Ohio Supreme Court Settles Habitual OVI Offender Sentencing - DUI Appeals Reports - 4/15/2016

/ Sivinski Law Offices,ltd/

Ohio Supreme Court affirms the OVI Habitual Offender Specification found in the R.C. 2941.1413.

State v. Klembus, 2016 Ohio 1092 (2016).

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2016/2016-Ohio-1092.pdf

March 22, 2016

Klembus was sentenced to one year for a Fourth Degree Felony OVI and one year for the repeat-OVI specification, to be served consecutively.  He appealed, and the Eighth District agreed, holding that the repeat OVI offender specification violated equal protection because OVI penalty and the specification require identical proof yet impose different penalties.  Subsequently, the First, Second, Third, Eleventh, and Twelfth Districts rejected the Eighth District opinion.

The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Eighth District, and in upholding the specification reasoned, "The possibility of longer prison sentences for those who continue to violate Ohio's OVI statute is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in punishing offenders and protecting the public from the dangers of impaired driving."

If you are interested in criminal defense services, or have been charged with an OVI, consider reviewing our DUI Defense Services at http://SivinskiLegal.com

DUI Appeals Reports 3/17/16

/
DUI Appeals Reports 3/17/16

The Sixth District departs from prior holdings, bringing itself in line with other appellate courts, by holding that when a trial court does not follow R.C. 2937.07 by failing to obtain an explanation of the circumstances of an offense when accepting a no contest plea, the defendant should be acquitted rather than having the case simply remanded.

Read More

Unemployment Appeals Reports 3/12/16

/ Sivinski Law Offices, ltd/
Unemployment Appeals Reports 3/12/16

The Second District holds that an employer lacks just cause to terminate an employee for refusing to stop taking prescription morphine, even if he does not ask the doctor for alternative treatments.  Additionally, an employer may not justify reasons for a termination other than those actually used.

Read More

Unemployment Appeals Reports 3/11/16

/ Sivinski Law Offices, ltd/
Unemployment Appeals Reports 3/11/16

The 8th District affirms a denial of unemployment benefits to an employee who stored files, including pornographic files, on his work computer, holding that rules applying to the State Personnel Board of Review do not apply to unemployment benefits.

Read More

DUI Appeals Reports 02/22/16

/ Sivinski Law Offices, ltd/
DUI Appeals Reports 02/22/16

The Eight District holds that R.C. 4510.54 and 4510.021 grant trial courts authority to terminate or modify license suspensions or grant occupational driving privileges, even if convicted of R.C. 2903.06 and 2903.08, with DUI specifications

Read More

Unemployment Appeals Reports 2/8/16

/ Sivinski Law Offices, ltd/
Unemployment Appeals Reports 2/8/16

The Sixth District affirms that fault is an essential component to just cause and explains it, "will not disrupt the hearing officer's decision to accord more weight to claimant's live testimony over the appellant's hearsay evidence."

Read More

Unemployment Appeals Reports 01/15/16

/ Sivinski Law Offices, ltd/
Unemployment Appeals Reports 01/15/16

The Ninth District declines to extend the limited waiver exception to unemployment benefits for union employees when "there is no termination package at issue, where the leave at issue could last indefinitely, and where the leave at issue was not contemplated as part of any collectively bargained agreement in the record."

Read More

DUI Appeals Reports 01/12/16

/
DUI Appeals Reports 01/12/16

The Fourth District holds that admission of a defendant's refusal to take a chemical test at trial does not violate a defendant's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, imposing an administrative license suspension and criminal penalties does not violate Double Jeopardy protections, and disagrees with the 11th District by concluding that courts need not accept defendants' offers to stipulate to prior OVI convictions.

Read More

Unemployment Appeals Reports 01/06/16

/ Sivinski law Offices, ltd/
Unemployment Appeals Reports 01/06/16

The Twelfth District affirms a denial of unemployment benefits due to a resignation without just cause, declining to find a constructive discharge from being placed on the first step of progressive discipline even though the Employer told the employee that it did not think she was going to work out.

Read More

DUI Appeals Reports 01/01/16

/ Sivinski Law Offices, ltd/
DUI Appeals Reports 01/01/16

The Third District holds that a criminal court may not modify a final judgment, including a sentence, nunc pro tunc except when the original sentence was void or it contains a clerical error.

Read More

Unemployment Appeals Reports 12/28/15

/ Sivinski Law Offices, ltd/
Unemployment Appeals Reports 12/28/15

The Ninth District holds that ODJFS need not show intent to prove fraudulent misrepresentation, which can instead be proven by simply showing that (1) a claimant made a false statement, and (2) either knew or should have known that the statement was false.

Read More

DUI Appeals Report 12/17/15

/ Sivinski Law Offices, ltd/
DUI Appeals Report 12/17/15

The 5th District holds that a police officer can detain a driver after an alleged hit and skip even when there is no obvious damage to the vehicles, and a person refuses a urine test when only attempting to provide a sample for 5 minutes without asking to try again; the 10th District rejects a constitutional challenge to the per se marijuana OVI statute; the 5th District concludes there is reasonable suspicion to conduct field sobriety tests when there are driving violations, eyes were bloodshot and glassy, there was an odor of alcohol coming the vehicle and the defendant outside of the vehicle, it was 11:35 p.m. on a Friday evening, and the defendant admitted to just leaving a bar; and the 11th District uses res judicata to reject constitutional challenges to the OVI specification when brought on a motion for post-conviction relief.

Read More