Ohio Criminal Appeals Lawyer Blog

Today, in State v. Lester, 2011-Ohio-5204, the Ohio Supreme Court modified what constitutes a "final appealable order." Since State v. Baker, 2008-Ohio-3330, was decided by the Ohio Supreme Court, a final appealable order had to set forth the guilty plea, the jury verdict, or the finding of the court upon which the conviction is based, the sentence, the signature of the judge, and it had to be entered on the journal by the clerk of court.

Today the Ohio Supreme Court says that a final appealable order has to set forth "the fact of conviction," the sentence, the judge's signature, and the time stamp indicating the entry upon the journal by the clerk. State v. Lester, 2011-Ohio-5204.

The OSC also held that "a nunc pro tunc judgment entry issued for the sole purpose of complying with Crim.R. 32(C) to correct a clerical omission in a final judgment entry is not a new final order from which a new appeal may be taken." Id. at ¶ 20.

With today's decision the Ohio Supreme Court avoided an onslaught of imprisoned defendants seeking a second shot at "justice." Many sentencing entries, at least in the jurisdiction of the Second District Court of Appeals, stated a defendant "was convicted of" or "having been convicted of" instead of setting forth "the guilty plea, the jury verdict, or the finding of the court upon which the conviction is based."

Read the decision in State v. Baker, 2008-Ohio-3330, here, and the decision in State v. Lester, 2011-Ohio-5204, here.

If you are accused of a crime or have been convicted already, contact me if you can afford to hire a private criminal defense lawyer. Otherwise, contact your county or state public defender to see if they can help.

Contact me 24/7 by sending an email to ohiocriminalappealslawyer@gmail.com

Today the Second District Court of Appeals decided State v. Hamby, 2011-Ohio-4542. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for the trial court to fix sentencing errors made by the trial court. First, Criminal Rule 32(C) requires that the judgment of conviction shall set forth the manner of conviction. In Hamby's case, the trial court indicated he had pled guilty but Hamby was convicted by a jury. Second, the trial court disapproved of transitional control for Hamby at sentencing and in the sentencing entry. This was plain error since the determination about transitional control must come near the end of a defendant's sentence, and it must be based a defendant's behavior during his prison term. Finally, the trial court sentenced Hamby to several terms of post-release control but terms of PRC must be served concurrently with each other. The Court of Appeals ordered the trial court to indicate that the terms of PRC must be served concurrently.

If you are accused of a crime or have been convicted already, contact me if you can afford to hire a private criminal defense lawyer. Otherwise, contact your county or state public defender to see if they can help.

Contact me 24/7 by sending an email to ohiocriminalappealslawyer@gmail.com

When your motion for judicial release is denied by the trial court, can you appeal that decision to the Court of Appeals? The answer is "no" according to the decision you can read here. Ohio Courts of Appeal get their powers from the Ohio Constitution. Article IV, Section 3(B)(2) states that appellate courts can review, affirm, modify, or reverse "judgments or final orders" from courts of record inferior to the court of appeals. The problem for the incarcerated person is that a denial of a motion for judicial release is not a final appealable order. There is no "right" to judicial release. If you appeal the denial of the motion for judicial release to the Court of Appeals, the appeal would likely be dismissed as it was here.

A prosecuting attorney (or similar character), on the other hand, may appeal "as a matter of right" a modification of a sentence under section 2929.20 if the sentence being modified was one for an F1 or F2 (but NOT if the sentence was for an F3, F4, or F5). See R.C. 2953.08(B)(3) and State v. Cunningham, 113 Ohio St.3d 108.

If you are accused of a crime or have been convicted already, contact me if you can afford to hire a private criminal defense lawyer. Otherwise, contact your county or state public defender to see if they can help.

Contact me 24/7 by sending an email to ohiocriminalappealslawyer@gmail.com

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.

A defendant attempted to appeal his conviction and sentence pro se. But the Fourth District Court of Appeals for Scioto County dismissed the appeal because the trial court's sentencing entry stated only that the defendant "has been convicted of trafficking in drugs and tampering with evidence." The sentencing entry did not set forth the guilty plea, jury verdict, or finding of the court - whichever the defendant's conviction was based on as required by R.C. 2505.02. The Court of Appeals noted that the defendant could file a motion in the trial court asking for a revised sentencing entry. Once he gets a final appealable order from the trial court, the Court of Appeals could have jurisdiction to address his appeal. Read the decision here.