11th District Criminal Case Update

Get The Legal Help You Need

11th district criminal case updateThe 11th has given me a break for the past few weeks, with no real criminal cases of note.  This week they give us a few quick ones and a murder.

In State v. Grantz, 2014-Ohio-4127, Grantz appeals pro se both incorrectly and late.  Appeal dismissed.  O’Toole, Grendell, Wright.

State v. Hubbard, 2014-Ohio-4130
Hubbard was charged with Aggravated Murder but found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.  He was committed in 1993.  Time passes, and now he wants to be allowed off the grounds under supervision, with the support of the doctor.  Problem is, he doesn’t believe he’s mentally ill.  The trial court wasn’t comfortable with that and denied his request.  The Court agrees on appeal that the State showed there would still be a danger to the public.  Grendell, Wright.  Cannon concurs with a comment on the burden of proof and the scope of the trial court’s discretion.

State v. Weber, 2014-Ohio-4133
Weber pled to Carrying Concealed Weapons and a few counts of Receiving Stolen Property in 2010.  He got 66 months.  In 2012 he filed for post-conviction relief, claiming his attorney was ineffective.  Problem is, there’s a 6 month deadline to file for post-conviction relief, unless he was “unavoidably prevented from discovery of the facts” or the US Supreme Court has recognized a new right.  Neither of those apply, so Weber’s conviction is affirmed.  Rice, Wright, O’Toole.

State v. Barker, 2014-Ohio-4131
Barker was convicted of Felony Murder, Murder, Felonious Assault, appealed, got a new trial, and was convicted again.  The trial court gave him life with the possibility of parole after 15 years.  A Kent State alcohol-fueled fight leads to the victim getting sucker-punched from behind and falling and hitting his head, after which Barker stomps and “soccer ball kicks” him in the head.  Barker challenges the “show-up” of the defendant – there was a long parade of Kent State students who saw the incident and IDed him at the scene and in court.  The argument is based on a new statute that governs the procedures for suspect line-ups, but that new statute didn’t come out until after this incident – and even if it had been adopted then, it didn’t apply to witnesses IDing him at the scene.  He then argues that the court shouldn’t have allowed pictures of injuries Barker caused by punching other people at the scene.  The Court agrees with him there, but allowing them in was “harmless error” so the conviction stands.  Rice, Cannon, Wright.

Scroll to Top
Call Now
Review