The Supreme Court of Ohio has rejected Soleiman Mobarak's attempt to overturn his conviction for selling "bath salts" in 2012. Mobarak argued that the sale of the substance was not illegal at the time of his arrest. The Court ruled that Mobarak could not seek a writ of mandamus to vacate his criminal conviction and 35-year prison term, noting that a writ cannot serve as a "second appeal."
Mobarak initially won an appeal in 2014 when the Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed his conviction, stating that the sale of bath salts was not criminalized until months after his arrest. However, in 2016, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, declaring such sales illegal at the time. In 2017, the Tenth District affirmed Mobarak's conviction.
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Melody Stewart, and Joseph T. Deters supported today's ruling against Mobarak's writ request.
Justice Michael P. Donnelly expressed concerns about the case in a concurring opinion but agreed with the majority regarding Mobarak's inability to seek relief through a writ.
In 2023, Mobarak challenged the trial court's jurisdiction over his case from 2012 by arguing there was no statute prohibiting bath salt sales at that time. The trial judge requested dismissal based on previous appeals outcomes where Mobarak lost.
The Supreme Court explained that common pleas courts have jurisdiction over all crimes unless another statute indicates otherwise. They found no legal support for Mobarak's claim against trial court jurisdiction.
Justice Donnelly noted that state law must define prohibited acts and penalties for valid jurisdiction in criminal cases like Mobarak’s involving bath salts between March and July 2012 when only controlled substances were criminalized under House Bill 334 effective December later that year.
Donnelly questioned why if analogs were clearly illegal before then did legislators pass H.B..334 afterward? He argued no one should face liability without clear legal prohibition; yet despite this principle being violated according to him - leading directly into serving decades-long sentence unjustly imposed upon himself due solely towards non-criminalized actions undertaken previously within same timeframe cited above by both parties involved herein collectively overall today ultimately thereby effectively finally concluding matter once altogether here now too henceforth moving forward indefinitely evermore so forthwith forevermore ad infinitum et cetera...