Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, District Court, S.D. Ohio · Born 1967 · Portsmouth, OH
District Court, S.D. Ohio — appointed by Donald John Trump
State v. Gray
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2019-12-23 · cited 8×
In State v. Gray, the defendant pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to reduced third-degree felony counts of cocaine trafficking and possession, with a joint recommendation for community control; after he failed to report to probation, the trial court revoked community control following a hearing and imposed consecutive prison terms totaling 48 months. Gray appealed, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the consecutive sentences and a due process violation because the counts should have merged and he should have received the statutory minimum term. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, holding that counsel’s performance was not deficient and that Gray had waived the merger protections of R.C. 2941.25 by agreeing in the plea that the offenses involved separate animus; the court also found that the trial judge had made the required findings for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Burke
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2019-11-07 · cited 2×
In State v. Burke, Emory Burke was charged with multiple offenses including forgery, theft, receiving stolen property, and tampering with evidence. He initially pleaded not guilty, then entered guilty pleas to all counts in two consolidated cases after a Crim.R. 11 hearing. Before sentencing, Burke orally moved to withdraw his pleas, citing a desire for a furlough to visit family and later claiming he did not understand the proceedings because he was under the influence of marijuana. The trial court denied the motion after questioning him and proceeded to impose a prison sentence of two years and eleven months. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court acted within its broad discretion by determining that Burke’s request amounted to a change of heart unsupported by credible reasons or a claim of innocence, given the thorough plea colloquy and lack of other justification.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Cook
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2019-11-07 · cited 10×
In State v. Cook, the defendant appealed his convictions for possession of heroin and cocaine, trafficking in heroin, and tampering with evidence, which arose from a 2014 traffic stop for illegal window tint during which a state trooper discovered a warrant for Cook’s arrest and later saw on dashcam video that Cook had tossed a bag of drugs out of view while the trooper was on the radio. The Fourth District Court of Appeals sustained Cook’s first assignment of error, reversed the tampering conviction, and vacated the related 36-month sentence, but overruled his second assignment of error regarding the trial court’s reference to the substance as heroin. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support tampering because nothing showed Cook knew an official investigation into his drug possession was underway or likely when he discarded the bag. It rejected the second claim because Cook did not object at trial and failed to demonstrate any prejudice from the remark.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. White
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2019-11-01 · cited 6×
In State v. White, the defendant appealed his convictions in Vinton County for felonious assault, disrupting public services, and domestic violence, raising two claims of error from his trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding first that the trial court properly denied the defendant's request to subpoena the assistant prosecutor as a witness, because the State had already disclosed that no cell-phone video of the assault existed and the defendant could cross-examine the victim on the issue, resulting in no Brady violation. The court further held that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request that the defendant appear in street clothes rather than jail attire, as the record showed no compulsion by the state and overwhelming evidence supported the convictions, precluding any showing of prejudice.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. White
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2019-11-01 · cited 6×
In State v. White, the defendant appealed his convictions in Vinton County for felonious assault, disrupting public services, and domestic violence, raising two claims of error from his trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding first that the trial court properly denied the defendant's request to subpoena the assistant prosecutor as a witness, because the State had already disclosed that no cell-phone video of the assault existed and the defendant could cross-examine the victim on the issue, resulting in no Brady violation. The court further held that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request that the defendant appear in street clothes rather than jail attire, as the record showed no compulsion by the state and overwhelming evidence supported the convictions, precluding any showing of prejudice.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Smigelski
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2019-11-01 · cited 1×
The case involved an appeal by Andrew M. Smigelski from his conviction in Hocking County Municipal Court for menacing, a fourth-degree misdemeanor, stemming from a dispute with his neighbors in which he was accused of making threatening statements that caused them fear. After a bench trial, the municipal court found him guilty and imposed a fine and two years of probation. On appeal, Smigelski raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct through false statements, and that the conviction was unsupported by sufficient evidence and against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Fourth District Court of Appeals overruled all assignments of error and affirmed the judgment, concluding that the neighbor’s testimony about the threats and her resulting fear, corroborated by other witnesses, provided sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the trial court did not lose its way in weighing the evidence.
criminal law