State v. Mitten
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2021-01-15 · cited 2×
The case involved Jody Mitten's appeal of her conviction and sentence in Sandusky County Common Pleas Court after she entered an Alford guilty plea to third-degree felony failure to comply with a police officer's order under R.C. 2921.331(B). The trial court imposed a maximum 36-month prison term, prosecution costs, and a mandatory 48-month driver's license suspension. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the sentence was not contrary to law because it fell within the statutory range under R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(b), the court properly considered the purposes and factors in R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12, and 2921.331(C)(5)(b), and the record lacked clear and convincing evidence of error. The court also rejected the claim that the plea was unknowing or involuntary, finding no basis to disturb the trial court's acceptance of it.
criminal lawprocedure
Davis v. Johnson
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2021-01-15 · cited 3×
In Davis v. Johnson, appellees Douglas and Irene Davis sued for breach of a recorded land installment contract on Toledo property, seeking a money judgment for unpaid installments from defendant “Douglas G. Johnson.” The Toledo Municipal Court, Housing Division, entered a default judgment against “David G. Johnson” that instead terminated the contract and awarded the sellers immediate possession of the property. Appellant David G. Johnson moved under Civ.R. 60(B) to vacate the judgment, arguing improper party naming, defective service, and that he had acquired clear title through subsequent deeds; the trial court denied the motion without a hearing. The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the default judgment awarded relief different in kind from the complaint and that Johnson had alleged facts that, if true, could support relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5), so the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion without a hearing. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the motion.
propertyprocedure
State v. Maxcy-Tipton
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020-12-30 · cited 3×
In State v. Maxcy-Tipton, the defendant appealed her fourth-degree felony arson conviction and community-control sentence from the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the constitutionality of Ohio’s arson-offender registry statute (R.C. 2909.15) or to seek a reduced registration period, and that the statute itself violated separation of powers. The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case. It held that counsel’s failure to raise the constitutional issue at sentencing constituted ineffective assistance because conflicting appellate decisions on the statute’s validity made the objection reasonably apparent, and a guilty plea does not waive post-conviction claims like automatic registration requirements. The court declined to address the statute’s constitutionality itself on plain-error grounds and found no prejudice from counsel’s failure to request a shorter registration term, as the statute provides no mechanism for defendants to compel such relief.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Bowman
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020-12-30 · cited 1×
In State v. Bowman, Ted Bowman was cited for violating R.C. 4511.12 after a state trooper stopped him for driving a semitruck in the far-left lane of the Ohio Turnpike, contrary to posted signs restricting trucks to the right two lanes. Following a bench trial, the municipal court found him guilty and imposed a fine; Bowman then sought reconsideration, arguing that the trooper’s red, white, and blue lights made the stop unlawful under R.C. 4513.17 and that he had been selectively prosecuted. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient and not against the manifest weight of the evidence, that the statute on police lights does not bar red lights on marked cruisers, and that Bowman failed to show he was singled out for prosecution in bad faith when more than twenty others had been charged similarly in the same county. The court also ruled the appeal was not moot because the conviction carried collateral consequences in the form of license points.
criminal lawprocedurecivil rights
State v. Moore
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020-12-18 · cited 4×
In State v. Moore, Gerry L. Moore, Sr. was convicted by a jury in Erie County of retaliation, attempted aggravated murder, and conspiracy to commit aggravated murder after he solicited a fellow inmate at Marion Correctional Institution to kill his ex-wife Diane, who resided in Erie County. The trial court sentenced him to 22 years in prison. On appeal, the Sixth District Court of Appeals addressed Moore’s challenge to venue, noting that all of his alleged acts—including the solicitation, discussions, and creation of a map—occurred while he was incarcerated in Marion County. The court held that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that venue properly lay in Erie County, as the intended location of the completed crime alone does not establish where the charged offenses took place. As a result, the convictions were vacated and the judgment reversed.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Masin
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020-12-18 · cited 3×
In State v. Masin, John D. Masin appealed the Vermilion Municipal Court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a traffic stop that led to his OVI conviction. On May 5, 2019, an officer stopped Masin after observing his vehicle drift over lane lines at least three times on Liberty Avenue around 2:30 a.m., resulting in charges for marked lanes violations and operating a vehicle under the influence. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing, and Masin entered a no-contest plea to the OVI charge. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the repeated lane violations supplied reasonable suspicion for the stop under the Fourth Amendment and that the officer’s additional observations—such as the odor of alcohol and Masin’s admissions—established probable cause for arrest independent of any field sobriety test results. The court found any potential error regarding those tests harmless.
criminal lawprocedure