Latest 3 Cases: State ex rel. Martin v. Russo (Criminal Law), State ex rel. Phelps v. McClelland (Criminal Law), State v. Christian (Criminal Law)

Can A City Refuse Land-Use Permits Because it Doesn’t Like the Federal Policies the Property Will be Used to Implement?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar explains why a local government cannot constitutionally create policy discriminating against entities that do business with the feds. Specifically, Amar discusses a situation in which the city of Farland, California, is trying to prevent a privately operated state prison facility located in that city from contracting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Read More

State ex rel. Martin v. Russo

Citation: 2020-Ohio-829

Opinion Date: March 10, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus against two court of common pleas judges, holding that the judges did not have a clear legal duty to provide the relief that Appellant sought. The judges in this case sentenced Appellant after he entered guilty pleas to criminal offenses and ordered him to pay court costs. Appellant filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the judges to vacate their orders imposing court costs and to hold hearings on his ability to pay court costs under Ohio Rev. Code 2947.23. The court of appeals granted the judges' motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not have a clear legal right to receive the relief he sought and failed to establish that he lacked an adequate remedy at law by which to challenge the trial courts' determinations.

State ex rel. Phelps v. McClelland

Citation: 2020-Ohio-831

Opinion Date: March 10, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel a common pleas court judge to enforce the terms of an agreement the county prosecutor had reached with Appellant's wife to secure her testimony against Appellant, holding that the court of appeals did not err. The court of appeals granted the judge's motion for summary judgment, holding that Appellant was not entitled to mandamus relief because he had an adequate remedy at law and because his claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly found that Appellant had a plain and adequate remedy and law and that Appellant's claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

State v. Christian

Citation: 2020-Ohio-828

Opinion Date: March 10, 2020

Judge: Fischer

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court held in this criminal case that the trial court has the ability to resentence de novo a defendant on a specific count after the sentence related to that count has been vacated on direct appeal and the defendant has been confined for the length of the original prison term that had been attached to that count. Defendant was found guilty of five charges. The court of appeals reversed Defendant's conviction on Count Two and modified two other convictions to reflect lower degrees of the offenses. Upon remand from the Supreme Court, the court of appeals reinstated Count Two but reduced the degree level of the offense. On remand, the trial court resentenced Defendant on Count Two, Count Three, and Count Five. The aggregate sentence after the remand was the same as Defendant's original aggregate sentence. The court of appeal reversed, holding that, by the time Defendant was resentenced, she had already served the original prison term on Count Two and therefore count not be resentenced on Count Two even though she had not completed her sentence for Count Five. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court had the authority to resentence Defendant de novo on Count Two.