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

 

Ralph Swegan v. Buckeye Retirement Co. (Feb. 10, 2009) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0045p-06.pdf
-  In this case, the bankruptcy court granted debtor Ralph Swegan’s summary judgment motion to discharge his debt to appellee Buckeye Retirement Co. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for trial. Swegan seeks review of the BAP’s decision. Because this court lacks appellate jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed.
 
Michael Miller v. Toyota Motor Corporation (Feb. 10, 2009) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0046p-06.pdf
-  Thrifty Rent-A-Car Services, Inc. (Thrifty) earlier sought to appeal to this court an interlocutory order from a case pending in the Middle District of Florida. We dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff Michael Miller now moves for sanctions in the amount of his fees and costs relating to the dismissed appeal. We grant the motion.
 
USA v. Lawrence (Feb. 11, 2009) (Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0047p-06.pdf
-  Defendant Daryl Lawrence was convicted of armed bank robbery, attempted armed bank robbery, murder, and firearms charges. Two of the counts, Counts Seven and Eight, charged death-eligible offenses. The jury returned a verdict of life imprisonment on Count Seven and a verdict of death on Count Eight. Ruling on defendant’s motion for new trial, the district court held that the jury’s verdicts on Counts Seven and Eight were inconsistent. The court vacated the verdict of death on Count Eight and ordered a new sentencing hearing. The government appeals, contending the verdicts are not inconsistent. Lawrence has moved for dismissal of the government’s appeal as premature. For the reasons that follow, we deny Lawrence’s motion to dismiss the government’s appeal, vacate the district court’s order partially granting the motion for new trial, and thereby reinstate the sentence of death originally imposed by the district court on Count Eight.
 
Richard Rentz v. Dynasty Apparel Industries, Inc (Feb. 11, 2009) (Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0048p-06.pdf
-  Paul Warfield and his company, Jemesco, Inc., (collectively, “the Warfield Defendants”) appeal the district court’s decision awarding them monetary sanctions against Paul R. Leonard and B. Randall Roach, counsel for Richard J. Rentz, the plaintiff in the underlying litigation. In 1999, the district court determined that Leonard and Roach had violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 by litigating several of Rentz’s claims set forth in an amended complaint that lacked any basis in fact. In 2007, the district court reduced the amount of potential attorney fees from that which was originally requested by Warfield as sanctions, approximately $70,000, to a total of $29,294.87 from Leonard, and $3,747.37 from Roach, based on calculations of the amount of attorney fees actually caused by the sanctionable conduct. The district court then further reduced the amount of sanctions and ultimately awarded to the Warfield Defendants only $2,500 from Leonard and $250 from Roach. The district court did not sanction Rentz or the relevant law firms. On appeal, the Warfield Defendants argue that the district court abused its discretion by (1) failing to sanction one of the law firms, (2) failing to sanction Rentz, and (3) arbitrarily reducing the sanctions against Leonard and Roach to an amount far below the court’s own calculation of attorney fees reasonably incurred to litigate Rentz’s frivolous claims. For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision with respect to the first two issues. Because, however, the district court abused its discretion in further reducing the awards to de minimis amounts, we VACATE that portion of the district court’s order specifying the amount of sanctions and REMAND with instructions to the district court to issue an order forthwith imposing sanctions of $29,294.87 against Leonard and $3,747.37 against Roach, to be paid to the Warfield Defendants.
       

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

 

USA v. Oaks (Feb. 9, 2009) (Appeal from E.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0042p-06.pdf
-  Defendant Jerry Ray Oaks pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and the district court in the Eastern District of Tennessee sentenced him to 120 months of incarceration and five years of supervised release, entering the judgment on August 9, 2006. He appealed his sentence, in the first instance, challenging, in part, the district court’s use of his prior conviction for felony escape to support his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Oral argument before us was waived and we affirmed the sentencing court’s judgment on May 14, 2008. On January 21, 2009, the Supreme Court granted Defendant’s application for a writ of certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in light of its decision in Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. *, 129 S. Ct. 687 (2009). Oaks v. United States, * U.S. *, * S. Ct. *, 2009 WL 129082 (2009). Accordingly, we REMAND to the district court for a determination of the type of facility and level of security involved in the “custody of the Carter County Sheriff’s Department” at the time of Oaks’s escape. After the district court has made this determination, this Court will issue further instructions.
 
Robert Marks, Sr. v. State of Tennessee (Feb. 10, 2009) (Appeal from M.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0043p-06.pdf
-  Robert Marks appeals a district court order that dismissed his complaint for lack of jurisdiction on the basis of Rooker-Feldman. For the reasons that follow, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 
O'Bryan v. Holy See (Feb. 10, 2009) (Appeal from W.D. KY)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0044p-06.pdf
-  Defendant Holy See appeals the district court’s denial, in part, of its motion to dismiss all of plaintiffs’ claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Holy See contends that the district court has no subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims because the Holy See is immune from suit as a foreign state pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. Plaintiffs James H. O’Bryan, Donald E. Poppe, and Michael J. Turner (“plaintiffs”) crossappeal the district court’s partial grant of the Holy See’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs claim that the FSIA does not immunize the Holy See from suit on the grounds alleged in their complaint and thus the district court does in fact have subject matter jurisdiction in this case. The United States as intervenor and amicus supports the position of the Holy See with respect to the Holy See’s status as a foreign state and the constitutionality of the FSIA. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the district court.
 

Daily Case Updates