Doss v. State 135 OHIO ST. 3D 211, 2012-OHIO-5678, 985 N.E.2D 1229 DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 2012

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Doss v. State 135 OHIO ST. 3D 211, 2012-OHIO-5678, 985 N.E.2D 1229 DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 2012"

Transcription

1 Doss v. State 135 OHIO ST. 3D 211, 2012-OHIO-5678, 985 N.E.2D 1229 DECIDED DECEMBER 6, 2012 I. INTRODUCTION In Doss v. State, 1 the Supreme Court of Ohio decided whether an appellate decision vacating a man s conviction for rape and kidnapping was sufficient to establish that he was a wrongfully imprisoned individual under section of the Ohio Revised Code ( ORC ). 2 Section provides a remedy, in the form of compensatory damages, for persons who are convicted of a felony and imprisoned and whose convictions are vacated, dismissed, or reversed. 3 The court also grappled with whether the claimant bears the burden of proving his innocence by a preponderance of the evidence and if that standard is met when the State is unable to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. 4 The Supreme Court of Ohio held that an appellate decision may not establish actual innocence under ORC because it is insufficient to show that the claimant was innocent by a preponderance of the evidence. 5 The appellate court s decision proved only that the state was unsuccessful in proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 6 The prevalence of wrongfully imprisoned individuals is indicative of a serious problem in the criminal justice system. 7 That the Ohio General Assembly sought to address this problem and, through compensation statutes, attempt to provide a remedy is important. However, it is appropriate and reasonable to have further discussion on the subject Ohio St. 3d 211, 2012-Ohio-5678, 985 N.E.2d 1229 (2012). 2. See id. at 211, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at OHIO REV. CODE ANN (A) (West 2012). 4. Doss v. State, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 213, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id. at 218, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at See id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Daniel S. Kahn, Presumed Guilty Until Proven Innocent: The Burden of Proof in Wrongful Conviction Claims Under State Compensation Statutes, 44 U. MICH. J.L. REFORM 123, (2010). 1093

2 1094 OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. The Conviction of Iran Doss Iran Doss was convicted in 2006 by a jury on one count of kidnapping and one count of rape. 8 Most importantly, the jury found that the alleged victim s capacity to consent was substantially impaired and that Doss knew (or had reason to know) of the substantial impairment. 9 Following his conviction, Doss was sentenced to four years in prison, ordered to pay a fine plus restitution, and was labeled a sexually oriented offender. 10 B. Doss I Doss appealed his conviction to the Eighth District Court of Appeals, arguing seven assignments of error. 11 He argued, relevant to his appeal for compensation under ORC , that there was insufficient evidence of the alleged victim s capacity to consent and, therefore, his rape conviction should be overturned. 12 The Eighth District disagreed and, in a split decision, found that [a] rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of substantially impaired rape proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 13 Doss s conviction for rape was upheld while the kidnapping conviction was vacated because the State failed to present evidence showing force, threat, deception, or the restraint of liberty, an essential element of the offense of kidnapping. 14 C. Doss II Upon rehearing the case, the Eighth District, again in a split decision, held the State had not met its burden to show the rape victim was substantially impaired and that the defendant knew or should have known of the substantial impairment. 15 Doss was released from prison, his convictions for rape and kidnapping were vacated, and his sexually oriented 8. Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 211, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at See id. at 212, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id. at 211, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at State v. Doss, No , 2007-Ohio , 13, 17, 20, 24, 27, 32 (8th Dist. Dec. 6, 2007) [hereinafter Doss I]. 12. Id. at Id. at 23, 41 (paragraph 41 contains Judge McMonagle s brief dissent on the issue of consent and voluntary intoxication). 14. Id. at 25-26, 39; OHIO REV. CODE ANN (A) (West 2012). 15. State v. Doss, No , 2008-Ohio , 30 (8th Dist. Jan. 24, 2008) [hereinafter Doss II] (paragraph 30 demonstrates Judge Sweeney s disagreement with the Doss II majority on the sufficiency of the evidence).

3 2013] DOSS V. STATE 1095 offender label was removed. 16 The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the State s appeal to review the Eighth District s decision and Doss was freed. 17 Following his release from prison in 2008, Doss filed suit seeking compensation for wrongful imprisonment under section of the Ohio Revised Code. 18 He asked the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to issue a judgment declaring him to be a wrongfully imprisoned individual under section , citing only the decision of the Eighth District vacating his conviction as the basis for finding eligibility under the statute. 19 The common pleas court granted Doss s motion for summary judgment, finding that he was a wrongfully imprisoned individual under the statute. 20 The court found further that the court of appeals decision to reverse and vacate plaintiff Doss s conviction... can only be interpreted to mean either that plaintiff Doss was innocent... or that no crime was committed by plaintiff Doss, or both. 21 D. Doss III The Eighth District Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court s decision to grant Doss s summary judgment motion and, in a third two-to-one decision, affirmed. 22 The State s case against Doss was based entirely on his own statement concerning the alleged victim s mental state. 23 As such, no evidence was presented at trial concerning Doss s subjective knowledge of the alleged victim s ability to consent and, therefore, no genuine issue of fact or mistake of law existed regarding Doss s motion for summary judgment. 24 The trial court s decision was proper. 25 In a strong dissent, however, Judge Frank Celebrezze argued, in accordance with the Supreme Court of Ohio s holding in Ellis v. State, 26 the vacation of Doss s conviction merely established that he was not guilty and that the State did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 27 Judge Celebrezze found that to establish that he was a wrongfully imprisoned individual Doss carried the burden under ORC to prove his innocence by a preponderance of the evidence. 28 He ultimately concluded 16. Id. at State v. Doss, 118 Ohio St. 3d 1507 (2008). 18. Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 212, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at See id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 212, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Ohio St. 3d 391, 596 N.E.2d 428 (1992). 27. Id. at 393, 596 N.E.2d at See id. at 393, 596 N.E.2d at 430.

4 1096 OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39 that because this was not a case where the evidence is so clear that Doss can be found to be innocent solely on this court s prior opinion, Doss was not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of the Eighth District s decision in Doss II alone. 29 Judge Celebrezze s decision, however, leaves open the possibility that eligibility as a wrongfully imprisoned individual may, in limited circumstances, be based entirely on an appellate court s decision to vacate a conviction. 30 The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the case to review two questions: (1) whether a trial court deciding innocence under ORC may grant summary judgment on the basis of an appellate decision finding insufficient evidence for conviction; and (2) whether, under ORC , an inmate must prove innocence by a preponderance of the evidence. 31 III. DECISION AND RATIONALE In Doss, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that an appellate court s decision to reverse and vacate a criminal conviction is not sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a person is a wrongfully imprisoned individual entitled to compensation under ORC A. Unanimous Decision of Justice Lanzinger Justice Lanzinger begins the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio with a brief discussion of the statutory framework through which wrongfully imprisoned individuals may be compensated in Ohio. 33 In order to receive compensation, a formerly incarcerated person must take two steps: (1) an action in a court of common pleas seeking a factual determination that the person was, in fact, wrongfully imprisoned; and (2) an action against the State in the Court of Claims to set damages and provide recovery. 34 The purpose of the statute permitting the compensation of wrongfully imprisoned individuals was to replace the former practice of compensating those wrongfully imprisoned by ad hoc moral-claims legislation. 35 Continuing with a textual analysis of ORC , the court addressed whether Doss was, in fact, wrongfully imprisoned under the statute. 36 In 29. Doss v. State, 2011-Ohio (8th Dist. Dec. 15, 2011) [hereinafter Doss III]. 30. See id. at Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 213, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id. at 211, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id. at 213, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at 1232 (citing Griffith v. Cleveland, 128 Ohio St. 3d 35, 40 (2010)). 35. Id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 214, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at

5 2013] DOSS V. STATE 1097 order to be eligible under the statute, the former inmate must meet five conditions: (1) he must have been charged with a felony or aggravated felony; (2) he must have been found guilty but not pleaded guilty to the offense; (3) he must have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment as a result of the conviction; (4) the conviction must have been vacated, dismissed, or reversed on appeal; and (5) either an error in procedure resulted in the individual s release or the court of common pleas must have determined that the charged offense, including all lesser included offenses, either was not committed by the individual or was not committed by any person. 37 The only issue here was whether Doss met the fifth prong of the test to establish that he was a wrongfully imprisoned individual. 38 Although the language of ORC (A)(5) does not explicitly require proof of actual innocence, 39 the court has determined that a showing that the offense either was not committed by the individual or was not committed by any person means that actual innocence must be established. 40 In its analysis, the Supreme Court of Ohio pointed to Walden v. State 41 as controlling precedent for this case. 42 In Walden, a woman was acquitted after learning that the prosecution had suppressed evidence. 43 The Supreme Court of Ohio held that her acquittal establishes only that the State did not meet its burden, not that she was, in fact, innocent. 44 The court in Walden further addressed the intent of the General Assembly in enacting the wrongfully imprisoned persons statute; the legislature intended for the common pleas courts to distinguish individuals who were actually imprisoned wrongfully from those who merely avoided criminal liability. 45 Proof of innocence by a preponderance of the evidence paints the line that separates the wrongfully imprisoned from those who simply avoided liability. 46 The Doss court reiterated this holding, determining that ORC (A) requires that the claimant show something more than an acquittal to establish actual innocence Id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at 1232 (quoting OHIO REV. CODE ANN (A)(1)-(5)) (emphasis in original). 38. See id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at See OHIO REV. CODE ANN (A)(5). 40. Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 214, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at 1233; Walden v. State, 47 Ohio St. 3d 47, 53, 547 N.E.2d 962, 968 (1989) (under the predecessor to ORC , the claimant bears the burden of proving his innocence by a preponderance of the evidence ) Ohio St. 3d 47, 547 N.E.2d See Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 215, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Walden, 47 Ohio St. 3d at 47, 547 N.E.2d at Id. at 51, 547 N.E.2d at Id. at 52, 547 N.E.2d at Id., 547 N.E.2d at Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 215, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at 1233; see also Griffith, 128 Ohio St. 3d at 40, 941 N.E.2d. at 1161.

6 1098 OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39 In Doss s case, proof that his conviction was vacated is legally equivalent to the acquittal in Walden and does not confirm his innocence. 48 The Eighth District s decision in Doss II established only that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to meet the State s burden. 49 However, whether the State can prove Doss s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is a separate inquiry from whether he can prove his innocence by a preponderance of the evidence. 50 It is the latter question that common pleas courts are charged with answering under ORC (A) and the fact that Doss s conviction was vacated is probative but not dispositive of that issue. 51 Turning to the procedural posture of the case before it, the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed the standard necessary to be successful on a motion for summary judgment. 52 Doss argued, and the trial and appellate courts agreed, that as a matter of law the Eighth District s decision in Doss II establishes his innocence and his eligibility for compensation. 53 The lower courts were mistaken, however, and Doss must affirmatively establish his innocence. 54 The function of the common pleas court under the statute is to adjudicate innocence de novo and separate from the question of guilty or not guilty. 55 The court concluded, finally, that in order to receive compensation each of the five factors in ORC (A) must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence and that an appellate court s decision may not be the sole basis for a finding of actual innocence. 56 The case was remanded to the trial court where Doss may present further evidence establishing his innocence. 57 IV. ANALYSIS In Doss v. State, the Supreme Court of Ohio decided two questions, holding: (1) that an appellate court s decision to vacate a conviction may not establish actual innocence under ORC ; and (2) that eligibility for compensation under the statute requires that each of five factors be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. 58 Although the court s 48. Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at , 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id. at 216, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 217, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id. at 218, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 218, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at 1235.

7 2013] DOSS V. STATE 1099 decision, based on the facts of Doss and current law in Ohio, was correct, 59 the Supreme Court of Ohio may have missed an opportunity to make recovery for wrongfully imprisoned individuals more plausible by shifting the burden of proof to the State. 60 The statute is designed to compensate those who are genuinely wrongfully imprisoned and not to provide compensation for every person who is arrested and acquitted at trial. 61 The best way to ensure this result is not to leave the burden on the claimant but to shift it to the State. 62 A. The Supreme Court of Ohio got the right result in Doss In Doss the issue of whether the criminal defendant was actually innocent turned on his knowledge of the victim s mental state at the time of the alleged rape. 63 The question was whether he knew or should have known that her capacity to consent was substantially impaired. 64 Two witnesses testified that the victim was very intoxicated and the victim said that she blacked out. 65 Doss testified that the victim wanted to have sex with him and was the one who initiated the encounter. 66 Because the state was unable to present any physical evidence linking Doss to the rape and only he and his girlfriend were able to make a full account of the evening s events, the case came down to whose story was more credible. 67 In such a case it would be virtually impossible for either side, Doss or the State, to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. More importantly, Doss presented only the opinion of the Eighth District Court of Appeals in Doss II to show that he was probably innocent. 68 The Eighth District s opinion showed only that the evidence the state presented was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Doss was guilty. 69 On the basis of this evidence alone it is clear that neither side carried its burden. 70 The question is what impact the court s holding, placing the burden on an ORC See Walden, 47 Ohio St. 3d at 51-52, 547 N.E.2d at 966; Griffith, 128 Ohio St. 3d at 40, 941 N.E.2d at See Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 216, 218, 2012-Ohio , 22, 985 N.E.2d at See id. at 213, 2012-Ohio , 14, 985 N.E.2d at Kahn, supra note 7, at See Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 212, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Doss II, 2008-Ohio Id., 2008-Ohio See id., 2008-Ohio Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 217, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Doss II, 2008-Ohio See Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 217, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at (the Eighth District s opinion in Doss II does not establish probable guilt or innocence by a preponderance of the evidence).

8 1100 OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39 claimant to prove his innocence, will have on those who have been wrongfully imprisoned in the future. 71 B. What if the burden were shifted to the State? Those who have been wrongfully imprisoned face serious non-financial obstacles. 72 Financial compensation for lost wages and loss of employment are in many cases simply not sufficient to make those who have been wrongfully imprisoned entirely whole. 73 Similar barriers exist to re-entry and resuming a normal, productive existence. 74 In Doss s case, he was convicted in 2006 of kidnapping and rape and released in In 2008 he also filed his claim in the court of common pleas for compensation. 76 But Doss will also have to live for the rest of his life with the fact that he was convicted of rape and kidnapping and that he spent two years in prison. 77 In addition to the inevitable psychological impact of these events, the state will never compensate him for the cost to his reputation. 78 In a recent article, Daniel S. Kahn, a trial attorney in the Criminal Fraud Division of the United States Department of Justice, presents five justifications for shifting the burden of proof to the State: (1) the State has access to and dominion over the evidence; (2) because it is very difficult to prove a negative (i.e. that Doss did not commit the crime) the State is in a better position to prove the positive; (3) placing the burden on the State removes the incentive to hold the claimant to his burden and thereby preclude or draw out the recovery period; (4) shifting the burden to the State is consistent with the presumption of innocence; and (5) shifting the burden may have a deterrent effect on wrongful convictions. 79 Doss requires that the first step in a claim for compensation take place in the county s court of common pleas. 80 In the court of common pleas, a mini-trial is held to determine whether the claimant is a wrongfully imprisoned individual. 81 There are concerns, however, amongst those who 71. See id. at 218, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Kahn, supra note 7, at Id. at Id. at Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at , 2012-Ohio , 4, 985 N.E.2d at Id., 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id., 2012-Ohio , 4, 985 N.E.2d at Kahn, supra note 7, at Id. at Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 213, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id. at 213, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at 1232.

9 2013] DOSS V. STATE 1101 do not favor wrongful imprisonment compensation statutes, that these minitrial-like procedures are too expensive and burdensome on state resources. 82 Shifting the burden of proof to the State would have the benefit of making recovery more realistic as well as relieving burdens on state resources. 83 Because the State has better access to evidence, the process of using, presenting, and sharing evidence would be more efficient, less costly, and could be done extra-judicially. 84 If the State carried the burden of proof, it would be more consistent with its burden at trial, conserving state resources. 85 Shifting the burden to the State would also provide an incentive to avoid litigation through settlement and would discourage the State from drawing out the process. 86 More importantly, shifting the burden would not make it easier for undeserving claimants to recover under ORC or similar statutes. 87 The Supreme Court of Ohio could, in fact, shift the burden of proof to the State by decision, as the language of the statute does not clearly put the burden on claimants. 88 The Revised Code states that a wrongfully imprisoned individual means an individual who satisfies each of the following. 89 It is, in fact, consistent with the intent of the legislature that those who are wrongfully imprisoned be compensated. 90 Shifting the burden of proof would, in many cases, make the path to recovery slightly easier for those whose claims are not pursued because of the cost of litigation, difficulties in collecting evidence, and the struggle to prove a negative. 91 Although it is possible that shifting the burden to the State may encourage settlement with claimants who might otherwise not be successful, 92 a state s policy-makers must make that determination. They must decide whether it is more important to ensure that those who were actually wrongfully imprisoned have a remedy or if it is a higher priority to prevent those who may not be actually innocent from recovering at all. 82. Justin Brooks and Alexander Simpson, Find the Cost of Freedom: The State of Wrongful Conviction Compensation Statutes Across the Country and the Strange Legal Odyssey of Timothy Atkins, 49 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 627, 636 (2012). 83. Kahn, supra note 7, at Id. at Id. at Id. at Kahn, supra note 7, at OHIO REV. CODE ANN (A). 89. Id. 90. See Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 213, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Kahn, supra note 7, at Id. at

10 1102 OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 39 V. CONCLUSION Although many states have made good faith efforts to address the issue of compensating those who are wrongfully convicted, 93 not everyone who is wrongfully convicted is able to recover and each of those individuals faces serious barriers to re-entry. 94 It is a clear and pragmatic approach to adopt a rule that does not permit anyone who was acquitted or who merely avoided criminal liability to be compensated. 95 However, when so many individuals who were actually innocent are unable to recover or even pay the expense of maintaining an action to hopefully receive some compensation eventually, 96 something in the system should be re-evaluated. In Doss v. State, unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Ohio mechanically applied the precedent from the Walden and Griffith courts. 97 The result is that an opportunity to shift the burden from the claimant to the State was missed and the difficulty that wrongfully imprisoned individuals face in re-entering society continues. 98 Although shifting the burden to the State may fit into the language of the statute and is, thus, possible by judicial decision, 99 it is perhaps most appropriately the function of the General Assembly to make the burden explicit. Until then, hopefully discussions will continue so that innocent people who are incarcerated can be made whole. ANDREW D. PUGSLEY 93. Id. at Id. at Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 215, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at 1233 (quoting Walden, 47 Ohio St. 3d at 52, 547 N.E.2d at 962). 96. Kahn, supra note 7, at Doss, 135 Ohio St. 3d at 215, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at Id. at 218, 2012-Ohio , 985 N.E.2d at 1235; Kahn, supra note 7, at OHIO REV. CODE ANN (A).

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Doss v. State, Slip Opinion No Ohio-5678.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Doss v. State, Slip Opinion No Ohio-5678. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Doss v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5678.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Ballard v. State, 2012-Ohio-3086.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97882 RASHAD BALLARD PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. STATE OF OHIO

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Holloway v. State, 2014-Ohio-2971.] [Please see original opinion at 2014-Ohio-1951.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100586

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Spoon, 2012-Ohio-4052.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97742 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. LEROY SPOON DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as State v. Vitt, 2012-Ohio-4438.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) STATE OF OHIO Appellee C.A. No. 11CA0071-M v. BRIAN R. VITT Appellant APPEAL

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT VINTON COUNTY APPEARANCES:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT VINTON COUNTY APPEARANCES: [Cite as Carr v. State, 2015-Ohio-3895.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT VINTON COUNTY DAVID L. CARR, : Case No. 14CA697 Plaintiff-Appellant, : v. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Moore, 2011-Ohio-2934.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96122 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. AKRAM MOORE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PIKE COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PIKE COUNTY [Cite as State v. Moore, 165 Ohio App.3d 538, 2006-Ohio-114.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PIKE COUNTY The STATE OF OHIO, : : Case No. 05CA733 Appellant, : : Released: January

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Strozier, 2009-Ohio-6104.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92722 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JANYCE STROZIER

More information

Superior Court of Washington For Pierce County

Superior Court of Washington For Pierce County Superior Court of Washington For Pierce County State of Washington, Plaintiff vs.. Defendant No. Statement of Defendant on Plea of Guilty to Sex Offense (STTDFG) 1. My true name is:. 2. My age is:. 3.

More information

STATE OF OHIO JOANNE SCHNEIDER

STATE OF OHIO JOANNE SCHNEIDER [Cite as State v. Schneider, 2010-Ohio-2089.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93128 STATE OF OHIO vs. JOANNE SCHNEIDER PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. St. Martin, 2012-Ohio-1633.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96834 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JEFFREY ST.

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Stewart, 2011-Ohio-612.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94863 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ANTHONY STEWART

More information

[Cite as State v. Hill, 2010-Ohio-1670.] Court of Appeals of Ohio. vs. MILTON HILL JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

[Cite as State v. Hill, 2010-Ohio-1670.] Court of Appeals of Ohio. vs. MILTON HILL JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED [Cite as State v. Hill, 2010-Ohio-1670.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93379 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. MILTON HILL DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

STATE OF OHIO JEFFERY FRIEDLANDER

STATE OF OHIO JEFFERY FRIEDLANDER [Cite as State v. Friedlander, 2008-Ohio-2812.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90084 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JEFFERY FRIEDLANDER

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as Griffin v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2011-Ohio-2115.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Theron Griffin, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 10AP-733 v. : (C.C. No. 2009-01671)

More information

SETH NELSON. Plaintiff STATE OF OHIO. Defendant Case No WI. Judge Joseph T. Clark DECISION

SETH NELSON. Plaintiff STATE OF OHIO. Defendant Case No WI. Judge Joseph T. Clark DECISION [Cite as Nelson v. State, 2010-Ohio-1777.] Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us SETH

More information

O.R.C. Section (F)(2). The state has opposed the motion. This entry follows. offenses ranged from June 1 through September 30, 2004.

O.R.C. Section (F)(2). The state has opposed the motion. This entry follows. offenses ranged from June 1 through September 30, 2004. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO CASE NO: CR 05 469654 Plaintiff, JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL vs JAMES KNIGHT JOURNAL ENTRY Defendant, John P. O Donnell, J.: The defendant has

More information

State v. Blankenship

State v. Blankenship State v. Blankenship 145 OHIO ST. 3D 221, 2015-OHIO-4624, 48 N.E.3D 516 DECIDED NOVEMBER 12, 2015 I. INTRODUCTION On November 12, 2015, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a final ruling in State v. Blankenship,

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Foster, 2013-Ohio-1174.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98224 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. TRAVIS S. FOSTER

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Bonner, 2011-Ohio-843.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95244 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. CHRISTOPHER J. BONNER

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee * On Appeal from the Third District Court of Appeals, v. * Shelby County

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee * On Appeal from the Third District Court of Appeals, v. * Shelby County 19*x ^ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, * Case No. 14-1271 Plaintiff-Appellee * On Appeal from the Third District Court of Appeals, v. * Shelby County JAMIE J. SEITZ, Deferidant-Appeliant *

More information

[Cite as State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 107, 2010-Ohio-6301.]

[Cite as State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 107, 2010-Ohio-6301.] [Cite as State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 107, 2010-Ohio-6301.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. JOHNSON, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 107, 2010-Ohio-6301.] Criminal law R.C. 2901.21

More information

STATE OF OHIO LANG DUNBAR

STATE OF OHIO LANG DUNBAR [Cite as State v. Dunbar, 2010-Ohio-239.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92262 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. LANG DUNBAR JUDGMENT:

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. Opinion Number: Filing Date: February 27, Docket No. 33,789 FREDDIE BENJI MONTOYA, Petitioner,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. Opinion Number: Filing Date: February 27, Docket No. 33,789 FREDDIE BENJI MONTOYA, Petitioner, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: February 27, 2014 Docket No. 33,789 FREDDIE BENJI MONTOYA, v. Petitioner, HON. DOUGLAS R. DRIGGERS, Third Judicial District

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY. vs.

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY. vs. [Cite as State v. Hooks, 2004-Ohio-1124.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 83193 STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : AND KEVIN HOOKS, : OPINION Defendant-Appellant

More information

Selected Ohio Felony Sentencing Statutes Ohio Rev. Code Ann

Selected Ohio Felony Sentencing Statutes Ohio Rev. Code Ann Selected Ohio Felony Sentencing Statutes Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2929.11-2929.14 2929.11 Purposes of felony sentencing. (A) A court that sentences an offender for a felony shall be guided by the overriding

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Manus, 2011-Ohio-603.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94631 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. MARQUES MANUS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 100 1

NC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 100 1 SUBCHAPTER XV. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Article 100. Capital Punishment. 15A-2000. Sentence of death or life imprisonment for capital felonies; further proceedings to determine sentence. (a) Separate Proceedings

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as State v. Hughbanks, 159 Ohio App.3d 257, 2004-Ohio-6429.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO, Appellee, v. HUGHBANKS, Appellant. APPEAL

More information

AGENCY BILL ANALYSIS 2017 REGULAR SESSION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BILL POSTING, ANALYSIS TO: and

AGENCY BILL ANALYSIS 2017 REGULAR SESSION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BILL POSTING,  ANALYSIS TO: and LFC Requester: AGENCY BILL ANALYSIS 2017 REGULAR SESSION WITHIN 24 HOURS OF BILL POSTING, EMAIL ANALYSIS TO: LFC@NMLEGIS.GOV and DFA@STATE.NM.US {Include the bill no. in the email subject line, e.g., HB2,

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT. For defendant-appellant: : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 10, 2005

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT. For defendant-appellant: : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 10, 2005 [Cite as State v. Gramlich, 2005-Ohio-503.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 84172 STATE OF OHIO JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee AND vs. OPINION HELENA GRAMLICH, AKA LISA

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Totty, 2014-Ohio-3239.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100788 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JASON TOTTY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Redd, 2012-Ohio-5417.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98064 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DARNELL REDD, JR.

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Jackson, 2011-Ohio-6069.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92531 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. MICHAEL JACKSON

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as State v. Harrington, 2009-Ohio-5576.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BYRON HARRINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos and 20314

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos and 20314 [Cite as State v. Mathews, 2005-Ohio-2011.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. Case Nos. 20313 and 20314 vs. : T.C. Case No. 2003-CR-02772 & 2003-CR-03215

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Harrison, 2011-Ohio-3258.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95666 STATE OF OHIO vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE LORENZO HARRISON

More information

STATE OF OHIO LARRY GRAY

STATE OF OHIO LARRY GRAY [Cite as State v. Gray, 2010-Ohio-5842.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94282 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. LARRY GRAY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

STATE OF OHIO JAMAR TRIPLETT

STATE OF OHIO JAMAR TRIPLETT [Cite as State v. Triplett, 2009-Ohio-2571.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91807 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JAMAR TRIPLETT

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Hudson, 2011-Ohio-3832.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95581 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. TONIO HUDSON DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

Chapter 9. Sentencing, Appeals, and the Death Penalty

Chapter 9. Sentencing, Appeals, and the Death Penalty Chapter 9 Sentencing, Appeals, and the Death Penalty Chapter Objectives After completing this chapter, you should be able to: Identify the general factors that influence a judge s sentencing decisions.

More information

COURT OF APPEALS LAKE COUNTY, OHIO J U D G E S

COURT OF APPEALS LAKE COUNTY, OHIO J U D G E S [Cite as State v. Witlicki, 2002-Ohio-3709.] COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO J U D G E S STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs THOMAS WITLICKI, HON. WILLIAM M. O NEILL, P.J., HON.

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Milligan, 2012-Ohio-5736.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98140 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. VICTOR D. MILLIGAN

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. McDonald, 2011-Ohio-1964.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95651 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. CASSANDRA MCDONALD

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : VS. : NO. : :

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : VS. : NO. : : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : VS. : NO. : : GUILTY PLEA COLLOQUY EXPLANATION OF DEFENDANT S RIGHTS You or your attorney

More information

AN ACT. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio:

AN ACT. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio: (131st General Assembly) (Amended Substitute Senate Bill Number 97) AN ACT To amend sections 2152.17, 2901.08, 2923.14, 2929.13, 2929.14, 2929.20, 2929.201, 2941.141, 2941.144, 2941.145, 2941.146, and

More information

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE,

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, [Cite as State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86, 2008-Ohio-509.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. SARKOZY, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86, 2008-Ohio-509.] Criminal law Postrelease

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 15, 2005 v No. 255719 Calhoun Circuit Court GLENN FRANK FOLDEN, LC No. 04-000291-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

July 20, KEY WORDS: R.C ; wrongful imprisonment; actually innocent; error in procedure subsequent to sentencing and imprisonment.

July 20, KEY WORDS: R.C ; wrongful imprisonment; actually innocent; error in procedure subsequent to sentencing and imprisonment. Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District Page: 1 of 8 July 20, 2017 104481 COMMON PLEAS COURT E CIVIL C.P.-NOT JUV,DOM OR PRO ANTHONY LEMONS v STATE OF OHIO Reversed and remanded. Mary J. Boyle, P.J.;

More information

Ohio Felony Sentencing Statutes Ohio Rev. Code Ann (2018)

Ohio Felony Sentencing Statutes Ohio Rev. Code Ann (2018) Ohio Felony Sentencing Statutes Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2929.11-2929.14 (2018) DISCLAIMER: This document is a Robina Institute transcription of administrative rules content. It is not an authoritative statement

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY. vs. : AND

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY. vs. : AND [Cite as State v. Quran, 2002-Ohio-4917.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 80701 STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : AND KHALED QURAN, : OPINION Defendant-Appellant

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Hamilton, 2009-Ohio-3595.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91896 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ANTONIO HAMILTON

More information

Court of appeals of #f)to

Court of appeals of #f)to Court of appeals of #f)to EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 102076 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE HARRY J. JACOB, III DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED Criminal

More information

THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO

THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as State v. Johnson, 2008-Ohio-4666.] THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N Plaintiff-Appellee, : - vs - : CASE NO. 2008-L-015 ANDRE D.

More information

CASE DECISION LIST Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District Page: 1 of 5. January 22, 2015

CASE DECISION LIST Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District Page: 1 of 5. January 22, 2015 Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District Page: 1 of 5 January 22, 2015 100699 COMMON PLEAS COURT A CRIMINAL C.P. STATE OF OHIO v DANA STRONG Reversed and remanded. Eileen A. Gallagher, J., Mary J. Boyle,

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 23, 2002

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 23, 2002 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 23, 2002 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GREGORY PIERCE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sullivan County No. S42,869 R.

More information

STATE OF OHIO NABIL N. JAFFAL

STATE OF OHIO NABIL N. JAFFAL [Cite as State v. Jaffal, 2010-Ohio-4999.] [Vacated opinion. Please see 2011-Ohio-419.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93142 STATE OF

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) CASE NO. CR ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) JOURNAL ENTRY ) ELIJAH FRAZIER ) ) Defendant. )

STATE OF OHIO ) CASE NO. CR ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) JOURNAL ENTRY ) ELIJAH FRAZIER ) ) Defendant. ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO CASE NO. CR 11 549274 Plaintiff, vs. JOURNAL ENTRY ELIJAH FRAZIER Defendant. On April 20, 2011, defendant Elijah Frazier was indicted on

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Kurtz, 2013-Ohio-2999.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99103 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. MICHAEL KURTZ DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 17, 2011 v No. 296222 Washtenaw Circuit Court DERRICK ALDEN JOHNSON, LC No. 08-002097-FH Defendant-Appellant.

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. T.M., 2014-Ohio-5688.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101194 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. T.M. DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

More information

*Zarnoch, Graeff, Friedman,

*Zarnoch, Graeff, Friedman, UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 169 September Term, 2014 (ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION) DARRYL NICHOLS v. STATE OF MARYLAND *Zarnoch, Graeff, Friedman, JJ. Opinion by Friedman,

More information

STATE OF OHIO JAMES V. LOMBARDO

STATE OF OHIO JAMES V. LOMBARDO [Cite as State v. Lombardo, 2010-Ohio-2099.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93390 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JAMES V. LOMBARDO

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Belle, 2012-Ohio-3808.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97652 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JAMES BELLE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Peak, 2008-Ohio-3448.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90255 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. JAMES PEAK DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Parker, 2012-Ohio-4741.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97841 STATE OF OHIO vs. COREY PARKER PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

APPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY 120 S. CT (2000)

APPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY 120 S. CT (2000) Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 10 Spring 4-1-2001 APPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY 120 S. CT. 2348 (2000) Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj

More information

STATE OF OHIO STEVEN MURPHY

STATE OF OHIO STEVEN MURPHY [Cite as State v. Murphy, 2010-Ohio-1422.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93093 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. STEVEN MURPHY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Bohanon, 2013-Ohio-261.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98217 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. TAMEKA BOHANON

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Spock, 2014-Ohio-606.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99950 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. TIMOTHY D. SPOCK

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Ortega-Martinez, 2011-Ohio-2540.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95656 STATE OF OHIO vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT ANGEL

More information

COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HARDIN COUNTY. The STATE OF OHIO, CASE NUMBER v. O P I N I O N

COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HARDIN COUNTY. The STATE OF OHIO, CASE NUMBER v. O P I N I O N [Cite as State v. Stanovich, 173 Ohio App.3d 304, 2007-Ohio-4234.] COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HARDIN COUNTY The STATE OF OHIO, CASE NUMBER 6-06-10 APPELLEE, v. O P I N I O N STANOVICH, APPELLANT.

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO CASE NOS. CR 14 585375 CR 14 585580 Plaintiff, JUDGE JOHN P. O DONNELL vs. ANTIONE TOWNSEND Defendant. JOURNAL ENTRY DENYING THE DEFENDANTS

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Ruppart, 187 Ohio App.3d 192, 2010-Ohio-1574.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92687 The STATE OF OHIO APPELLEE, v.

More information

with one count of Aggravated Murder, O.R.C (B), and two counts of

with one count of Aggravated Murder, O.R.C (B), and two counts of STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ) SS. COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA ) CR. 184772 ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ) JUDGMENT ENTRY ) STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff ) ) Vs. ) ) WILLIE LEE JESTER,

More information

STATE OF OHIO DEVONTE CANNON

STATE OF OHIO DEVONTE CANNON [Cite as State v. Cannon, 2010-Ohio-6156.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94146 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DEVONTE CANNON

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as State v. Starr, 2016-Ohio-2689.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N Plaintiff-Appellee, : - vs - : CASE NO. 2015-L-113 WILLIAM

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. v. No CA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLANT PATRICK J. HIGGINS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. v. No CA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF OF APPELLANT PATRICK J. HIGGINS E-Filed Document Jun 2 2015 00:01:29 2014-CA-00251 Pages: 15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI PATRICK J. HIGGINS APPELLANT v. No. 2014-CA-00251 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF OF APPELLANT

More information

No. 98,736 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, TRAVIS GUNNER LONG, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

No. 98,736 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, TRAVIS GUNNER LONG, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT No. 98,736 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. TRAVIS GUNNER LONG, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which

More information

STATE OF OHIO MELVIN BOURN

STATE OF OHIO MELVIN BOURN [Cite as State v. Bourn, 2010-Ohio-1203.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92834 STATE OF OHIO MELVIN BOURN PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

B. Sentencing. State v. Carlisle

B. Sentencing. State v. Carlisle B. Sentencing State v. Carlisle 131 OHIO ST.3D 127, 2011-OHIO-6553, 961 N.E.2D 671 DECIDED DECEMBER 22, 2011 I. INTRODUCTION Before 2004, a trial court had plenary power over sentencing modification up

More information

STATE OF OHIO ANDRE CONNER

STATE OF OHIO ANDRE CONNER [Cite as State v. Conner, 2010-Ohio-4353.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93953 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. ANDRE CONNER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Cleveland v. Cleveland Assoc. of Rescue Emps., 2011-Ohio-4263.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96325 CITY OF CLEVELAND PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, DATE FILED IN OPEN COURT D.C. vs. _ Defendant. CASE NO.: / CRIMINAL DIVISION: VIOLATION OF PROBATION/COMMUNITY

More information

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Robert Junk, Pike County Prosecutor, 108 North Market Street, Waverly, Ohio 45690

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Robert Junk, Pike County Prosecutor, 108 North Market Street, Waverly, Ohio 45690 [Cite as State v. Schoolcraft, 2002-Ohio-3583.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PIKE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 01CA673 vs. : DONALD SCHOOLCRAFT, :

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Wyland, 2011-Ohio-455.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94463 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. WILLIAM WYLAND DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

The court process CONSUMER GUIDE. How the criminal justice system works. FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON

The court process CONSUMER GUIDE. How the criminal justice system works. FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON The court process How the criminal justice system works. CONSUMER GUIDE FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON Inside The process Arrest and complaint Preliminary hearing Grand jury Arraignment

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Lang, 2008-Ohio-4226.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 89553 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. RUSSELL LANG DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 24, 2008 v No. 277652 Wayne Circuit Court SHELLY ANDRE BROOKS, LC No. 06-010881-01 Defendant-Appellant.

More information

Felony Offenses Committed on or after October 1, 2013

Felony Offenses Committed on or after October 1, 2013 DWI Misdemeanors Felony 994 995 Felony 995 2009 Felony 2009 20 Felony 20 203 Felony 203 OFFENSE CLASS A Max. Death or Life w/o Parole B Max. Life w/o Parole B2 Max. 484 (532) C Max. 23 (279) D Max. 204

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Cleveland v. Harding, 2013-Ohio-2691.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98916 CITY OF CLEVELAND vs. LEON W. HARDING PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

More information

People v. Lincoln Staple, 2016 IL App (4th) (December 20,2016)

People v. Lincoln Staple, 2016 IL App (4th) (December 20,2016) People v. Lincoln Staple, 2016 IL App (4th) 160061 (December 20,2016) DOUBLE JEOPARDY On double-jeopardy grounds, the trial court dismissed a felony aggravated DUI charge after defendant pleaded guilty

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT [Cite as State v. Skaggs, 2004-Ohio-4471.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 83830 STATE OF OHIO JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee AND vs. OPINION PATRICK SKAGGS Defendant-Appellant

More information

Fall, Criminal Litigation 9/4/17. Criminal Litigation: Arraignment to Appeal. How Do We Get A Case?

Fall, Criminal Litigation 9/4/17. Criminal Litigation: Arraignment to Appeal. How Do We Get A Case? Fall, 2017 F Criminal Litigation 20 17 Criminal Litigation: Arraignment to Appeal! Something must go wrong.! A wrongful act must occur. How Do We Get A Case?! If the law states that the wrongful act is

More information

[Cite as State v. Abrams, 2011-Ohio-103.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA. JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No.

[Cite as State v. Abrams, 2011-Ohio-103.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA. JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. [Cite as State v. Abrams, 2011-Ohio-103.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94637 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. DANT_ ABRAMS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

As Passed by the House. Regular Session H. B. No

As Passed by the House. Regular Session H. B. No 131st General Assembly Regular Session H. B. No. 439 2015-2016 Representative Anielski Cosponsors: Representatives Antonio, Baker, Blessing, Boccieri, Brown, Dever, Duffey, Fedor, Ginter, Green, Grossman,

More information

STATE OF OHIO KENNETH J. SMITH

STATE OF OHIO KENNETH J. SMITH [Cite as State v. Smith, 2008-Ohio-5581.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 90749 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. KENNETH J. SMITH

More information

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES. Senior Airman BRADLEY J. OWENS United States Air Force ACM

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES. Senior Airman BRADLEY J. OWENS United States Air Force ACM UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES v. Senior Airman BRADLEY J. OWENS United States Air Force 28 August 2013 Sentence adjudged 12 November 2011 by GCM convened at Osan Air Base,

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Griffith, 2013-Ohio-256.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97366 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. RICKY C. GRIFFITH

More information