Each Friday, we highlight decisions of the First District Court of Appeals in the past week. For question about these cases, contact Vanessa Seeger.
Interested in getting these weekly updates sent right to your inbox? Sign up here!
State of Ohio v. Leonard Walker
Quote from Per Curiam Opinion:
Defendant-appellant Leonard Walker appeals the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgment denying the relief sought in his 2019 “Motion for Resentencing.” We affirm the denial of resentencing, but reverse and remand for correction of a clerical error in the judgment of conviction.
Walker was convicted in 1993 of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping. He unsuccessfully challenged his convictions on direct appeal, State v. Walker, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-930461 and C-930465, 1994 WL 416438 (Aug. 10, 1994), appeal not accepted, 73 Ohio St.3d 1434, 653 N.E.2d 393 (1995), and in postconviction motions filed in 2012, 2013, and 2019. See State v. Walker, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140125 (October 24, 2014); State v. Walker, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-130732 (June 4, 2014); State v. Walker, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120549, 2013-Ohio-1967.
State of Ohio v. Casie Tavernia
Case # C190192
Quote from Judgment Entry:
After a bench trial, defendant-appellant Casie Tavernia was convicted on two counts of child endangering, in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A).
In her sole assignment of error, she challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting her convictions. The evidence shows that Tavernia was a passenger in a vehicle along with her children when the driver, her boyfriend, became unconscious due to a heroin overdose. At the time, the vehicle was stopped at a traffic light at a busy intersection. A responding paramedic trained in detecting opioid use noticed that Tavernia showed signs consistent with someone under the influence of heroin because she was “nodding off.” Tavernia admitted to the investigating officer on the scene that both she and her boyfriend had snorted heroin. She qualified her statement by indicating that he had used it in the bathroom and she did not know how much he had used.
State of Ohio v. Eddie Robinson
Quote from Judgment Entry:
Defendant-appellant’s appointed counsel has advised this court that, after a thorough review of the record, she can find nothing that would arguably support appellant’s appeal, and that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); see also Freels v. Hills, 843 F.2d 958 (6th Cir.1988). Counsel, as required by Anders, has communicated this conclusion to appellant, and has offered appellant an opportunity to respond and to raise any issues. Counsel has also moved this court for permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders at 744; see also 1st Dist. Loc.R. 16.2(C)(1) and 16.2(D)(2).