Pending Cases

 

Cases Pending on the Merits in the Supreme Court OF OHIO

OF INTEREST TO CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS

Current through April 20, 2017
 

Below is a listing of cases currently pending on the merits in the Supreme Court of Ohio that are of interest to criminal defense lawyers. Cases are removed from this list as they are decided. Details for each case and a link to the case docket can be accessed by clicking on the case name. This list also indicates if the Office of the Ohio Public Defender is involved, either as counsel for a party or as amicus. If you have questions about a juvenile case, please contact Brooke Burns (614-728-9401). If you have questions about a death penalty case, please contact Richard Cline (614-644-1538). For all other cases, please contact Katherine Szudy (614-644-1614).

State v. Moore - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2014-0120

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2014-0120
 
Proposition of Law: The Eighth Amendment prohibits sentencing a juvenile to a term-of-years sentence that precludes any possibility of release during the juvenile's life expectancy.

State v. Noling - Appeal of Denial of DNA Testing in Capital Case Pursuant to 2953.73
     2014-1377 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2014-1377
 
Proposition of Law: Ohio Revised Code 2953.73(E)(1) violates both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as it: (1) discriminates between capital and non-capital criminal defendants, (2) fails to provide appellate review, and (3) results in the arbitrary and capricious application of the death penalty. Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.

State v. Hand - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2014-1814 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2014-1814
 
Proposition of Law: The use of a prior juvenile adjudication to enhance an adult sentence violates a defendant's right to due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution, and the right to trial by jury as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 5 of the Ohio Constitution.

State v. Creech - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2014-1844 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2014-1844
 
Proposition of Law: The State is not required to accept a stipulation to a defendant's weapons disabilities. Old Chief's holding is limited to federal courts.

State v. Martin - Certified Conflict
     2014-2028

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2014-2028
 
Certified Question: "With respect to R.C. 2907.323(A)(1), which proscribes the creation or production of nudity-oriented material involving a minor, which definition of nudity applies: the statutory definition (R.C. 2907.01(H)), or the narrower definition set forth in State v. Young, 37 Ohio St.3d 249, 525 N.E.2d 1363, which requires additional elements of "lewd depiction" and "graphic focus on the genitals?"

State v. Pittman - Certified Conflict
     2015-0077

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-0077
 
Certified Question: “Is a person subject to prosecution under R.C. 2929.21(B) for the nonpayment of an arrearage-only child support order when he or she has no current legal obligation to support the emancipated child?”
 
Note: The conflict case is State v. Dissinger, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 02CA-A-02-010, 2002-Ohio-5301.

State v. Brookshire - Certified Conflict
     2015-0192 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-0192
 
Certified Question: “Once an adult court determines under R.C. 2152.52(B)(4) that at least one charge for which the juvenile was convicted is subject to mandatory transfer, is that court permitted to sentence the juvenile under R.C. Chapter 2929 on all charges in the case, or must the adult court complete a separate analysis under R.C. 2152.121(B) for each charge individually?”
 
Note: The conflict case is State v. Mays, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100265, 2014-Ohio-3815.

Cleveland v. Jones - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2015-0381

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-0381
 
Proposition of Law: A trial court’s pronouncement of a verdict precludes any appeal by the State that could disturb that verdict.

State v. Gonzales - Certified Conflict / Jurisdictional Appeal
     2015-0384 & 2014-0385

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-0384 | 2015-0385
 
Certified Question: "Must the state, in prosecuting cocaine offenses involving mixed substances under R.C. 2925.11(C)(4)(a) through (f), prove that the weight of the cocaine meets the statutory threshold, excluding the weight of any filler materials used in the mixture?"
 
Note: The conflict case is State v. Smith, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2010-CA-36, 2011-Ohio-2568.
 
Proposition of Law: In a prosecution under R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(4), the prosecution does not need to prove that the drug involved was pure cocaine; instead, the prosecution need only prove that the drug involved was “cocaine or a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance containing cocaine.” The offense level, furthermore, is determined by the total weight of the drug involved (the compound, mixture, preparation, or substance containing cocaine), not just the weight of actual cocaine contained therein.

State v. Hand - Murnahan Appeal
     2015-0652 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-0652
 
Proposition of Law I: The use of a prior juvenile adjudication to enhance an adult sentence with a mandatory prison term violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 9, Ohio Constitution; R.C. 2929.13(F).
 
Proposition of Law II: Appellate counsel provides ineffective assistance by failing to properly raise constitutional error to the court of appeals. Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.
 
Sua sponte, cause held for decision in 2014-1814, State v. Hand, and briefing schedule stayed.

State v. Aalim - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2015-0677 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-0677
 
Proposition of Law I: The mandatory transfer of juvenile offenders to adult court pursuant to R.C. 2152.10(A)(2)(b) and 2152.12(A)(1)(b) violates their right to due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 16, Ohio Constitution.
 
Proposition of Law II: The mandatory transfer of juvenile offenders to adult court pursuant to R.C. 2152.10(A)(2)(b) and 2152.12(A)(1)(b) violates their right to equal protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 2, Ohio Constitution.

State v. Mohammad - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2015-0774

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-0774
 
Proposition of Law I: The concept of “strict construction,” also known as the rule of lenity, comes into operation at the end of the process of construing what the legislative body has expressed, not at the beginning as an overriding consideration of being lenient to wrongdoers. Courts must exhaust all available means of construction before arriving at the conclusion that the statutory text is so grievously ambiguous as to require strict construction.
 
Proposition of Law II: As effective October 17, 2011, R.C. 3719.013 mandated that “controlled substance analogs” shall be treated as Schedule I controlled substances for purposes of any provision in the Revised Code. The trafficking and possession statutes were part of the Revised Code and therefore were subject to this broad incorporation of analogs into the Revised Code.
 
Proposition of Law III: In applying a statute, the judicial branch has a duty under the doctrine of separation of powers to apply the clearly expressed legislative intent of the General Assembly regardless of the judicial branch’s own preferences regarding organization or manner of expression. It violates the separation of powers for the judicial branch to disregard the broad reach of R.C. 3719.013 making controlled substance analogs applicable to any provision in the Revised Code.
 
Note: Cause is held for decision in 2015-1782, State v. Shalash, and the briefing schedule is stayed.

State v. Morgan - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2015-0924 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-0924
 
Proposition of Law I: A child does not need to request a GAL in the absence of his parents, guardian, or legal custodian at a juvenile court hearing.
 
Proposition of Law II: A child does not need to show prejudice to support a reversal on appeal when the juvenile court fails to appoint a GAL when required by law.

State v. Richardson - Certified Conflict / Jurisdictional Appeal
     2015-1048 & 2015-0629

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-1048 | 2015-0629
 
Certified Question: “Once the State presents evidence that a person is impaired and has taken a specific prescription medication, is the trier of fact able to draw a reasonable inference that the driver has violated R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) or R.C. 4511.19(A)(2), without evidence (lay or expert) as to how the medication actually affects the driver and/or expert testimony about whether the particular medication has the potential to impair a person’s judgment or reflexes?”
 
Note: The conflict case is State v. Stephenson, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 05CA30, 2006-Ohio-2563.
 
Proposition of Law: When a drug of abuse is at issue in an OVI case, evidence that a defendant was driving impaired, combined with evidence that a defendant took a specific drug of abuse at the time of the offense, is enough to meet a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, pursuant to R.C. 4511.19(A)(1).

State v. Jackson - Certified Conflict
     2015-1137

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-1137
 
Proposition of Law: The right of allocution does not apply to community control violation hearings.

In re Grand Jury Proceedings of John Doe - Certified Conflict
     2015-1182

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-1182
 
Certified Question: “Whether an order denying a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena and ordering a party to testify and/or produce documents is an order granting or denying a provisional remedy within the meaning of R.C. 2505.02(A)(3)?”
 
Note 1: The conflict cases are In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 4th Dist. Athens App. No. 01CA55, 2002-Ohio-5600, and State v. Boschulte, 10th Dist. Franklin App. No. 02AP-1053, 2003-Ohio-1276.
 
Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2015-1181, In re Grand Jury Proceeding of John Doe, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102977.
 
Note II: The following cases have also been accepted, and briefing has been stayed, pending the decision in Case No. 2015-1181/1182:
 
    1. In re Grand Jury Proceedings of John Doe, 2015-1187.
    2. In re Grand Jury Proceedings of John Doe, 2015-1239.
    3. In re Grand Jury Proceedings of John Doe, 2015-1189.
    4. In re Grand Jury Proceedings of John Doe, 2015-1240.

James v. State - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2015-1230

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-1230
 
Proposition of Law: No “error in procedure” occurs for purposes of R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) when the State does not retry a defendant whose conviction has been vacated, because lack of retrial is not an error and because it does not cause release from confinement.

State v. Mobarak - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2015-1259

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-1259
 
Proposition of Law: As effective October 17, 2011, R.C. 3719.013 mandated that “controlled substance analogs” shall be treated as Schedule I controlled substances for purposes of any provision in the Revised Code. The trafficking and possession statutes were part of the Revised Code and therefore were subject to this broad incorporation of analogs into the Revised Code.
 
Note: Cause is held for decision in 2015-1782, State v. Shalash, and the briefing schedule is stayed.

Jacobson v. Kaforey - Certified Conflict
     2015-1340

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-1340
 
Certified Question: “Does the current version of R.C. 2307.60 independently authorize a civil action for damages cause by criminal acts, unless otherwise prohibited by law?”
 
Note: The conflict cases are Groves v. Groves, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 09AP-1107, 2010-Ohio-4515, Edwards v. Madison Twp., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 97APE06-819, 1997 WL 746415 (Nov. 25, 1997), McNichols v. Rennicker, 5th Dist. Tuscawaras No. 2002 AP 04 0026, 2002-Ohio-7215, and Applegate v. Weadcock, 3rd Dist. Auglaize No. 2-95-24, 1995 WL 705214 (Nov. 30, 1995).

City of Dayton v. State of Ohio - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2015-1549

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-1549
 
Proposition of Law I: Provisions in a state statute that are arbitrary and serve no purpose except to limit municipal police power are not general laws, and violate the Home Rule Amendment of the Ohio Constitution.
 
Proposition of Law II: Including provisions that violate the Home Rule Amendment into larger legislative enactments does not convert the offending provisions into general laws. While under home-rule analysis courts are required to analyze the legislation as a whole, they are also required to specifically analyze the challenged provisions to determine if they unconstitutionally limit cities’ home-rule authority.

State v. Raphael, et al. - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2015-1568

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-1568
 
Proposition of Law I: Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.
 
Proposition of Law II:The extended and continued detention of individuals is unconstitutional once a canine did not detect illegal drugs, and any actions taken by the investigating officers after the fact were beyond the scope of the detention. The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule based upon the search warrant ultimately signed by a judge is irrelevant to this case as the search warrant was not obtained until four hours elapsed after the stop.

State v. Shalash - Certified Conflict
     2015-1782 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-1782
 
Certified Question: "Were ‘controlled substance analogs’ criminalized as of October 17, 2011, the effective date of House Bill 64?"
 
Note: The conflict cases are State v. Smith, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 14AP-154 and 14AP-155, 2014-Ohio-5303, State v. Mohammad, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-662, 2015-Ohio-1234, and State v. Mobarek, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-517, 2015-Ohio-3007.

In re D.D. - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2015-1816 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-1816
 
Proposition of Law I: The imposition of a punitive sanction that extends beyond the age jurisdiction of the juvenile court violates the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
 
Proposition of Law II: R.C. 2152.83(A) violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions because it requires mandatory registration for 16- and 17-year old first-time offenders.
 
Note: Cause held for decision in 2014-0607, In re D.S., and briefing schedule stayed.

State v. Orr - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2015-1847

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-1847
 
Proposition of Law: R.C. 2152.02(C)(3), R.C. 2151.23(I) AND R.C. 2152.12(J) considers a person who committed a crime as a juvenile but apprehended after their 21st birthday an adult subject to prosecution in the general division. These provisions do not violate the Ex Post Facto clause of the United States Constitution or Retroactivity Clause of the Ohio Constitution when applied to a person who committed the crime of rape prior to attaining the age of 15.

State v. Rahab - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2015-1892

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-1892
 
Proposition of Law: To overcome the inference a sentence is based on a trial tax, the sentencing court must unequivocally state the sentence was not based on the decision to go to trial.

State v. Baird - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2015-2019

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2015-2019
 
Proposition of Law: Old Chief vs. United States, 519 US. 172, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997) is not controlling authority for Ohio courts and cannot mandate a trial court’s acceptance, over the state’s objection, of a proffered stipulation of a prior OVI conviction during a R.C. 4511.19(A) (2) (a) and (b) prosecution.
 
Note: Cause held for decision in 2014-1844, State v. Creech, and briefing schedule stayed.

State v. Moore - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0049 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0049
 
Proposition of Law: The portion of a sentencing entry imposing postrelease control is void if it fails to properly notify the defendant of the consequences of violating postrelease control or of committing a new felony while on it. A judicial-sanction sentence based on such void postrelease control is also void.
 
Note: Cause held for decision in 2016-0215, State v. Grimes, and briefing schedule stayed.

State v. Jackson - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0118

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0118

Proposition of Law The possession and sale of pentedrone was not defined as a crime under Ohio law in March 2012.
 
Note: Cause held for decision in 2015-1782, State v. Shalash, and briefing schedule stayed.

City of Cleveland v. Oles - Jurisdictional Appeal / Certified Conflict
     2016-0172 & 2016-0282

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0172 | 2016-0282
 
Certified Question: “[I]n the course of a traffic stop, does the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution require a law enforcement officer to provide Miranda warnings to a suspect who is removed from his vehicle and placed in the front seat of a police vehicle for questioning?”
 
Proposition of Law I: The investigative questioning of a driver in the front seat of a police vehicle during a routine traffic stop does not rise to the level of custodial interrogation and any statements elicited do not incur the protections of Miranda.
 
Proposition of Law II:The evidence obtained independently in an investigation of Driving Under the Influence during a routine traffic stop cannot be suppressed.

State v. Mustafa - Jurisdictional Appeal / Certified Conflict
     2016-0201 & 2016-0179

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0201| 2016-0179
 
Proposition of Law: As effective October 17, 2011, R.C. 3719.013 mandated that "controlled substance analogs" shall be treated as Schedule I controlled substances for purposes of any provision in the Revised Code. The trafficking and possession statutes were part of the Revised Code and therefore were subject to this broad incorporation of analogs into the Revised Code.
 
Certified Question: "Whether "controlled substance analogs" were criminalized as of October 17, 2011, the effective date of House Bill 64."
 
Note: Causes consolidated, and held for decision in 2015-1782, State v. Shalash, and briefing schedule stayed.

State v. Kepler - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0213 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0213
 
Proposition of Law: To impose valid post release control, the language in the sentencing entry may incorporate the advisements given during the sentencing hearing by referencing the post release control sections of the Ohio Revised Code and do not need to repeat what was said during the sentencing hearing.
 
NOTE: Cause held for decision in 2016-0215, State v. Grimes, and briefing schedule stayed.

State v. Grimes - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0215 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0215

Proposition of Law To impose valid post release control, the language in the sentencing entry may incorporate the advisements given during the sentencing hearing by referencing the post release control sections of the Ohio Revised Code and do not need to repeat what was said during the sentencing hearing.

State v. Bembry - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0238

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0238
 
Proposition of Law: The exclusionary rule is the appropriate remedy under Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution for a violation of R.C. 2935.12.

State v. Polk - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0271

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0271
 
Proposition of Law I: A search is constitutional if it complies with a public school’s reasonable search protocol. The subjective motive of the public-school employee performing the search is irrelevant.
 
Proposition of Law II: The sole purpose of the federal exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct. As a result, the exclusionary rule does not apply to searches by public-school employees.
 
Proposition of Law III: Suppression is proper only if the deterrence benefits of suppression outweigh its substantial social costs.

State v. Lee - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0315 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0315
 
Proposition of Law I: A juvenile court commits plain error when it transfers juvenile offenders to criminal court pursuant to R.C. 2152.10(A)(1)(a) and 2152.12(A)(1)(a)(i), because those sections are unconstitutional, in violation of the right to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 16, Ohio Constitution.
 
Proposition of Law II: A juvenile court commits plain error when it transfers juvenile offenders for criminal prosecution pursuant to 2152.10(A)(1)(a) and 2152.12(A)(1)(a)(i), because those sections are unconstitutional, in violation of the right to equal protection of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 2, Ohio Constitution.
 
NOTE: Cause held for decision in 2015-0677, State v. Aalim, and briefing schedule stayed.

State v. Anderson - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0317 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0317
 
Proposition of Law I: When one codefendant who proceeds to trial receives a sentence twice as long as a codefendant who enters a plea, an appellate court cannot dispel the possibility of an impermissible trial tax merely by referring to the disparity as a reward to the codefendant for entering a plea.
 
Proposition of Law II: The mandatory sentencing statutes in R.C. 2929 are unconstitutional as applied to children because they do not permit the trial court to make an individualized determination about a child’s sentence or the attributes of youth.

State v. Sanchez - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0428 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0428
 
Proposition of Law: In a prosecution under R.C. 2925.03(A) and (C) the level of the offense is determined by the total weight of the cocaine or a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance containing cocaine and not the weight of the pure cocaine.
 
Note: Cause held for decision in 2015-0384, State v. Gonzales, and briefing schedule stayed.

State v. Mutter - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0440 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0440
 
Proposition of Law I: Second prosecutions are barred when they require relitigation of factual issues already resolved by a previous prosecution. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, United States Constitution; Section 10, Article I, Ohio Constitution.
 
Proposition of Law II: An appellate court may not shift the burdens established by App.R. 9 and App.R. 12(A) in Ohio's Rules of Appellate Procedure. Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution; Section 16, Article I, Ohio Constitution.

State v. Mutter - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0441 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0441
 
Proposition of Law I: Second prosecutions are barred when they require relitigation of factual issues already resolved by a previous prosecution. Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, United States Constitution; Section 10, Article I, Ohio Constitution.
 
Proposition of Law II: An appellate court may not shift the burdens established by App.R. 9 and App.R. 12(A) in Ohio's Rules of Appellate Procedure. Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution; Section 16, Article I, Ohio Constitution.

Springfield v. State - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0461

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0461
 
Proposition of Law I: A municipal ordinance that establishes an automated system for civil enforcement of statewide traffic laws is a valid exercise of self-government under Article XVIII, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution.
 
Proposition of Law II: A state statute with the principal purpose and effect of limiting municipal authority is not a general law to which municipal ordinances must yield.
 
Note: Cause held for decision in 2015-1549, Dayton v. State, and briefing schedule stayed.

State v. Schroeder - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0570 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0570
 
Proposition of Law I: The portion of a sentencing entry imposing postrelease control is void if it fails to properly notify the defendant of the consequences of violating postrelease control or of committing a new felony while on it. A judicial-sanction sentence based on such void postrelease control is also void.
 
Note: Cause held for decision in 2016-0215, State v. Grimes, and briefing schedule stayed.

State v. Reese - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0656

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0656
 
Proposition of Law I: The state, in prosecuting cocaine offenses involving mixed substances under R.C. 2925.11(C)(4)(a) through (f), must prove that the weight of the cocaine meets the statutory threshold, excluding the weight of any filler materials used in the mixture.
 
Note: Cause held for decision in 2015-0384, State v. Gonzales, and briefing schedule stayed.

State v. Mohamed - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0672

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0672
 
Proposition of Law I: A victim is not "unharmed" under R.C. 2905.01(C)(1), requiring a reduction of the kidnapper's sentence, where the victim is sexually assaulted while kidnapped.
 

State ex rel. Prade v. Ninth Dist. Court of Appeals - Original Action in Prohibition
     2016-0686

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0686
 
Argument I: Mr. Prade is entitled to the writ against the Ninth District in Ninth District Case No. 26775 .
 
Argument II: Mr. Prade also is entitled to writs against the Honorable Judge Christine Croce in Summit County Common Pleas Case No. CR-98-02-0463 and against the Ninth District in Ninth District Case No. 28193.

State v. Jackson - Jurisdictional Appeal 
     2016-0782

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0782
 
Proposition of Law: In a criminal case, the sentence is a final judgment. For purposes of Crim.R. 32(C), any dismissal of a count disposes of that count for the purposes of determining if the criminal conviction is a final appealable order.

State v. Zimmerman - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0789 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0789
 
Proposition of Law I: The mandatory 15-years-to-life prison term required by R.C. 2929.02(B)(1) cannot be constitutionally applied to juvenile offenders. Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; Ohio Constitution, Article I, Sections 9 and 16.
 
Proposition of Law II: A child is denied the effective assistance of counsel when counsel fails to object to the constitutionality of a statutory scheme that violates a child's rights to due process and that constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 10.
 
NOTE: Cause held for decision in 2016-0317, State v. Anderson, and briefing schedule stayed.

State v. Batista - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0903

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0903
 
Proposition of Law I: R.C. 2903.11(B) violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions because: (1) There is no rational basis for a distinction between HIV-positive individual and individuals with other infectious diseases such as Hepatitis C; (2) There is no rational basis for a distinction between the methods of transmission of HIV; (3) The statute is not rationally related to the government's purpose.
 
Proposition of Law II: R.C. 2903.11(B) is a content-based regulation on speech that unconstitutionally compels speech and usurps the constitutional right to refrain from speaking in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution under a strict-scrutiny standard.

In re D.S. - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0907

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0907
 
Proposition of Law I: A juvenile court's decision to utilize non-judicial community resources in lieu of criminal prosecution is matter Juv.R. 9(A) entrusts to the discretion of the juvenile court. That decision may not be overturned on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion.
 
Proposition of Law II: R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to a child under the age of 13, who allegedly engaged in sexual contact with another child under 13.

State v. Banks-Harvey - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0930 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0930
 
Proposition of Law: Because the mere adoption of a policy by the Highway Patrol to retrieve and inventory the belongings of an arrested person cannot authorize unconstitutional police action, the warrantless entry into a car to retrieve the purse of an already-arrested person and the subsequent warrantless removal and search of that purse violates the Fourth Amendment and Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.

State v. Woods - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0940

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0940
 
Proposition of Law I: An appellate court, when reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, is required to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the State's case and may not adopt the defense's inferences to reverse a conviction.
 
Proposition of Law II: A defendant's actions of concealing or destroying the victim's body after a murder are indicative of prior calculation and design.
 
Note: Cause held for the decision in 2014-0942, State v. Walker, and the briefing schedule remains stayed.

State v. Walker - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-0942

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-0942
 
Proposition of Law I: An appellate court, when reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, is required to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the State's case and may not adopt the defense's inferences to reverse a conviction.
 
Proposition of Law II:The State introduces sufficient evidence of prior calculation and design where a jury could reasonably infer that the defendant discussed purposely killing the victim over a fifteen minute period prior to the murder.

State v. Beasley - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-1020

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-1020
 
Proposition of Law: A trial counsel's unrefuted proffer summarizing an unrecorded conference is sufficient to preserve an error for appeal.

State v. Jackson - Murnahan Appeal
     2016-1024

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-1024
 
Proposition of Law: Appellate counsel renders ineffective assistance when they neglect to present issues which have a reasonable probability of success on appeal where a "reasonable probability" is a defined as a probability sufficient to undermine one's confidence in the outcome.
 
NOTE: Cause held for decision in 2015-1782, State v. Shalash, and briefing schedule stayed.

State v. Bettis - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-1033 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-1033
 
Proposition of Law: A person is not subject to prosecution under R.C. 2919.21(B) for the nonpayment of an arrearage-only child support order when the person is providing support to an unemancipated child and residing with the child during the same period during which it is alleged that the person failed to make payments on arrearages.
 
Note: Cause held for decision in 2015-0077, State v. Pittman, and briefing schedule stayed.

Toledo v. Ohio - Certified Conflict / Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-1136 & 2016-1138

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-1136 | 2016-1138
 
Certified Question: "Whether Am.Sub.S.B. No. 342 is an unconstitutional infringement of municipalities' right to self-governance under Article XVIII, Section 3, of the Ohio Constitution."
 
Note: Causes consolidated, and held for decision in 2015-1549, Dayton v. Ohio, and briefing schedule stayed..
 
Proposition of Law: Ohio's traffic-camera statutes are general laws that displace conflicting municipal traffic-camera ordinances enacted pursuant to a municipality's police powers.

In re D.H. - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-1195 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-1195
 
Proposition of Law: A juvenile court order transferring jurisdiction of a child's case to common pleas court is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)(a)-(b).
 
Note: This cause is consolidated with 2016-1197, In re: D.H., and that the briefing in 2016-1195 and 2016-1197 shall be consolidated.

In re D.H. - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-1197 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-1197
 
Proposition of Law: A juvenile court order transferring jurisdiction of a child's case to common pleas court is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)(a)-(b).
 
Note: This cause is consolidated with 2016-1195, In re: D.H., and that the briefing in 2016-1195 and 2016-1197 shall be consolidated.

State v. Pountney - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-1255

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-1255
 
Proposition of Law: Because there is no "usual daily dose" of fentanyl, the State may rely upon the usual daily dose of morphine, the prototype drug for fentanyl, to establish the bulk amount of fentanyl under R.C. 2925.01(D)(1)(d).

State v. Belton - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-1270 | Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-1270
 
Proposition of Law: The mandatory transfer of juvenile offenders to adult court pursuant to R.C. 2152.10(A) and 2152.12(A) violates their right to due process and equal protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Sections 2 and 16, Ohio Constitution.
 
Note: Cause held for decision in 2015-0677, State v. Aalim, and briefing schedule stayed.

State v. Mobarak - Certified Conflict / Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-1297 & 2016-1168

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-1297 | 2016-1168
 
Certified Question: "Whether it was an offense to sell or possess controlled substance analogs after the enactment of 2011 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 64 but prior to December 26, 2012 when the legislature enacted a bill "to create the offenses of trafficking in and possession of controlled substance analogs." (Emphasis added.) 2012 Am.Sub.I-l.B. No. 334."
 
Note:Causes consolidated, and held for decision in 2015-1782, State v. Shalash, and briefing schedule stayed..
 
Proposition of Law:As effective October 17, 2011, R.C. 3719.013 mandated that "controlled substance analogs" shall be treated as Schedule I controlled substances for purposes of any provision in the Revised Code. The trafficking and possession statutes were part of die Revised Code and therefore were subject to this broad incorporation of analogs into the Revised Code.

State v. Dye - Certified Conflict
     2016-1395

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-1395
 
Certified Question: "Pursuant to R.C. 2953.52, must trial courts wait until the applicable statute of limitations has expired prior to sealing the records of a case dismissed without prejudice?"
 
NOTE: The conflict case is State v. C.K., First Dist. Cuyahoga App. No. 99886, 2013-Ohio-5135.

State v. Gordon - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-1462

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-1462
 
Proposition of Law: A defendant does not suffer prejudice from joinder of indictments based on the disqualification of the defendant's retained counsel absent a showing that the disqualification of counsel was erroneous.
 

State v. Brown - Certified Conflict
     2016-1652

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-1652
 
Certified Question: "Whether the post-release control notification of R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(e) must include notification of the penalty provisions in R.C. 2929.141(A)(1)-(2), specifically, whether a trial court must inform an offender at the time of sentencing that the commission of a felony during a period of post-release control permits a trial court to impose a new prison term for the violation to be served consecutively with any prison term for the new felony."
 
NOTE: The conflict case is State v. Pippen, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 14CA3595, 2014-Ohio-4454.

Cyran v. Cyran - Certified Conflict / Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-1870 & 2016-1737

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-1870 | 2016-1737
 
Certified Question: "Does the collateral consequences exception to mootness apply to an appeal from an expired protective order when the appellant faces possible collateral consequences that may not be ascertainable at the time of the appeal?"
 
Proposition of Law I: The collateral consequences exception to mootness applies to an appeal from an expired protection order when the appellant faces possible collateral consequences that may not be ascertainable at the time of the appeal.
 
Proposition of Law II: There is a rebuttal presumption that an appeal from an expired protection order is not moot.
 
NOTE: Causes consolidated. The conflict case is Wilder v. Perma, 174 Ohio App.3d 586, 2007-Ohio-6635 (8th Dist.).

State v. Upkins - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-1742

 
Proposition of Law: When appellate counsel also served as trial counsel and moves to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, the court shall permit counsel to withdraw and must then appoint new appellate counsel to review the record and raise any nonfrivolous appealable issue.
 
Note: Ohio Public Defender is counsel for a party.

State v. Blair - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-1646

 
Proposition of Law: A defendant's sentence is not a criminal proceeding that is pending for the purpose of R.C. 2953.52. Once a defendant is found guilty and sentenced, criminal proceedings against him or her have terminated.


 

State v. Martin - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-1891


Proposition of Law I: Once a determination has been made that a juvenile defendant was the victim of human trafficking, the trial court must appoint a guardian ad litem and conduct a safe harbor hearing prior to issuing a bindover decision.

Proposition of Law II: A juvenile does not waive issues related to a legally defective bindover proceeding by pleading guilty in common pleas court.


State v. Johnson - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2017-0244

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2017-0244
 
Proposition of Law: This prosecutor did not include one in his MISJ. If there was one, it would likely be something as follows: A sentencing entry does not need to contain the consequences for violating postrelease control in order for postrelease control to be valid.
 
Note: Cause accepted and held for decision in 2016-1652, State v. Brown, and briefing schedule stayed. On motion to stay court of appeals' decision. Motion granted.

State v. Stevens - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2017-0032

 
Proposition of Law: None given; the State requested that the case be accepted and held for State v. Grimes.

Note: Cause held for decision in State v. Grimes, and briefing schedule stayed.

State v. Moore - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2017-0483


Proposition of Law I: Ohio Revised Code Section 2929.14(B)(1)(b) does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution or the Ohio Constitution.

Proposition of Law II: An appellate court errs when it sua sponte determines that a statutory scheme violates the Equal Protection Clause when the constitutionality of the statute was never challenged at the trial court level nor was it briefed by either party to the appeal.

State v. Mason - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2017-0200


Proposition of Law I: Ohio's death penalty scheme is unconstitutional pursuant to Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016).

State v. Murray - Certified Conflict
     2017-0664

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2017-0664

Certified Conflict Question: Whether the postrelease-control notification of R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(e) must include notification of the penalty provisions in R.C. 2929.141(A)(1)-(2), specifically, whether a trial court must inform an offender at the time of sentencing that the commission of a felony during a period of postrelease control permits a trial court to impose a new prison term for the violation to be served consecutively with any prison term for the new felony.

NOTE: Cause held for decision in 2016-1652, State v. Brown, and briefing schedule stayed.

 

State v. Apanovitch - Death Penalty Postconviction
     2017-0200


Proposition of Law I: A factual finding made by a federal court in a habeas proceeding is res judicata in subsequent state court proceedings in the case.

Proposition of Law II: Because a claim of a defective indictment does not depend on evidence outside the record, such a claim cannot be raised or considered in postconviction proceedings.

Proposition of Law III: The existence of multiple, identical counts in an indictment does not violate a defendant's protections against double jeopardy where the evidence at trial delineates a separate factual basis for each count.

State v. Paige - Jurisdictional Appeal
     2016-1848

Supreme Court of Ohio Case Information: 2016-1848

Proposition of Law I: A trial court may impose a prison term on one offense and a term of community control sanctions on a separate offense on the same offender without violating the "spilt sentence" doctrine.

Proposition of Law II: A form of the "sentencing-package" doctrine may not be utilized by a reviewing court in order to justify the finding of an illegal "split-sentence."

 

OFFICE OF THE OHIO PUBLIC DEFENDER

  250 EAST BROAD STREET
SUITE 1400
COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215
(614) 466-5394
(800) 686-1573