Ohio Criminal Appeals Lawyer Blog

A Trotwood, Ohio, neighbor was convicted of criminal mischief in violation of R.C. 2909.07(A)(1) because he wrote a note on an 8x10 piece of paper, placed it on top of his neighbor's trash container, and covered it with a stick so the note would not blow away. The neighbors got the note which was less than flattering and of course they contacted the cops. The neighbor who left the note was charged with criminal mischief which required that he "move, deface, damage, destroy, or otherwise improperly tamper with the property of another." He was found guilty by Judge James L. Manning at a bench trial. But the Second District Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the conviction because they agreed with me that leaving a piece of paper on top of a trash container does not qualify as criminal mischief as you can read here.

A Fairfield Township man was shot and killed in his home. Joe D. Angelo Patterson, II, was shot and killed in his home by two intruders but his wife and three children were not hurt. Read the story here.

Looks like some gentlemen will have to go elsewhere for their "massage" for a while. Several arrests were made in Springfield, Ohio, at Miko's Spa and Tokyo Health Spa as you can read here. It took Law Enforcement two years to probe this one. But it looks like there may be a history of reviews on these two places on the internet. The arrests were made for prostitution, promoting prostitution and soliciting. All are presumed innocent at this point.

The Ohio Supreme Court held in State v. Baker, 2008-Ohio-3330, that a final appealable order had to contain what the conviction was based upon, the sentence, and the judge's signature and they all had to be in one document that the clerk of the court had to enter upon the journal. But today the Ohio Supreme Court pointed out in State v. Ketterer, 2010-Ohio-3831, that State v. Baker only applies to non-capital cases. In aggravated-murder cases subject to R.C. 2929.03(F) (which requires the court to file a separate sentencing entry), the final appealable order can consist of more than one document - the sentencing opinion and the judgment of conviction. Read the decision here or review the oral argument here.

Police have not determined why 19 year old Brennan Eden crashed his Pontiac Firebird on I 675 on Monday August 23, 2010. He had just been released from the custody of the Beavercreek Police 20 minutes before the crash. They took him into custody and released him near the intersection of Beaver Vu Drive and North Fairfield Road. Read the story and watch the horrific crash into the Wagner Road overpass here.

On May 10, 2009, Amy Habel got onto her bicycle in front of a "known drug house" in a "high crime" area known for illegal drugs in Dayton, Ohio. A Dayton City Ordnance prohibits riding bicycles on the sidewalks and a violation of that is a minor misdemeanor. Amy rode her bike on the sidewalk. This gave Dayton police a reason to stop her. Amy did not have her identification on her. Instead of asking for her name, social security number, and date of birth, the Dayton police put her into the back of their police cruiser for their convenience until they determined her identity. This gave the officers an excuse to conduct a pat-down or frisk her for weapons. During the frisk, the police found illegal drugs. Montgomery County Common Pleas Judge Frances H. McGee sustained Amy's motion to suppress the drugs because the police had no justification to conduct the pat-down search. The Second District Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, Ohio, affirmed that decision as you can read here.

A Wood County woman was going on a trip. She recruited a couple of people to feed her cats while she was away. One of them was Brad Waltz, a "friend" of the woman. Waltz was supposed to enter the home to give the cats food and water. The woman also asked Waltz to turn off a light at the top of the stairs and he went upstairs to do so. In the upstairs bathroom Waltz saw what he believed to be illegal drugs. So he called the police and "consented" to their entry into the house. The police did not get a warrant initially and entered because they believed that the pet sitters had authority to consent to the search by police. The trial court overruled defendant's motion to suppress the drugs. The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court because the pet sitter did not have the authority to consent to the entry and search by police officers. Read the decision in State v. Huntington, 2010-Ohio-3922, here.

Besides appealing to the Ohio Supreme Court and/or doing an application for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals, Ohio Appellate Rule 26(B) allows you to file an "application for reopening" your appeal "within ninety days from journalization of the appellate judgment unless the applicant shows good cause for filing at a later time." You argue in the application that your appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal when she failed to raise winning arguments (assuming there are any). App. R. 26(B)(5) states that "[a]n application for reopening shall be granted if there is a genuine issue as to whether the applicant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel on appeal." Common sense would tell you to carefully read the appellate rules and hire an experienced criminal appeals lawyer. If you decide that is me, contact me by completing the Contact Me form on the Contact Me page if you want to hire me to look over your case for a possible application for reopening.

According to the Dayton Daily news article you can read by clicking here, Reverend Raleigh Trammell says he is not guilty of taking any taxpayer money. He pleaded guilty to a city property code violation today. The Reverend also told the Dayton Daily news that he expects to be killed.

Assault is usually a first degree misdemeanor and the maximum penalty would be 180 days in jail and a 1,000 dollar fine. Assault is sometimes elevated to a fifth degree felony for which the maximum penalty is 12 months in prison and a 2,500 dollar fine. But for a conviction on an enhanced level of assault to hold up, the verdict form has to indicate that the jury found the defendant guilty of a fifth degree felony assault or it needs to state the additional element(s) that elevate it from a first degree misdemeanor. In a Scioto County case, the verdict form only stated we "find the defendant guilty of assault." Well, since assault is an M1 and the jury verdict did not indicate that the jury found the defendant guilty of a F5 or any facts that would make the assault a F5 in this case, the Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed the conviction for the F5 and remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter a conviction for a M1. Read the decision here.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County explained that an indictment informs the accused of the charged crime so she can prepare a defense. The Appellate Court further explained that "where a defendant is charged with intimidation of a 'victim of a crime,' an essential element of the charge is that the underlying crime occurred and thus created a victim" and it found that the defendant "is entitled to notice of the predicate crime in the indictment." In State v. Muniz, 2010-Ohio-3720, the State failed to include the predicate offense in the indictment and "the record [was] unclear as to the nature of the predicate offense." The Court of Appeals found the indictment was defective from the outset and fatal to the defendant's conviction because it did not give notice of the predicate offense. And the problem was not cured by the presentation of "some evidence at trial of the acts constituting a predicate offense." Read the decision here.

A Cuyahoga County Judge abused their discretion when they refused to accept a plea agreement reached by the Defendant and the State. Although trial judges may use their discretion to accept or refuse plea agreements, they abuse their discretion by rejecting a plea agreement based on a blanket policy they created. For example, in this case the trial judge had a blanket policy of refusing to accept plea agreements in any case where a trial date has already been set. It must go something like, "sorry we already put a date on the calender for trial and so I won't accept the plea agreement reached by the State and Defendant which is beneficial to both parties and would save the taxpayers thousands of dollars. Nope, we have the trial date so we have to have a trial based on my policy. After all, I am the Judge." Read the Court of Appeals decision here.

This is an old case but the issue comes up all the time so I thought I would blog about it now.

Court costs may be assessed against even an indigent defendant. That is what the Ohio Supreme Court said in State v. Threatt, 2006-Ohio-905. The Ohio Supreme Court also said, "an indigent defendant must move a trial court to waive payment of costs at the time of sentencing. Otherwise, the issue is waived and costs are res judicata." Ouch! If you represent indigent defendants at trial, make it a habit to ask the trial court to waive costs. Read the decision in State v. Threatt, 2006-Ohio-905, here.

According to a news report, a 1997 rape of a woman in her home went unsolved until DNA from the crime was matched to Demetrius P. Chambers. Demetrius was incarcerated on some other crime and they took his DNA and entered it into a national database. When the victim was shown a photo spread that included a photo of Demetrius, the victim picked him out as the person who raped her. Demetrius pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine years. Read Lou Grieco's blog entry here.

Mr. Sasso alleges he pleaded guilty on the condition that he be released on a personal bond that day. When that did not happen, Mr. Sasso told the Judge that he wanted to withdraw his plea because he was promised release on a personal bond. The Judge told Mr. Sasso, "You know what? We're done, Mr. Sasso. Leave." The Eighth District Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred when it failed to consider Sasso's pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea or to even consider it. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded "for a hearing and full consideration of the motion to withdraw the plea" as you can read here.