Ohio Law

News and Announcements from the Supreme Court of Ohio and Other Governmental Entities Within the Buckeye State.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

6/22/2006 - Supreme Court of Ohio Case Announcements

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2003-2036. State v. Barton.
Warren App. No. 03CR20526. This cause came on for further consideration of
appellant's motion to schedule a competency evaluation to determine whether the
defendant is competent to waive further appeals and his request for a stay of
execution so that the competency evaluation can be completed. Upon
consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause is remanded to the Court of
Common Pleas of Warren County for the following limited purpose:
The court of common pleas is directed to promptly hold an evidentiary
hearing to determine whether the defendant's competency to waive further appeals
should be psychiatrically evaluated. The court shall further determine whether
such decision was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. The trial court
should consider any matters reflecting on the defendant's competency submitted by
the defense counsel or the state.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that, as soon as the court of
common pleas has conducted this evidentiary hearing and made the appropriate
findings of fact, the court of common pleas should announce its ruling. Should the
trial court rule that a competency evaluation ought to be conducted, R.C. 2945.371,
Section (B) should be followed for appointing an examiner to conduct the
evaluation; Section (F) should be followed in directing the examiner to consider
"all relevant evidence" in completing the evaluation; and Section (G) should be
followed for the format and timeframe for the completion of the examiner's report.
Any examiner appointed by the trial court should apply the test set forth in State v.
Berry (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1504, 659 N.E.2d 796, in conducting the psychiatric
evaluation. At all times during this limited remand, this court shall retain
jurisdiction of this cause.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appellant's motion for a stay of
execution is denied.
O'Donnell, J., would deny the motion to schedule a competency evaluation.

2004-0892. Fostoria v. Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn.
Seneca App. No. 13-03-26, 2004-Ohio-1945. This cause came on for further
consideration of appellee's response to this court's March 29, 2006, show cause
order. Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the appellee, the City of Fostoria, is
hereby found in contempt of this court for failing to fully comply with this court's
September 14, 2005, judgment entry and opinion and November 23, 2005, entry on
reconsideration.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee may purge itself of contempt by
making payment to each employee affected by this court's prior decisions in this
case within thirty days of the date of this order. Failure to comply will result in the
imposition of additional sanctions.

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2005-1106. Campbell v. TES Franchising, LLC.
Butler App. No. CA2004-06-151, 2005-Ohio-2271. This cause is pending before
the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Butler County. Upon
consideration of appellant's application for dismissal,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal is granted.
Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.

2005-1357. Campbell v. TES Franchising, LLC.
Butler App. No. CA2004-06-151, 2005-Ohio-2271. This cause is pending before
the court on the certification of a conflict by the Court of Appeals for Butler
County. Upon consideration of appellant's application for dismissal,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal is granted.
Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.

2006-0989. State ex rel. Brown v. Bernard.
In Mandamus and Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a
complaint for a writ of mandamus and prohibition. Upon consideration of relator's
application for dismissal,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal is granted.
Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.

MEDIATION REFERRALS

The following cases have been returned to the regular docket pursuant to
S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(6)(E):

2006-0168. State ex rel. Carr v. Akron.
In Mandamus.

2006-0778. State ex rel. Roddy v. Indus. Comm.
Franklin App. No. 04AP-930, 2006-Ohio-1185.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

This list is being published pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I(15). The following persons
have applied to take the July 2006 Ohio Bar Examination:
Click here for the list (starts on page 3).

Later


1 Comments:

  • At 2:00 PM, Blogger johnathan e said…

    I just have a question for you. If someone is wronged by a family member who lives in say canton, but she resides in willoughby where would a court case be heard if the willoughby person, the one whom was wronged, took the other to court to recoup losses? Would it be heard in canton since that is where the theft took place or lake county because that is where the vicitm is? Thanks. johnathan

     

Post a Comment

<< Home