Friday First District Roundup 7-26-21

State of Ohio v. Calesha Harris 
Case # C200281
Quote from Judge Zayas' Opinion:
Calesha Harris appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her motion for jail-time credit for the time she spent incarcerated while her case was pending. For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the cause to the trial court.
Factual Background
On January 23, 2020, Calesha Harris was charged with two counts of burglary and one count of receiving stolen property. She pled guilty to one count of burglary and one count of receiving stolen property, and the second burglary charge was dismissed. Harris was sentenced to three years of community control, which included serving 180 days at the Hamilton County Justice Center on the burglary and 30 days on the receiving stolen property, to be served consecutively for an aggregate term of 210 days’ incarceration.
That sentence was to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed in a prior case numbered B-200083 for a burglary conviction. Harris was given 168 days of jail-time credit in the case numbered B-200083. Harris was not given any jail-time credit in this case. On July 21, 2020, the court filed a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect that Harris was not eligible for jail-time credit.

State of Ohio v. Jacob Miller 
Case #C200275
Quote from Judge Zayas' Opinion:
Jacob Miller appeals from the judgment of the Hamilton County Municipal Court vacating his guilty plea to the amended charge of disorderly conduct. For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the cause to the trial court.
Factual Background
On July 28, 2019, Jacob Miller was charged with assault and entered a plea of not guilty. On December 12, 2019, the city and Miller reached a plea agreement whereby the state amended the charge to disorderly conduct, and Miller entered a guilty plea. The city represented that the victim was in agreement with the reduced charge. The trial court accepted Miller’s plea, orally found him guilty, ordered a victim-impact statement and set the matter for sentencing. Although the court journalized the guilty plea to the amended charge, the entry did not include a finding of guilt.
At the sentencing hearing, the city sought a continuance to discuss restitution with the victim. Before granting the request, the trial court acknowledged that Miller “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered a guilty plea to a charge related to this incident.” The case was continued for sentencing and a victim-impact statement. 

State of Ohio v. Tracie Hunter
Case #C200160
Quote from Judge Crouse's Opinion: Defendant-appellant Tracie Hunter appeals from the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas granting in part and denying in part her motion to mitigate court costs. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court, and remand the cause to the trial court for removal of postsentencing transcript costs from the cost statement and reconsideration of postverdict transcript costs.
I. Facts and Procedure
On January 10, 2014, in the case numbered B-1400110, Hunter was indicted for two counts of tampering with evidence, two counts of forgery, two counts of having an unlawful interest in a public contract, and two counts of theft in office. On January 14, 2014, in the case numbered B-1400199, Hunter was indicted for one charge of misusing credit cards. The cases were consolidated for purposes of trial and the matter was tried before a jury

Lamar Advantage GP Company, LLC, d.b.a. Lamar Advertising of Cincinnati, OH, Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, Ohio, Nicole Lee, Treasurer of the City of Cincinnati, Ohio, Art Dahlberg, Director of the Department of Buildings and Inspections for the City of Cincinnati, Ohio, Reginald Zeno, Finance Director for the City of Cincinnati, Ohio 
Case #C200157
Quote from Judge Winkler's Opinion:
This appeal considers whether a request for a financial sanction against a political subdivision premised upon allegations of frivolous conduct is precluded by the immunity from tort liability established by R.C. Chapter 2744.
We have jurisdiction in this interlocutory appeal to review the propriety of the trial court’s order denying the political subdivision the benefit of an alleged immunity from liability. See R.C. 2744.02(C). Our jurisdiction, however, is limited to determining the immunity issue, including those issues intertwined with that immunity determination. See, e.g., Kurz v. Great Parks of Hamilton Cty., 2016-Ohio-2909, 65 N.E.3d 96 (1st Dist.) (considering whether there was sufficient evidence of a park employee’s negligence in order to determine whether the park district was entitled to immunity). Mindful of this circumstance, we provide only the facts and procedure necessary for the disposition of this appeal.
Background Facts and Procedure
The case involves consolidated lawsuits filed in July 2018 by two advertising companies, plaintiffs-appellees Lamar Advantage GP Company, LLC, d.b.a. Lamar Advertising of Cincinnati, OH, and Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc., (collectively the “advertising companies”). The advertising companies filed complaints against defendants-appellants the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, Nicole Lee, treasurer of the city of Cincinnati, Art Dahlberg, director of the department of buildings and inspections for the city of Cincinnati, and Reginald Zeno, finance director for the city of Cincinnati (collectively “the city”) challenging the same two ordinances affecting outdoor advertising in Cincinnati—Ordinance No. 167-2018 and Ordinance No. 163-2018.

State of Ohio v. Derryck Henson 
Case #C200182
Quote from Judge Hendon's Opinion:
Defendant-appellant Derryck Henson presents on appeal a single assignment of error challenging the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgment denying his Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial. We affirm the court’s judgment.
In 2008, Henson was convicted of murder in the fatal shooting of Richard Muhammad after Muhammad had refused Phillip Harris’s demand that he pay for drugs delivered by Harris to the hotel room of Angel and Darrell Ferguson. When interviewed by the police, Angel Ferguson identified Henson as the shooter. In his interview with the police, Henson admitted to police that he had been in the room when Muhammad was shot and had fled from the premises with Harris, but he insisted that Harris had been the shooter. Because Angel Ferguson feared for her safety, local law enforcement helped her enter a witness-protection program and assisted Darrell Ferguson in avoiding potential problems with his parole. And by agreement of the parties, Angel Ferguson’s testimony was taken at a deposition and presented at the trials of Harris and Henson.
Henson unsuccessfully challenged his murder conviction in a presentence motion for a new trial, on direct appeal, in a 2009 postconviction petition, and in his 2019 motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial. See State v. Henson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-080261 (Aug. 26, 2009), appeal not accepted, 124 Ohio St.3d 1418, 2009-Ohio-6816, 919 N.E.2d 216; State v. Henson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C100526 (Oct. 26, 2011). 

State of Ohio v. James Cheatham 
Case #C200142
Quote from Judge Bock's Opinion:
This appeal involves a defendant’s speedy-trial rights and to whom time is charged when the state violates discovery rules. The trial court dismissed all charges against defendant-appellant James Cheatham because it found that the state had not tried him before the speedy-trial time expired. The state has appealed, asserting that the trial court erroneously dismissed the charges and that it should have entered a nunc pro tunc entry showing that it had granted Cheatham’s motion for a continuance. We overrule both assignments of error.
I. Relevant Facts and Procedural History
Cheatham was arrested in December 2017 on aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and robbery charges. From mid-January 2018 through September 2019, the trial court granted numerous continuances in which Cheatham waived his speedy-trial rights.
Cheatham’s trial was scheduled for September 30, 2019. Ten days before trial, the state provided Cheatham with a report from an expert witness who the state intended to present at trial.
Cheatham moved for a continuance. He argued that the state’s disclosure of the expert’s report was untimely and violated Crim.R. 16(K). Cheatham simultaneously moved for the appointment of an expert to rebut the state’s expert’s testimony involving cell phone towers. The trial court granted the motion for the appointment of an expert. Though the record does not reflect a written entry continuing the trial, it was rescheduled to February 2020.

State of Ohio v. Willie Mimes 
Case #C200122 
Quote from Judge Hendon's Opinion:
Defendant-appellant Willie Mimes appeals the 36-month prison sentence that the trial court imposed after Mimes pleaded guilty to failing to comply with an order or signal of a police officer. We affirm the 36-month prison term. We reverse the portion of the trial court’s judgment imposing costs and fines and remand this cause to the trial court to correct the clerical error in the entry reflecting the imposition of costs and fines.
I. Facts and Procedure
A. Background
On December 10, 2019, Willie Mimes, III, was charged with “failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer” under R.C. 2921.331(B). Mimes had committed a traffic violation and had fled from law enforcement after being signaled to pull over. He then crashed the vehicle into a pole and fled on foot. Mimes was apprehended by law enforcement at his home on that same day, and indicted on a sole count of failure to comply one week later. 

State of Ohio v. Raymond Hammond, Jr. 
Case #C190597 
Quote from Judge Zayas' Opinion:
Defendant-appellant Raymond Hammond, Jr., appeals the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgment denying the relief sought in his “Motion to Vacate and Set-Aside Judgment Due to Void Sentence.” We affirm the court’s judgment as modified to dismiss the motion.
Procedural Posture
In 2008, Hammond was convicted upon jury verdicts finding him guilty of attempted murder and two counts of felonious assault for shooting Alejandro Camacho three times and on one of two counts charging felonious assault for shooting Carlos Morales once. In June 2009, this court decided Hammond’s appeal from those convictions. We reversed the two felonious-assault convictions involving Camacho and remanded for resentencing, upon our determination that those offenses were allied offenses of similar import subject to merger under the multiple-counts statute, R.C. 2941.25. We affirmed Hammond’s attempted-murder conviction, holding that the multiple-counts statute did not mandate merging that offense with either felonious-assault offense. State v. Hammond, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-080394, C-080431 and C-080394 (June 3, 2009).
Pursuant to our mandate, the trial court conducted a resentencing hearing on July 17, 2009. But the trial court did not enter the judgment of conviction until July 22. Meanwhile, on July 17, the trial court entered an entry appointing counsel “for the purpose of prosecuting [an] appeal [from Hammond’s resentencing], and if Counsel deems necessary, to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio.” And on July 20, appointed counsel appealed to the Supreme Court this court’s decision in the direct appeal.