Cuyahoga County

Appeals Unit

The Appeals Unit has a vital function in ensuring that criminal convictions are proper and withstand legal scrutiny.  The Unit litigates criminal cases upon appeal and in post-conviction proceedings in state and federal courts, to include conducting Capital litigation. It further supports the trial units by providing information to trial prosecutors regarding issues of law that arise during the trial process, obtains material witness warrants, assists law enforcement agencies in obtaining search warrants in Cuyahoga County on a 24/7 basis, and represents the State of Ohio and victims of crime before the Parole Board.  It further provides legal representation to the Prosecutor, Judges of the courts, and to the Sheriff of Cuyahoga County in writ actions.  




Ohio Supreme Court Hears Argument in Cuyahoga County Case 

On April 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of Ohio heard argument in the case State v. James Tate II.  At trial, James Tate was convicted of gross sexual imposition and public indecency after he persuaded a teenager outside a library to check out a study group he said was meeting nearby. The appeals court ruled that neither the victim nor her friends identified the man in court as the one who spoke with the girl and committed the crimes. Prosecutors from Cuyahoga County maintain that security video from that day, Tate’s statements to police, and his own testimony at trial, showed that the man on trial was the man who the victim and her friends testified about. 

The Ohio Supreme Court’s summary of the argument is available here.
Video of the argument before the Ohio Supreme Court is available here.
A preview of the case from Cleveland.com is available here.

Recent Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office Arguments before the Ohio Supreme Court

A list of the most recent cases briefed and argued by the Appeals Unit of the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office before the Ohio Supreme Court can be found here.

       
State v. Richmond
Case Docket: 2012-2156
   State v. Amos
Case Docket: 2012-2093
  State v. Manocchio
Case Docket: 2013-0095

Issue:  Is it appropriate, without the most exigent circumstances, for an appellate court to disturb a trial court’s sentence of community control sanctions in a felony case when neither party requests a presentence investigation report?

  Issue:  Is a trial court prohibited from sentencing a criminal defendant to community control sanctions without first obtaining and reviewing a presentence investigation report?

Issue:  Does a trial court have the authority to grant limited driving privileges to a person who received a lifetime driver’s license suspension if the person has not met the criteria in R.C. 4510.54, which governs modification or termination of suspensions?