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 , 2006 , 2007 , 2008 , 2009 , 2010.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Subscribers-Only discussion list.  Not a subscriber?  Join today!

May 20th - 22nd, 2009

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

TOPICS:
- New trial / Continuance / Evidence / Weight and sufficiency
- Malicious prosecution and defamation claims
- Frivolous Appeal / Anders v. California
- Sentencing / Community Control / Criminal Rule 11
- Post conviction petition / Right to Counsel
- Post conviction petition / Time expired to file
- Divorce / Retirement Benefits / Magistrate / Plain error
- Plea / Knowingly, Voluntarily, and Intelligently
- Motion to Suppress / Field sobriety tests / Probable Cause
- Sentencing / Allied offenses of similar import
- Drug conspiracy / Evidence / Insufficient / Sentencing Guidelines
- Sexual Harassment / Hostile work environment
- Evidence Sufficiency / Jury Instructions / Motion to Suppress / Sentencing
- Employment Race Discrimination / Testimony / Hearsay / Collateral estoppel
- Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act
- Unconstitutional racial segregation / Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 
*** Judgment Entries ***

State of Ohio vs. Lester Kok aka Ming W. Kok (May 20, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-081142_05202009.pdf
-  Defendant-appellant, Lester Kok, a.k.a. Ming Kok, appeals his conviction for criminal trespass in violation of R.C. 2911.21. Kok argues that (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion for a continuance, (2) the court erred by denying his motion for a new trial, and (3) his conviction was against the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State of Ohio vs. Vincent Jones (May 20, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-081030_05202009.pdf
-  Petitioner-appellant Vincent Jones presents on appeal three assignments of error, challenging the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgments overruling his “Motion to Modify Sentence,” his “Motion to Vacate Conviction,” and his “Motion to Vacate Ordered Court Costs.” Jones filed his petitions well after the time prescribed by R.C. 2953.21(A)(2). Judgment AFFIRMED.

Michael G. Brautigam vs. Andre Ivy (May 20, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080895_05202009.pdf
-  Michael Brautigam sued Andre Ivy for malicious prosecution, frivolous conduct, and defamation. Each of these claims was based on Ivy’s unsuccessful attempt to secure a civil protection order (“CPO”) against Brautigam. The trial court dismissed Brautigam’s complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Brautigam now appeals, contending that the trial court erred by dismissing his malicious-prosecution and defamation claims. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State of Ohio vs. Sheldon Fain (May 20, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080832_05202009.pdf
-  Fain was convicted of having a weapon while under a disability and trafficking in cocaine. Counsel has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the proceedings below were free from prejudicial error. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State of Ohio vs. Ricky Baskin (May 20, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080760_05202009.pdf
-  Baskin was charged with one count of domestic violence, one count of trafficking in cocaine, and one count of possession of cocaine. Baskin was sentenced to five years’ incarceration. On appeal, counsel for Baskin has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, stating that counsel has conscientiously reviewed the record and has found no meritorious grounds on which to appeal. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State of Ohio vs. Gregory Chambers (May 20, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080751_05202009.pdf
-  Chambers was indicted for one count of possession of cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11, a second-degree felony, an violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), a first-degree felony. Chambers’s appointed counsel, pursuant to Anders v. California, states in her brief that she has found no errors in the proceedings below, and she has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State of Ohio vs. Willie Robinson (May 20, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080650_05202009.pdf
-  Willie Robinson pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in marijuana, a fourth degree felony. The trial court sentenced him to nine months in prison. Robinson claims that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made because the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R.11(C)(2)(a) and the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to nine months in prison instead of placing him on community control. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State of Ohio vs. Larry J. Edwards (May 20, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080637_05202009.pdf
-  Edwards was charged with one count of aggravated robbery, two counts of robbery, felonious assault, two counts of kidnapping, and having a gun while under disability. A jury found Edwards guilty and he was sentenced to 22 years’ incarceration. Edwards appealed the sentence, asserting that he had not been properly notified of post release control. Edwards was later resentenced to the same 22 years and notified of post release control. He now appeals from the resentencing. Counsel for Edwards has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State of Ohio vs. Joshua Caldwell (May 20, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080599_05202009.pdf
-  Caldwell was convicted in March 2008 upon guilty pleas to drug trafficking, robbery, and having a weapon under a disability. Caldwell appeals from the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgment denying his post conviction petition. He challenges (1) the common pleas court’s failure to afford him counsel to assist him in preparing his post conviction petition, and (2) the court’s judgment denying his petition. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State of Ohio vs. Tony Ringer (May 20, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080590_05202009.pdf
-  Ringer challenges the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgment denying his “Motion to Vacate Conviction and Re-sentence." Ringer’s “Motion” was essentially a post conviction petition, reviewable under the standards provided by R.C. 2953.21 et seq.2 But he filed his petition well after the time prescribed by R.C. 2953.21(A)(2). Judgment AFFIRMED.

State of Ohio vs. Ali Aladimi (May 20, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080542_05202009.pdf
-  Aladini entered a guilty plea to charges of possession of cigarettes without stamps and trafficking in cigarettes to avoid tax. Aladini was sentenced to two years of community control. 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.

Rushawn W. Tolliver, Sr. vs. Anissa W. Tolliver (May 20, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080489_05202009.pdf
-  Defendant-appellant Anissa W. Tolliver appeals the judgment of the trial court granting the petition of divorce filed by plaintiff-appellee Rushawn W. Tolliver. She argues that the trial court improperly handled Rushawn’s retirement benefits. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State of Ohio vs. Lee A. Skierkiewicz (May 20, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080422_05202009.pdf
-  Skierkiewicz was indicted on 12 counts of theft and aggravated theft. In this appeal, he contests the denial of his presentence motion to withdraw his plea of no contest to six counts of theft. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State of Ohio vs. Lashkela Steele (May 20, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080302_05202009.pdf
-  Steele plead guilty to ofive years’ community control. After she violated terms of her community control several times and absconded twice, the trial court sentenced her to serve nine months’ imprisonment. Steele’s counsel now asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the proceedings below were free from prejudicial error. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State of Ohio vs. Calvin Clark (May 20, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080223_05202009.pdf
-  Clark was convicted of escape and placed on community control. The trial court later determined that Clark had violated the terms of his community control and imposed a five-year prison sentence. Counsel has advised Clark of this determination and has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the proceedings below were free from prejudicial error. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State of Ohio vs. Roger Abrams (May 20, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-080219_05202009.pdf
-  Abrams was convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). The trial court imposed a jail term of 180 days. Abrams argues (1) that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress the results of his field sobriety tests, (2) that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest, and (3) the trial court erred in sentencing him to the maximum prison term. Judgment AFFIRMED.

State of Ohio vs. Lonnie Webster (May 20, 2009)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-070027_05202009.pdf
-  Webster was indicted, convicted, and separately sentenced for multiple counts of felonious assault on Allen Gee. In this case, the two felonious assaults for which Webster was convicted were not committed separately or with a separate animus. The charges arose from the same conduct towards the same victim (Gee). Consequently, Webster could have only been sentenced once for felonious assault under either R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) or R.C. 2903.11 (A)(2). The judgment of the trial court is reversed on this ground alone and in all other respects our earlier decision in State v. Webster5 is affirmed, and this cause is remanded for the trial court to enter a single sentence for felonious assault under either R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) or R.C. 2903.11 (A)(2).
 

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

 

USA v. Cox (May 21, 2009)(Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0182p-06.pdf
-  Donyell Cox appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. We affirm his conviction, but vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing.

Julie Gallagher v. C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (May 22, 2009)(Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0184p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiff Julie Gallagher was employed by defendant C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., in Cleveland as a transportation specialist for four months. Throughout this period, she complained to her immediate supervisor about the crude and offensive language and conduct of her co-workers, but her complaints fell on deaf ears. Disgusted, she resigned. Nearly four years later, she commenced this action in the Northern District of Ohio, suing C.H. Robinson Worldwide for sexual harassment (hostile work environment) under federal and state law. The district court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case. On appeal, Gallagher argues that the record evidence is sufficient to create genuine issues of material fact. Reviewing the record in the light most favorable to Gallagher, we find the district court’s assessment of the prima facie case elements to be flawed in several respects. We find the record facts are sufficient to create genuine fact issues which preclude summary judgment. We therefore reverse the district court’s ruling and remand the case for further  proceedings on all three hostile work environment claims.
       

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

 

USA v. Roberge (May 20, 2009)(Appeal from E.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0179p-06.pdf
-  A grand jury indicted Gary Roberge for possessing firearms and ammunition as an unlawful user of controlled substances (Count 1) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), attempting to manufacture methamphetamine (Count 2) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846, possessing equipment and materials that could be used to manufacture methamphetamine with the intent to so use the items (Count 3) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6), and possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking crimes (Count 4) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Roberge appeals his conviction and sentence, and we affirm.

Gregory Cobbins v. Tennessee Department of Transp (May 20, 2009)(Appeal from M.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0180p-06.pdf
-  This is an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of defendant, Tennessee Department of Transportation, in an action for race discrimination by plaintiff, Gregory Cobbins, pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. On appeal, Cobbins claims error in two evidentiary rulings by the district court: (1) the exclusion of an exhibit offered by plaintiff as hearsay due to the lack of an appropriate witness to lay the proper foundation for the document, and (2) the granting of a motion in limine in which the district court prohibited the admission of certain evidence from a prior action between the same parties. Because both rulings were in error, we reverse the judgment of the district court.

Alfreda Keck v. Graham Hotel Systems Incorporation (May 21, 2009)(Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0181p-06.pdf
-  Plaintiffs, Alfreda and Devon Keck, sued the defendant, Graham Hotel Systems, Inc., alleging race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2302. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant refused to host their wedding reception at its hotel because they are African American. The plaintiffs appeal the District Court’s June 30, 2008, opinion and order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Keck v. Graham Hotel Sys., Inc., 563 F. Supp. 2d 733 (E.D. Mich. 2008). There is no issue in this case regarding the standard of review of a summary judgment. We review the summary judgment de novo but the court’s findings of specific facts for clear error. The District Court is required to interpret facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). We conclude that the District Court did not so interpret the facts and that a material dispute of fact exists requiring the reversal of summary judgment.

Claude Robinson v. Shelby County Board of Education (May 21, 2009)(Appeal from W.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0183p-06.pdf
-  This appeal presents the final chapter in the court ordered desegregation of the Shelby County, Tennessee, public school system, a process which began forty-five years ago. In 1963, plaintiff public school students1 filed this class action against defendant Shelby County Board of Education (“Board”) alleging unconstitutional racial segregation in the Shelby County schools. Defendant Shelby County Schools now appeals the portion of the district court order denying the joint motion for unitary status. The intervenor United States appeals the remedy ordered by the district court for faculty integration. For the reasons stated below, we hold that the district court abused its discretion by denying the parties’ joint motion for unitary status regarding student assignment, faculty integration, and extracurricular activities. Accordingly, we reverse, in part, the order of the district court and remand with instructions to grant in full the parties’ joint motion for declaration of unitary status, dissolve and injunctions as to the Board and its members, and dismiss this action as to all parties and claims.
 

Daily Case Updates