Key Issue on Appeal: Sentencing Under an Unconstitutional Statute
The central issue on appeal is whether an appellant can vacate their sentence via habeas corpus when the statute under which they were sentenced is deemed unconstitutional. It’s important to note that sentencing errors, including those involving unconstitutional sentences, are not considered jurisdictional defects and, therefore, are not remediable through habeas corpus.
In a notable case, the Ohio Supreme Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction to commute Cotten’s death sentence to life imprisonment after the U.S. Supreme Court declared Ohio’s death penalty statute unconstitutional in 1978. Cotten, who was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death in 1976, later filed a habeas corpus petition in 2023, arguing that his life sentence was unconstitutional and illegal.
However, the court maintained that sentencing errors, even those alleged to be unconstitutional, do not constitute jurisdictional defects that can be addressed through habeas corpus. Consequently, the Ohio Supreme Court had the proper authority to commute Cotten’s death sentence during the review of his conviction, leading to the affirmation of the dismissal of Cotten’s habeas corpus petition.
Cotten v. Frederick, 2024-Ohio-3250
Key Issue on Appeal: The Requirement for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Postconviction Relief Petitions
The central issue on appeal is whether the court failed to include findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying the appellant’s petition for postconviction relief. Under Ohio’s postconviction statutes, specifically R.C. 2953.21(H), a court is mandated to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying a timely-filed petition for postconviction relief. See State v. Lavender, 2021-Ohio-4274, ¶ 5 (1st Dist.).
A petition for postconviction relief is deemed timely if it is filed within 365 days of the filing of the transcripts in the petitioner’s direct appeal, as outlined in R.C. 2953.21(A)(2). In this case, the court denied the petition without providing any explanation, which constitutes a procedural error. As a result, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
State v. Dubose, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-240038, 2024-Ohio-3167
Key Issue on Appeal: Number of Felonies Affecting Expungement Eligibility
The primary issue on appeal concerns whether the court was permitted to expunge the appellee’s criminal record based on the number of felonies to which the individual pled guilty. According to Ohio law, an individual is ineligible to expunge or seal their record if they have more than two third-degree felony convictions.
In this case, the appellant—the State—argues that the appellee’s motion for expungement should not have been granted. The facts are as follows: In January 1996, U.T. pled guilty to three drug trafficking charges in violation of R.C. 2925.03, all third-degree felonies, in three separate cases. Twenty-seven years later, in June 2023, U.T. filed an application for expungement of these three convictions pursuant to R.C. 2953.32(B).
Given that the appellee has three felony convictions, the application for expungement should never have been granted. As a result, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded.
State v. U.T., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 113612, 113613, 113614, 2024-Ohio-3197
Key Issue on Appeal: Clerical Error Impacting Sentencing Based on Cocaine Weight
The central issue on appeal is whether the court made a clerical error in sentencing the appellant based on the weight of cocaine discovered. Ohio courts have the authority to correct clerical errors in judgment entries to ensure they accurately reflect the court’s decision. According to Crim.R. 36, clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record, and errors in the record arising from oversight or omission, may be corrected by the court at any time. Clerical errors are defined as mistakes or omissions that are mechanical in nature and apparent on the record, and do not involve legal decisions or judgments.
In a case involving trafficking and possession of cocaine, the trial court mistakenly convicted the appellant of possessing more than 100 grams of cocaine, violating R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(4)(F). However, the jury actually found the appellant guilty of possessing an amount between 50 and 100 grams, a violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(4)(e). The trial court then merged the possession charge with the trafficking charge and sentenced the appellant solely on the trafficking charge.
Here, the appellant was found with 99 grams of cocaine, and the charges were correctly merged. However, the court made a clerical error by sentencing the appellant on a charge that had already been merged. As a result, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for resentencing.
State v. Anderson, 5th Dist. Richland No. 2023 CA 0050, 2024-Ohio-3181
Key Issue on Appeal: Entitlement to a Hearing for Relief from Weapons Disability
The central issue on appeal is whether the appellant was entitled to a hearing on their application for relief from a weapons disability. Under Ohio law, R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) prohibits individuals convicted of certain offenses, such as Gross Sexual Imposition, from acquiring, possessing, or using firearms unless they are legally relieved from this disability.
R.C. 2923.14(A)(1) allows such individuals to apply to the court of common pleas in their county of residence for relief from this prohibition. The application must include details of the convictions and sentence, along with facts demonstrating that the applicant is “a fit subject for relief” as outlined in R.C. 2923.14(B)(1) and (2).
The trial court has the authority to grant relief under R.C. 2923.14(D)(1)-(3) if, after a hearing, it determines that the applicant has been discharged from imprisonment, has led a law-abiding life since then, is likely to continue doing so, and is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms.
In this case, the trial court erred by denying the appellant’s application for relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Although the appellant requested an oral hearing and provided unsworn statements in the application, they were not given the opportunity to present evidence to support their case. The law clearly states that applicants are entitled to a hearing on such matters and cannot be denied relief without one.
As a result, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a hearing.
In re Crozier, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2024-P-0009, 2024-Ohio-3150