The Chief Justice and Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court will hear arguments in eight cases June 4 and 5.

The Chief Justice and Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court will hear arguments in eight cases June 4 and 5.

In State v. Maxwell, one of eight cases scheduled for argument before the  Supreme Court of Ohio on June 4 and 5,  the justices will consider the death penalty appeal of Charles Maxwell of Cleveland for the 2005 shooting death of his former domestic partner, Nichole McCorkle. 

The court’s Office of Public Information today released summaries of all eight cases.

In  Maxwell,  to be argued at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, June 5, the defendant alleges that his attorneys did not provide him with effective representation during the penalty phase of his trial because they failed to emphasize to the jury the results of  a pretrial competency examination  in which a court-appointed expert found that Maxwell’s IQ test scores placed him in the “borderline range” for mental retardation.  Maxwell argues that, in light of U.S. Supreme Court decisions holding that the execution of retarded persons is unconstitutional, proper emphasis on  his low IQ scores would have strongly inclined jurors to vote against imposing the death penalty.

Among other claims of error during his trial, Maxwell also argues that the state’s evidence was not sufficient to prove the death penalty specification that he went to McCorkle’s home on the night of the crime with the prior intent to kill her in retaliation for her testimony against him before a grand jury.  He asserts that the testimony of witnesses supported his claim that he acted in a fit of jealously after watching McCorkle return from a date with another man and kiss him goodnight.

The four cases to be argued on Tuesday, June 4 include:

• Crown Communication v. Testa, in which a company that owns  wireless communication towers across the state argues that the State Board of Tax Appeals should not have rejected its challenge to  the state tax commissioner’s valuation of its property as untimely because the commissioner provided the company with incorrect instructions on how and with whom its appeal must be filed.
•  In State v. Holdcroft,  a  defendant who was resentenced for an arson conviction to add a term of postrelease control asks the court to vacate the postrelease control sanction because it was not imposed until after he had finished serving the full prison term for his arson conviction.
• Dublin City Schools Bd. of Educ. V. East Bank Condominiums involves a dispute between the owners of a condominium development and a local school board regarding the proper 2008 tax valuation of 21 residential units that were unfinished as of the tax lien date for that year. The property owner argues that the State Board of Tax Appeals acted contrary to law when it rejected a “bulk sale” valuation of the property adopted by the Franklin County Board of Revision (BOR) without requiring the school board to produce any evidence that the BOR’s valuation was unreliable.
• In Cincinnati Bar Association v. Alsfelder, Cincinnati attorney Robert S. Alsfelder Jr. asks the court not to adopt  the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that his law license  be indefinitely suspended for refusing  to comply with a subpoena for his business records, authorize the release of his tax records, and otherwise to cooperate with disciplinary authorities investigating charges of professional misconduct brought against him.

In addition to State v. Maxwell, the other cases to be argued on Wednesday, June 5 include:

• Groveport Madison Schools Bd. of Educ. v. Public Storage Trust, a case in which the owner of a parcel of real property challenges a ruling in which the State Board of Tax Appeals rejected a reduced valuation of that property adopted by the Franklin County Board of Revision (BOR) on the basis that the party identified on the BOR complaint form as the legal owner of the property was not the party identified as the owner on the title certificate.
• In Disciplinary Counsel v. Gonzalez, attorney Vincent F. Gonzalez of Cleveland opposes the recommendation of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances & Discipline that his license be indefinitely suspended for commingling his own and his wife’s personal  funds with funds held for clients in his law office trust account, failing to disburse the full proceeds of a settlement he received on behalf of a client, and effectively abandoning a client on the final day of her divorce trial despite the court’s directive that he continue to represent her.  Gonzalez argues that none of his clients was harmed by or  complained about his lack of precise accounting for funds in his trust account,  and that he was complying with the wishes of his client in the divorce case, who discharged him prior to the final day of her trial to avoid incurring additional legal costs after she concluded that the court had already made up its mind about the outcome.
• In Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association v. Davie and Alpha Legal Services Inc., the court has ordered Michael D. Davie of Shaker Heights to appear in person before the justices. Davie faces a finding of contempt for failure to comply with a September 2012 judgment in which the Supreme Court found that Davie had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and  ordered him to dismiss judgments he had obtained against two former “clients” for failure to pay fees Davie had charged them for his unlicensed legal services.