State v. Montgomery, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2023 CA 0072, 2024-Ohio-2623
The issue of this appeal is whether a judge must allow a defendant to present their version of the facts during a no contest plea. A no contest plea acknowledges the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint. While a judge can return a not guilty verdict without an explanation, a guilty verdict requires an explanation of the circumstances.
In this case, the defendant pleaded no contest but was not given the opportunity to explain what happened. The judge found the defendant guilty and gave a sentence involving jail time and multiple years of community control. The judge should have either listened to the defendant’s explanation or asked the defendant to change their plea to not guilty. As a result, the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2024/2024-Ohio-2623.pdf
State v. Buckner, 3d Dist. Van Wert No. 15-23-08, 2024-Ohio-2615
The issue of this appeal is whether a menacing conviction can involve an unspecified victim. Menacing is defined as knowingly causing another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to them or their property. Therefore, to prove the fear-of-physical-harm element of menacing, the State must demonstrate that the victim had a genuine belief of imminent physical harm.
In this case, the defendant made threats to officers while speaking to a 911 dispatcher, but the officers outside the house were unaware of these threats. Although the officers testified that the 911 recording sounded threatening, they did not testify that they felt threatened. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and vacated, and the defendant, who served a 30-day sentence, was found to have been wrongly convicted.
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/3/2024/2024-Ohio-2615.pdf
State v. Pajestka, 9th Dist. Medina No. 2023CA0031-M, 2024-Ohio-2593
The issue of this appeal is whether the court can exclude an expert witness from testifying at trial. An expert witness possesses specialized knowledge, skills, experience, training, or education that qualifies them to provide opinions and insights beyond the average person’s understanding. This expertise allows them to testify on complex matters within their field, aiding the judge and jury in making informed decisions. Specific rules govern expert witnesses, including the requirement to notify the opposing party at least 21 days before trial.
In this case, the defendant failed to notify the prosecutor in time, resulting in the exclusion of the expert witness to prevent the defense from being overwhelmed with new evidence. When the trial date was rescheduled to a date three months later, the defendant believed the expert witness should be allowed to testify since the delay would not prejudice the prosecutor. However, the court denied this, maintaining the initial ruling on untimely notice.
The appeals court concluded that this was improper. Given the extended time for the state to review the expert testimony, the expert should have been permitted to testify. The case was remanded and sent back to the lower court for a new trial.
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/3/2024/2024-Ohio-2615.pdf
State v. Gross, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2023-10-092, 2024-Ohio-2598
The issue of this appeal is whether post-release control sentencing can be extended to three years. Post-release control, a type of post-release sanction, is designed to supervise and support individuals who have been released from prison. Its purpose is to ensure compliance with certain conditions, aid in reintegration into society, reduce recidivism, promote public safety, and assist former inmates in becoming law-abiding citizens. For felonies of the third, fourth, and fifth degrees that are not sex offenses or violent crimes, post-release control can last up to two years. It is mandatory for post-release control sanctions to be announced at the sentencing hearing.
In this case, the defendant faced charges that warranted a maximum of two years of post-release control or community control but was erroneously sentenced to three years. Both the state and the defendant acknowledge this mistake. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial court for resentencing.
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/12/2024/2024-Ohio-2598.pdf
State v. St. Thomas, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 23 MA 0103, 2024-Ohio-2568
The issue of this appeal is whether a judge must inform a defendant of the potential for jail time when they choose to waive their right to legal counsel. The term “pro se,” derived from Latin meaning “for oneself” or “on one’s own behalf,” describes a defendant who elects to represent themselves without an attorney. When a defendant opts to proceed pro se, the judge has a duty to inform them of the risks associated with self-representation and to strongly encourage them to seek legal counsel.
In this case, the court failed to inform the Appellant about possible defenses, the range of allowable punishments, or any mitigating circumstances related to the charges. While the court stated that the state bore the burden of proving the charges, it did not address the significance of having an attorney or warn against self-representation.
As a result, the case was remanded to the trial court for resentencing, with the directive that no sentence involving confinement could be imposed.
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/7/2024/2024-Ohio-2568.pdf