Fifth District Summary for the Week of 11/22/2011

Brian Jones LLC logo

State v. Holland: Here we have a small victory for Mr. Holland. He was convicted of two manufacturing of drug-related charges. However, the trial court imposed, as part of his seven-year sentence, that he not be considered or released on transitional control. In this short opinion, the Court agreed, citing their recent holding in
State v. Spears.

State v. Kemery: Let this case be a reminder to pissed off husbands who are no longer permitted to contact their wife or soon to be ex-wife due to a civil protection order (“CPO”). Mr. Kemery was found to have violated his CPO because he invited his ex-in-laws to forward an email in which he made several disparaging remarks about their daughter. Because he intended for his ex-wife to receive the harmful remarks he was in violation. While even the trial court noted this was a technical violation, it is still a violation of the CPO. I’m sure Mr. Kemery spent three days in jail brooding about the pitfalls of modern communication.

State v. Fields: It should come as no surprise that the newly enacted H.B. No. 86, which modified many crime’s sentences when it took effect on September 30, 2011, that it would not be applied retroactively. The Court even points out that the legislators who wrote the bill explicitly said that they did not want the Bill to be applied retroactively. Thus, since appellant was sentenced on November 9, 2009, the new provisions regarding crack and powder cocaine do not apply to him.

Related Posts
  • Money Laundering Defense: Understanding Your Legal Options Read More
  • Aggravating vs. Mitigating Factors Read More
  • Can I Go to Jail for Using My Cell Phone While Driving? What Are The New Criminal Justice Laws in Ohio in 2023? Read More

Contact Us Today

We're In Your Corner, and We're Ready to Fight for You