Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Guilty plea reversed in Butler County (2 28 12)

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals for Butler County reversed a plea because the trial judge did not inform the defendant of the constitutional right “to compulsory process to obtain witnesses.”  The Court of Appeals said “the record confirms the trial court wholly failed to orally explain appellant’s constitutional privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.  Where the colloquy is silent, neither the trial court nor the prosecution may rely on other sources, such as the written plea agreement, to convey this right.”  State v. Birch, 2012-Ohio-543.

Contact me if you need an Ohio Criminal Appeal Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form. Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

“making unreasonable noise” not unconstitutionally vague (2 23 12)

You may be found guilty of disorderly conduct in violation of R.C. 2917.11(A)(2) if you are “making unreasonable noise.”  A Wayne County resident was making “unreasonable noise” during a Halloween party he hosted in 2009.  He appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals and lost his argument that the disorderly conduct statute is “unconstitutionally vague.”  Jason Carrick argued that he did not know what it meant to make “unreasonable noise.”  So he repeatedly cranked his music up to the point it bothered very distant neighbors.  The case made it all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court who today said that “A person of ordinary intelligence would understand that R.C. 2917.11(A)(2) proscribes playing music at a late hour at such a volume that it keeps the neighbors from sleeping, causes windows to vibrate on a house a quarter mile away, and prompts numerous calls of complaints to authorities.”  State v. Carrick, 2012-Ohio-608.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Photo spread was unduly suggestive (2 17 2012)

The only eyewitness who saw the two men who were trying to steal a catalytic converter from the bottom of a truck described them as bald. They ran from the truck near Alex Road in West Carrolton when the witness shot at them. A West Carrolton police officer created a photo spread or photo array which included an older picture of the man who the cop suspected had the knife in his hand when he came up from under the truck. He placed the old photo of the suspect in the number six position of the photo spread. The witness identified someone else in the photo spread and not the suspect in the sixth position. So the officer went and made a second photo spread. But in this one the Officer placed a newer picture of the suspect in the six position (same position as before). He also removed the person the witness had picked in the first photo spread and made it so the suspect was the only one that was bald – consistent with the witnesses’s original description. The witness picked out the suspect in the six position. This procedure was "inherently suggestive" said the Second District Court of Appeals for Montgomery County. The case was remanded to the trial court. State v. Chaffin, 2012-Ohio-634.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.
 



 

 

Friday, February 3, 2012

Trial judge erred by ruling no prima facie case was made (2 3 2012)

James Russell won his appeal again. This time it was an appeal from a Batson hearing. The last time I appealed Russell’s case, the Second District Court of Appeals ruled that a Batson hearing should have been held as you can read here. On remand the trial judge held a Batson hearing but decided that the defense had not made a prima facie case (the first step in the Batson analysis). Russell appealed from that decision. Today the Second District Court of Appeals for Montgomery County ruled that the trial judge erred in ruling that a prima facie case had not been made. The Appeals Court held that the quantum of proof required for a finding that a defendant has made a prima facie case is minimal and Russell met that burden in this case. State v. Russell, 2012-Ohio-422.

Contact me if you need an Ohio Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.

 



 

 

 
Newer Posts Older Posts Home