Exclusionary rule not applicable to violation of knock-and-announce statute

So says the Supreme Court in State v. Bembry.

The result may not be surprising, given that the US Supreme Court held similarly in 2006's Hudson v. Michigan, and I personally am convinced that the rationale of Hudson (which was adopted by the Court in Bembry) was correct, but I also am sympathetic to those who might view this as a missed opportunity to provide greater protection to Ohio's citizens through new federalism.

Cert. denied in State v. Brandon Moore

In December I wrote about State v. Brandon Moore, in which the Ohio Supreme Court held that a juvenile sentence for a non-homicide offense that exceeds the defendant's life expectancy violates the Eighth Amendment. It seems that roughly half the states that have confronted this question have found a constitutional violation, and half have not. (There are several other similar cases floating around out there.) One would think that the US Supreme Court will have to weigh in eventually.

But it will not weigh in on Moore. Today the court denied the state's cert. petition.

Four summary reversals and one summary affirmance

Yesterday I noted two cases summarily affirmed on the authority of Aalim II. Today we have a summary reversals in State v. Stevens, State v. Lonero, State v. Schroeder, and State v. Kepler, and a summary affirmance in State v. Moore, all on the authority of State v. Grimes. The Court in Grimes explained the requirements for validly imposing post-release control as part of a sentence.

As with the Aalim II dispositions, these five cases were decided some four months after the decision on which they were based.

Court decides two cases held for Aalim II

Earlier I noted that the Court had accepted some cases and held for the decision on the motion for reconsideration in State v. Aalim. Aalim II was decided in May, and I wrote at the time that I expected the held cases to be affirmed. It took four months, but today the Court affirmed State v. Belton and State v. Lee on the authority of Aalim II.

A milestone

Today marks the first anniversary of the Ohio Appellate Counsel blog. I've written more than 80 posts discussing more than 50 cases. I've spent more time covering the Ohio Supreme Court than I expected to, and less time covering the district courts of appeals than I expected to. Will that shift in Year Two? I hope so; stick with me to find out.

State v. Blair dismissed as moot

Today the court dismissed State v. Blair, which was noted as a newly accepted case in this blog post from May. The issue in Blair related to record-sealing, formerly known as "expungement"; an applicant is not eligible for sealing if she has a "pending criminal matter" at the time of the application. Blair's application was denied because she was on community control for a different offense at the time she applied. The question presented to the Court was whether community control constituted a "pending criminal matter." (The trial court and the First District had held that the answer was yes.) The State moved to dismiss the case as moot, because Blair's community control period was terminated earlier this year, and the Court agreed.

The State preemptively argued that the case was not capable of repetition yet evading review, because while Blair's community control was relatively short (one year), Ohio law authorizes community control period of up to five years, so the issue was bound to be raised eventually in another case. We'll keep our eyes open for that one.

New certified conflicts

I overlooked three new certified conflict cases in last week's case announcements.