Trial Court Exceeded Its Authority When it Modified Sentences that Had Been Affirmed on Appeal - DUI News - 5/6/2016
/Eleventh District rejects trial court's attempt to manipulate sentencing on remand.
Read MoreNews, updates, resources, stories, and help from an Ohio attorney through a Blog.
Eleventh District rejects trial court's attempt to manipulate sentencing on remand.
Read MoreOhio Supreme Court affirms the OVI Habitual Offender Specification found in the R.C. 2941.1413.
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
The 9th District avoids an evaluation of the constitutionality of the OVI repeat offender specification by holding the trial court erred in granting motions to dismiss, before the defendants were found guilty of or sentenced to the specification.
Read MoreThe First District joins the Second, Third, Eleventh, and Twelfth Districts in rejecting an Eighth District opinion finding the repeat OVI offender specification unconstitutional.
Read MoreThe 11th District holds that the OVI repeat offender specification is Constitutional and the only grounds to challenge prior convictions must be based on a lack of counsel, while the 12th District holds that the speedy trial clock for subsequent OVI charges based on chemical tests does not begin to run at the time of the original OVI charge.
Read MoreThe Second District joins the Third, Eleventh, and Twelfth Districts in rejecting an equal protection challenge to the OVI Repeat Offender Specification statute, while the Eighth District's opinion finding an equal protection challenge is awaiting review with the Ohio Supreme Court.
Read MoreThe 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 MoreThe 1st District overturns a high tier conviction OVI conviction because it had been improperly amended from a low tier charge, the 12th District confirms that OVI and aggravated vehicular homicide charges need not be merged, the 11th District holds that the repeat OVI offender specification does not violated the Constitution, and the 12th District holds that tampering with drugs is not a crime when it is done during an impaired driving/bar fight investigation.
Read MoreThe 8th District reaffirms that the maximum sentence for a third-degree felony OVI without a specification conviction is 3 years while the 5th District holds there is reasonable suspicion to stop a bicyclist who rides in the middle of the road, then rides into an OVI checkpoint, but jumps out of the checkpoint by riding his bicycle over the curb and on to the sidewalk.
Read MoreI am an attorney with Sivinski Law Offices, providing legal representation for labor and employment issues, criminal defense, DUI defense, and family law. I am admitted to practice in the State of Ohio, the United States District Court for the Northern and Southern Districts of Ohio, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
I am also a father ofthree lively children, a member of St. Peter's Catholic church in Huron, and we enjoy all opportunities to get outdoors to cycle, hike, fish, play catch with our redbone coonhound Duke, barbecue, and to explore my enjoyment of photography.
by Brian J. Smith, Esq
The Law Offices of Brian J. Smith, ltd.
20545 Center Ridge Road, Suite 215, Rocky River, Ohio 44116
800-641-1970
https://www.BrianSmithLaw.com
Criminal Defense - DUI Defense - Unemployment Appeals - Union Labor Law
Unemployment Appeals and Union Labor Law service areas include the State of Ohio.
Criminal and OVI services areas include: Cuyahoga, Erie, Huron, Ottawa, Lorain, Lake, Medina, Sandusky and Geauga Counties
Disclaimer / Privacy Policy
© Brian J. Smith, all rights reserved.