Alice Robie Resnick

This case is an appeal from a Wood County conviction for third-degree felony cocaine trafficking, where the defendant received a three-year prison sentence after pleading guilty. The defendant challenged the sentence as exceeding the statutory minimum without adequate record findings and as contrary to law under Blakely v. Washington and related Ohio precedent. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court's on-record findings about offense seriousness, organized activity, and public protection satisfied R.C. 2929.14(B), that Blakely does not apply to Ohio's greater-than-minimum sentencing scheme, and that the sentence was not improperly based on uncharged conduct.

criminal law

In State v. McDonald, the appellant challenged the 2003 dismissal of his postconviction relief petition under R.C. 2953.21 and the denial of his motion for a new trial following his 1994 convictions for aggravated murder and related charges arising from a drive-by shooting. The trial court granted summary judgment to the state, ruling the petition untimely under the 180-day filing deadline added by 1995 amendments and also barred by res judicata, while rejecting constitutional challenges to the statute's retroactive application and denying the new trial motion for lack of newly discovered evidence meeting the required standards. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the current version of R.C. 2953.21 applied without violating retroactivity or due process protections, that the appellant failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering evidence or that it would likely change the outcome, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. The decision rested on established precedent regarding statutes of limitations for postconviction claims and the criteria for new trials based on impeaching or newly discovered evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved whether Ohio's saving statute (R.C. 2305.19), which permits refiling of an action dismissed without prejudice within one year if the original filing period has expired, applies to will-contest actions subject to a four-month limitations period under former R.C. 2107.76. Plaintiff Patsy Allen filed a will-contest action in probate court regarding a decedent's will, voluntarily dismissed it, and refiled the next day; the trial court dismissed the refiled action on the ground that the saving statute does not apply to will contests. The court of appeals reversed that dismissal. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding that R.C. 2305.19 applies to will-contest actions because the saving statute's broad language covers actions that fail otherwise than on the merits, without exception for statutory claims like will contests.

procedure

The case involved a township police officer discharged for violating residency requirements whose union pursued arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement, resulting in a reduced suspension without back pay. The officer then sought to vacate the award in common pleas court under R.C. 2711.10, but the trial and appellate courts dismissed the action for lack of standing. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when an employee's grievance is arbitrated between the employer and union pursuant to a CBA, the employee lacks standing to petition to vacate the award unless the agreement expressly grants the employee an independent right to invoke arbitration. The court reasoned that the relevant CBA provisions required union approval and control over the process, making the union the party to the arbitration rather than the individual employee.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over prejudgment interest on a $29,000 jury verdict awarded to Brian Snow against his insurer Allstate in an uninsured motorist claim arising from two 1995 car accidents. Snow sought interest under R.C. 1343.03(C) accruing from the accident dates, citing the insurer's alleged bad faith in settlement negotiations, but the trial court applied R.C. 1343.03(A) and started interest from the verdict date. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that uninsured motorist claims are contractual under Ohio precedent so subsection (A) governs, that the amount became due upon the court's judgment, and that bad faith is irrelevant under (A); it also presumed the trial court's handling of settlement evidence was proper due to the absence of transcripts.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved defendant Lawrence L. Walls, who was indicted on charges of aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, felonious assault, and robbery. During his jury trial on September 11, 2001, the trial judge declared a mistrial sua sponte after learning of the terrorist attacks, citing concerns that jurors could not focus on the evidence amid national events and uncertainty about courthouse operations; the defendant objected and later moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. A visiting judge denied the motion, a bench trial followed, and Walls was convicted and sentenced to 11 years. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion because manifest necessity supported the mistrial declaration after considering alternatives like continuing the trial. The decision rested on precedents allowing sua sponte mistrials when public justice requires it and the judge is best positioned to assess courtroom circumstances.

criminal lawprocedure