Latest 3 Cases: McIntyre v. Hooks (Criminal Law), State ex rel. Neguse v. McIntosh (Criminal Law), State v. Taylor (Criminal Law)

Reflections on the Movement in California to Repeal the State’s Ban on Affirmative Action

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar offers three observations on a measure recently approved by the California legislature that would, if approved by the voters, repeal Proposition 209, the voter initiative that has prohibited affirmative action by the state and its subdivisions since its passage in 1996. Amar praises the California legislature for seeking to repeal Prop 209 and for seeking to do so using the proper procedures, and he suggests that if Prop 209 is repealed, legal rationales for the use of race should be based not only on the value of diversity (as they have been for some time now), but also on the need to remedy past wrongs against Black Americans.

Read More

McIntyre v. Hooks

Citation: 2020-Ohio-3529

Opinion Date: July 2, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's request for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Petitioner's allegations did not challenge the jurisdiction of the trial court and were therefore not cognizable in habeas corpus. In 1991, Petitioner was convicted of aggravated burglary and felonious assault. At issue in this case was whether the sentencing statutes in effect in 1991 or the sentencing statutes in effect in 2016 governed Petitioner's sentence. While he was incarcerated, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he was not sentenced for his 1991 convictions until 2016 when the trial court issued a new sentencing entry for the 1991 convictions, and that in 2016 the trial court should have sentenced him under the statutes that were in effect on that date. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Petitioner's claim of sentencing error was not jurisdictional and was not therefore cognizable in habeas corpus.

State ex rel. Neguse v. McIntosh

Citation: 2020-Ohio-3533

Opinion Date: July 2, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's action seeking a writ of prohibition for failure to state a claim, holding that Appellant possessed an adequate remedy at law. In 1989 and 1990 Appellant was convicted for murder, drug abuse, and assault. In 1993, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief from his 1989 convictions. In 1994, Judge Dale A. Crawford of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denied the petition. In 1995, Judge Crawford issued a nunc pro tunc entry restating his denial of postconviction relief. In 2018, Appellant filed his complaint seeking a writ of prohibition to invalidate the 1995 nunc pro tunc order. The court of appeals dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant possessed an adequate remedy at law by appeal in 1994 or in 1995 from the judgments denying his petition for postconviction relief.

State v. Taylor

Citation: 2020-Ohio-3514

Opinion Date: July 2, 2020

Judge: DeWine

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to vacate and/or suspend court costs, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the trial court must consider the defendant's present or future ability to pay court costs in making the discretionary determination of whether to waive, suspend or modify court costs. Defendant was convicted of two counts of murder and ordered to pay court costs. Defendant later moved to vacate and/or suspend the court costs on the grounds that he was indigent. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed as to court costs, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling Defendant's motion without considering his indigence and ability to pay. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a trial court need not consider a defendant's present or future ability to pay when ruling on a motion to vacate, suspend, or modify court costs under Ohio Rev. Code 2947.23(C).