Ohio Mayors’ Courts new online caseload reporting portal

  In Ohio, "mayor's courts" existed by virtue of the law conferring jurisdiction on officials of  municipal corporations to hear and determine prosecutions for violations of municipal ordinances and certain moving traffic violations up until 2002 without population formalities. In that year, however, House Bill 24 “generally imposed such a requirement by specifying that only mayors of certain municipal corporations having a population of more than 100 had jurisdiction to hear and determine such prosecutions.” (Sec. 1905.01.) At about the same time HB 490 (2002) and SB 57 (2003) came along proscribing Sec. 1905.033. (A), in which “mayors of a municipal corporation who conduct a mayor's court shall register annually with the supreme court as provided further in this division…  not later than the fifteenth day of January in any year in which the mayor conducts a mayor's court or at least fifteen days before the mayor first conducts a mayor's court in a particular year, whichever is later…” This past March legislation was passed further “increasing from more than 100 to more than 200 the population necessary for a municipal corporation to have a mayor's court and jurisdiction over certain specified matters.  [HB 606 ]

  The Supreme Court’s news service earlier this week reported that Ohio’s 300-plus mayor’s courts will now be receiving new prompts to comply with their caseload reporting requirements under a new online portal developed by the Ohio Supreme Court when they register their courts by that January 15, 2014 deadline, including a 23 minute video presenting an overview of the registration and quarterly reporting process. [Mayor's Courts Registration & Reporting]

Presentence investigation reports in criminal case before sentencing

 The Ohio Supreme Court’s new service Monday morning made note of the Court’s hearing State of Ohio v. Lashawn Amos and Christopher Richmond v. State of Ohio on Tuesday, both asking whether trial courts must consider a presentence investigation report in a criminal case before sentencing a defendant to community control, with the state noting that the appellate court decided the cases on the same day, but seemingly to have ruled differently on the issue. The state asserted Ohio statute (ORC 2951.03) and Crim Rule 32.1 make pre-sentence reports mandatory before a court can impose a community control sanction.

State of Ohio v. Lashawn Amos case docket
            Memorandum in support of jurisdiction
            Appeals case, State v. Amos, 2012-Ohio-3954 

State of Ohio v. Christopher Richmond case docket
         Memorandum in support of jurisdiction                                   Appeal case, State v. Richmond, 2012-Ohio-3946 

Ohio Veterans’ Health Care System proposed

A bill to create an Ohio Veterans’ Health Care System  was introduced by in the Ohio House yesterday by Representative Lynn Wachtmann “to provide eligible veterans with comprehensive health care services, including health, medical, hospital, dental, and surgical benefits.”

  The program would to provide veterans who are eligible for benefits under Medicaid, to instead be provided  health care insurance through this veterans health care program. When the Ohio veterans health care system becomes operational, veterans receiving health care benefits under the medicaid program will instead  be transferred to and enrolled in the Ohio veterans health care system.

  Principal with the bill -- Sec. 5902.20(C) would provide that “the director of veterans services, in consultation with the superintendent of insurance, the director of administrative services, and the director of job and family services, select the structure of the system from one of the following three options:

 (1) A state subsidized comprehensive health care plan provided by an insurance company authorized to do business in this state;

(2) A state subsidized high deductible health care plan provided by an insurance company authorized to do business in this state, to be provided in conjunction with an obligation for the state to make periodic direct deposits into an individual health savings account, established by the veteran, which qualifies under Section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code; or

      (3) A voucher program that grants subsidies to            eligible veterans for purchasing private health            insurance under the Patient Protection and                Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148,                    124 Stat. 119, through its health insurance                  marketplace exchange to the extent not                      otherwise  subsidized under the Patient                       Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Text of HB 353