State v. Hamad, 2019 Ohio 924

Defendant Nasser Y. Hamad was convicted and sentenced on two counts of aggravated murder and three counts of attempted aggravated murder in Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas.
Hamad filed a timely appeal from his conviction and sentence.
The State filed a notice of cross-appeal challenging (1) the trial court’s self-defense jury instruction and (2) the trial court’s merger of certain attempted aggravated murder counts for sentencing.
The State did not seek leave from the appellate court under R.C. 2945.67(A) and App.R. 5(C) before filing its cross-appeal.
The opinion addresses the limits on the State’s right to appeal in criminal cases, including the special restrictions on appeals of aggravated murder sentences under R.C. 2953.08(D)(3).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State may pursue a cross-appeal without first moving for leave under R.C. 2945.67 and App.R. 5(C)	The State asserted errors in the trial court’s self-defense instruction and merger rulings via cross-appeal	Hamad maintained the State failed to follow the mandatory leave procedure, depriving the court of jurisdiction	The Court dismissed the State’s cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the State did not seek leave as required
Whether the State may appeal a sentence for aggravated murder as of right under R.C. 2953.08	The State attempted to challenge sentencing-related rulings in its cross-appeal	Hamad argued aggravated murder sentences are excluded from review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(3)	The Court noted R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) bars state appeals of aggravated murder sentences as a matter of right, reinforcing that the State’s available remedies are limited

State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5 (2005) (explaining aggravated murder sentences are not subject to review under R.C. 2953.08)
State v. Wallace, 43 Ohio St.2d 1 (1975) (procedural requirements for State appeals and effect on appellate jurisdiction)