The First District held that imposing consecutive sentences on two firearm specifications was erroneous where the underlying felonies arose from the same act or transaction, but found no plain error because the defendant received an agreed sentence and failed to object below.
The Fifth District reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that aggravated vehicular assault (OVI-based) and vehicular assault (recklessness-based) are allied offenses of similar import that must merge under R.C. 2941.25 when committed against the same victim.
The Seventh District affirmed an attempted murder conviction and 14-year sentence, finding no plain error in the admission of a victim’s video-taped statement, commercial trucking company videos, and electronic log data.
The Fifth District affirmed the conviction and sentence of a 19-year-old DYS inmate for felonious assault committed within a juvenile correctional facility, rejecting the argument that the case should have originated in or been remanded to juvenile court.
The Tenth District affirmed the constitutionality of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) as applied to a defendant whose prior juvenile adjudication for felonious assault served as the predicate disability, finding historical support under the Bruen framework.
The Tenth District affirmed the denial of a postconviction petition without a hearing where the petitioner failed to produce substantive evidence demonstrating that Blink home security camera recordings existed or were withheld by the state.
The Fifth District affirmed convictions for obstructing official business and assaulting a police dog where the defendant fled from deputies serving warrants, hid from a K-9 search, and kicked the dog when it found him.
The Fifth District affirmed the juvenile court’s decision to transfer jurisdiction of a 16-year-old charged with aggravated robbery and felonious assault to adult court, finding the amenability determination was supported by competent, credible evidence.
In a landmark ruling, the California Supreme Court reversed a death sentence under the Racial Justice Act, holding that the prosecutor’s comparison of a Black defendant to a Bengal tiger constituted racially discriminatory language.
The California Supreme Court reversed Pan’s death sentence after his defense attorney conceded guilt in closing argument against Pan’s express wishes, applying McCoy v. Louisiana. Co-defendant Chhuon’s judgment was largely affirmed.