| Case No. | Case Caption | Case Status | Date
Accepted | Case Issue |
|
2020-0020
|
State of Ohio
v.
Thomas A. Kemp
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
2/18/2020
| Proposition of Law No. II: -
A trial court exceeds its authority in sentencing a defendant to a minimum term of 20 year(s) and a maximum term of Life when statute mandates a sentence of Life imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving twenty years of imprisonment. |
|
2019-1786
|
Karvo Paving Co.
v.
Joseph W. Testa [Jeffrey A. McClain], Tax Commissioner of Ohio
|
OPEN
|
2/12/2020
| Whether the term 'taxpayer' as used in [R.C.] 5717.04 is limited in meaning to 'any person required to return any property for taxation.' |
|
2019-1714
|
In re: P.B.
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
2/18/2020
| Proposition of Law III:
A child-suspect must be provided Miranda warnings when that child is interrogated by a social worker who is exercising her statutory duty to investigate child abuse allegations and does so cooperatively with the police on a regular and institutional basis. [See In re M.H., Ohio S.Ct. Case No. 2019-0621, appeal accepted on Proposition of Law II; see announcement as 2019-Ohio-2180.] |
|
2019-1700
|
State of Ohio
v.
Christian Carlisle
|
OPEN
|
2/12/2020
| Does R.C. 2909.15(D)(2)(b) unconstitutionally violate the doctrine of separation of powers? |
|
2019-1692
|
State of Ohio
v.
Marcel D. Shazier
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
2/18/2020
| Proposition of Law:
A juvenile adjudication may not serve as the basis for an adult conviction for failure to notify the sheriff of a change of address. Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
A. No reasonable jury could find Marcel guilty of failing to notify the sheriff of his address change.
Children must be treated differently than adults.
B. This Court’s decisions in Bode and Hand require that juvenile adjudications cannot satisfy elements of an offense committed as an adult. |
|
2019-1674
|
State of Ohio
v.
Ryan Turner
|
OPEN
|
1/22/2020
| “Does an officer have reasonable and articulable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop of a motor vehicle for a marked lanes violation under R.C. 4511.33(A)(1) when the officer observes the tires of a vehicle driving on, but not across a marked line?” |
|
2019-1646
|
State of Ohio
v.
Carl Adams
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
1/21/2020
| Proposition of Law I:
A trial court must demonstrate on the record that it has determined that the sentence imposed utilizes the minimum sanctions necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing without unnecessarily burdening governmental resources. |
|
2019-1597
|
State of Ohio
v.
Robert J. Parr
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
2/12/2020
| Appellant's First Proposition of Law: The State is precluded from filing a charging document against the parent for violating R.C. 2919.21(A)(2) or R.C. 2919.21(B) after the parent's obligation to pay child support has ended (Art. I, Sec. 1, 10, and 16, Ohio Const.: Amend. V and XIV, U.S. Const.; State v. Pittman, 150 Ohio St.3d 113, 2016-Ohio-8314, 79 N.E.3d 531; State v. Hubbard, 11th Dist. No. 2017-P-0042, 2018-Ohio-3627). |
|
2019-1597
|
State of Ohio
v.
Robert J. Parr
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
2/12/2020
| Appellant's Second Proposition of Law: Because the General Assembly designated R.C. 2705.031(E) as the exclusive means of charging and punishing a parent for his failure to remit arrearages after the support obligation has ended it is improper for the State to resort instead to R.C. 2919.21 to enforce the arrearage order (Art. I, Sec.1, 10, and 16, Ohio Const.; Amend V and XIV, U.S. Const.; State v. Pittman, supra; State v. Hubbard, supra). |
|
2019-1594
|
State of Ohio
v.
Ely Ray Serna
|
OPEN
(Held)
|
2/4/2020
| Proposition of Law No. I:
A child’s age and age-attendant characteristics are relevant sentencing factors and must be considered before a young person is sentenced to prison.
Age is always relevant when sentencing a young person.
This Court has consistently led the way in recognizing youthful characteristics.
This Court’s guidance is again needed to ensure that age is relevant to all sentencings. |
|