Here at the Huey Defense Firm, we also handle certain appeals on novel or unique issues of law. Although the Huey Defense Firm is not a dedicated appellate firm, our attorneys have such a deep knowledge and understanding of the law, which can prove invaluable in handling appeals on legal issues. In fact, Attorney Huey has successfully argued in front of the Ohio Supreme Court several times on unique issues of law. In addition, Attorney Katter also has had appellate success, winning a major case on the right of police to search a vehicle during an OVI arrest. Contact us today for more information about our statewide appellate practice.

What is an Appeal?

First, it is helpful to understand the difference between a trial and an appeal. An appeal is completely different from a trial and has different rules and procedures that apply. A trial is the procedure that is used to determine the facts of what happened, and whether a person is guilty or not guilty of committing an offense.

Appeals, however, are only concerned with whether the trial court correctly followed and applied the law to the case. That means that appellate courts do not generally wade in to factual disputes. They are really just focused on the law, and how the law applies to this situation.

For more information about how appellate courts work, please click here.

Because legal issues are front and center during an appeal, our lawyer’s deep knowledge and understanding of legal principles helps make the Huey Defense Firm so successful at the appeals it handles.

To put it simply, appeals are difficulty for most lawyer’s to successfully handle. The rules of procedure are vastly different from a trial, and there are complex procedural hurtles to circumvent just to get the Appellate Court to focus on the legal arguments. Here at the Huey Defense Firm, we have the specialized knowledge needed to handle these complex issues.

What sort of issues can I appeal?

Not every issue can be the grounds for an appeal. For example, just because you might disagree with the judge or jury’s verdict, or the judge’s sentence, are not grounds for appeal. Rather, there must be a legal issue which was wrongly decided and could have impacted the ultimate verdict. Examples of these sort of legal errors are:

  • Constitutional Violations
  • Improperly admitted evidence
  • Incorrect Jury Instructions
  • Applying the wrong legal standard to an issue
  • Misapplying a statute or rule
  • Allowing improper testimony at trial

In order to establish an appellate issue, a transcript of the proceeding will have to be provided and reviewed for any possible error.

In addition, there are strict time limits for appealing – generally only within 30 days of the time of sentencing, in criminal cases. If you wish to contact us about an appeal, don’t delay – Time is of the Essence!

Notable Appellate Cases We Have Argued

Below are brief summaries of some of the cases we have argued:

Mr. Huey argued perhaps one of the most important cases regarding breath machines at the Ohio Supreme Court. In Cincinnati v. Ilg, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the State has to turn over certain breath testing records to ensure that the machine was working properly at the time of the test. To quickly summarize, in Cincinnati, the prosecutors were refusing to turn over basic data about the machine, including data relating to repair records, calibration checks, and other tests the machine performed to ensure that the machine was in proper working order. Cincinnati was ordered to produce that information, but they refused. As a result, Mr. Ilg’s breath test case was dismissed, and the Supreme Court affirmed that dismissal.

To see Mr. Huey argue Ilg in front of the Supreme Court, click here.

In State v. Eversole, Attorney Katter got his biggest appellate victory in a case regarding car searches and OVI arrests. In this case, a small town in Northwest Ohio had adopted a policy of automatically searching every vehicle when the driver was arrested for OVI, without any specific reason to do so. The local courts and practitioners all thought such a search was permissible, so Attorney Katter stepped in to handle the appeal. The issue in this case was one of first impression, which means no Court in Ohio had previously ruled on this specific issue. Mr. Katter was able to successfully argue to the Appellate Court that a policy of automatically searching every car after an OVI arrest was unconstitutional. In order to validly search the vehicle, there must be some reasonable suspicion, tied to the vehicle, that the officer can articulate to be able to search.

Related Information: Recent Significant Ohio OVI Cases