No. 21-6473

Michael Stumph v. Ohio

Lower Court: Ohio
Docketed: 2021-12-02
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Amici (1)Response WaivedIFP
Tags: Appellate-Review Cruel-and-Unusual-Punishment Due-Process eighth-amendment Equal-Protection fourteenth-amendment Procedural-Due-Process sentencing-discretion
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Takings Punishment
Latest Conference: 2022-01-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether Ohio Revised Code § 2953.08(D)(3) violates the Eighth-Amendment

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Ohio Revised Code § 2953.08(D)(3) is the only statute in the nation that expressly prohibits appellate review of non-death sentences for those convicted of aggravated murder and murder. Challenging the Eighth Amendment implications of this prohibition, Justice Sotomayor urged the state of Ohio to “be vigilant” in considering this “important question:” [Olur jurisprudence questions whether it is permissible that [the defendant] must now spend the rest of his days in prison without ever having had the opportunity to challenge why his trial judge chose the irrevocability of life without parole over the hope of freedom after 20, 25, or 30 years. The law, after all, granted the trial judge the discretion to impose these lower sentences. See § 2929.03(A)(1). Campbell v. Ohio, -U.S. --, 188 S.Ct. 1059, 200 L.Ed.2d 502 (2018) (Statement of Sotomayor, J.). The problem in Campbell was that the Ohio state courts had not been afforded an adequate opportunity to address the constitutional challenges to Ohio Revised Code § 2953.08(D)(3), rendering them out of this Court’s reach. Michael Stumph, on the other hand, explicitly preserved these constitutional issues before the Ohio state courts. Despite the fact that Ohio Revised Code § 2953.08(D)(3) is constitutionally repugnant and can readily be severed from the state code, Ohio’s reviewing courts have declined to overturn the provision. The instant case presents this Court with the opportunity to cleave the obsolete law from Ohio’s statutory scheme to achieve jurisprudential equilibrium with the remainder of the nation. The questions presented are as follows: i Whether Ohio Revised Code § 2953.08(D)(3) violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution? Whether Ohio Revised Code § 2953.08(D)(3) violates the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution? Whether Ohio Revised Code § 2953.08(D)(3) violates the substantive due process implications of the Due Process Clauses under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution? Whether Ohio Revised Code § 2953.08(D)(3) violates the procedural due process safeguards of the Due Process Clauses under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution? il

Docket Entries

2022-01-10
Petition DENIED.
2022-01-03
Brief amici curiae of Ohio Public Defender, et al. filed.
2021-12-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
2021-12-22
Waiver of right of respondent Ohio to respond filed.
2021-11-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 3, 2022)

Attorneys

Michael Stumph
Krista Marie GieskeLaw Office of the Hamilton County Public Defender, Petitioner
Ohio Public Defender, et al.
Peter GalyardtOffice of the Ohio Public Defender, Amicus
State of Ohio
Philip Richard CummingsHamilton County Prosecutor's Office, Respondent