Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

Reporter of Decisions - Opinions & Announcements

Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:    What is Opinion Text Search?
Search Truncation Warning:
Source:   What is a Source?
Year Decided:   What is Year Decided?
County:   What is County?
Case Number:   What is Case Number?
Author:   What is Author?
Topics and Issues:   What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-   What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 8 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Roberts C-150528APPELLATE REVIEW - JURISDICTION - POSTCONVICTION - POSTRELEASE CONTROL: Defendant's judgment of conviction was not correctable under Crim.R. 36 on the grounds that his sentence was not imposed in conformity with the statutes governing repeat violent offenders, indefinite sentences, jail-time credit, and postrelease control, because those claims alleged errors of law, not fact. Defendant's postconviction motion seeking relief on the grounds that his sentence was not imposed in conformity with the statutes governing repeat violent offenders, indefinite sentences, jail-time credit, and postrelease control was not reviewable by the common pleas court under R.C. 2953.21 et seq. as a postconviction petition, because it did not allege a constitutional violation; under Crim.R. 33 as a motion for a new trial or under Crim.R. 32.1 as a motion to withdraw guilty pleas, because he was convicted following a jury trial and did not seek a new trial; under R.C. Chapter 2731 as a petition for a writ of mandamus, under R.C. Chapter 2721 as a declaratory judgment action, or under R.C. Chapter 2725 as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, because the motion did not satisfy those statutes' procedural requirements; or under Civ.R. 60(B), upon the authority of Crim.R. 57(B), because his conviction was reviewable under the procedures provided for a direct appeal. Defendant's judgment of conviction was not correctable under a court's jurisdiction to correct a void judgment on the grounds that his sentence was not imposed in conformity with the statutes governing repeat violent offenders, indefinite sentences, or jail-time credit; but his sentence was subject to correction as void to the extent that it did not conform with the statutory mandates concerning postrelease control, because the mandatory five-year period imposed was not authorized for the special felony of murder.MockHamilton 3/24/2017 3/24/2017 2017-Ohio-1060
State v. Thompkins C-160384COUNSEL - AGGRAVATED ROBBERY - R.C. 2941.25: Defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel where counsel's cross-examination of a state's witness may have elicited additional evidence of defendant's involvement in the offenses where the witness's testimony on cross-examination was duplicative of his testimony on direct examination. Defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery were not against the weight of the evidence and were supported by sufficient evidence where the evidence showed that defendant acted as a lookout while his codefendants entered a hotel, held a gun to the hotel clerk's head, and stole the clerk's personal cell phone and money from the hotel's cash register. By failing to seek the merger of his convictions for aggravated robbery in the trial court, defendant forfeited for appellate review all but plain error on his claim that the offenses were allied offenses of similar import. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to merge defendant's two convictions for aggravated robbery where defendant and his codefendants robbed a hotel clerk of her personal cell phone and the hotel of cash from its register, because the offenses involved separate victims and were, therefore, offenses of dissimilar import within the meaning of R.C. 2941.25(B).MyersHamilton 3/24/2017 3/24/2017 2017-Ohio-1061
State v. Brice C-160473NONSUPPORT OF DEPENDENTS - COUNSEL - PROCEDURE/RULES - CONTINUANCE - COMMUNITY CONTROL: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for a continuance where defendant had already been granted four continuances, the state had had its witnesses present at the previous trial setting, the trial court had informed defendant that if defendant did not retain private counsel as he claimed trial would proceed at the next setting with appointed counsel, and defendant's claims of hiring a private attorney appeared to be false. Trial counsel was not ineffective where there was no indication in the record that counsel failed to produce key evidence at trial, counsel's decision not to cross-examine a hostile witness could be fairly characterized as trial strategy, and there was no reasonable probability that counsel's failure to object to certain testimony affected the outcome of the trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendant to pay his accumulated child-support arrearage as a condition of community control, because the condition was reasonably related to defendant's rehabilitation as it required him to support his daughter, was related to the crime of nonsupport, and ensured the good behavior of supporting his child.CunninghamHamilton 3/17/2017 3/17/2017 2017-Ohio-974
State v. Jackson C-160306JURISDICTION - R.C. 2945.05 - JURY WAIVER: The trial court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a bench trial on a felony charge where defendant did not execute a jury waiver pursuant to R.C. 2945.05.MockHamilton 3/15/2017 3/15/2017 2017-Ohio-917
State v. Dotson C-160324NO-CONTEST PLEA - PROCEDURE/RULES: The trial court abused its discretion in rejecting defendant's proffered no-contest plea based solely on the court's blanket policy of refusing to accept no-contest pleas.MyersHamilton 3/15/2017 3/15/2017 2017-Ohio-918
Kelly v. Swoish Ft Blue Ash, L.L.C. C-160461APPELLATE REVIEW - CIV.R. 54(B): In an action against multiple defendants, where the trial court's judgment failed to dispose of the claims against all defendants and failed to include the requisite Civ.R. 54(B) certification that there was no just reason for delay, the judgment appealed from is not a final and appealable order, and the court of appeals is without jurisdiction to review it.MyersHamilton 3/10/2017 3/10/2017 2017-Ohio-836
State v. Daniels C-160203R.C. 2941.25 - WAIVER - PLAIN ERROR - SENTENCING: The defendant failed to demonstrate that the trial court committed plain error by failing to merge his convictions for robbery and kidnapping as allied offenses of similar import, because he failed to show based on the record a reasonable probability that he had been convicted of allied offenses of similar import committed with the same conduct and the same animus.CunninghamHamilton 2/17/2017 2/17/2017 2017-Ohio-548
State v. Walsh C-160268AUTOS/CRIMINAL - PLEAS - TRAF.R. 10: DEFENDANT'S PLEA OF NO-CONTEST TO A MARKED-LANES VIOLATION MUST BE VACATED WHERE THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH TRAF.R. 10(D) BY ACCEPTING DEFENDANT'S PLEA WITHOUT FIRST INFORMING DEFENDANT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA PURSUANT TO TRAF.R. 10(B).MockHamilton 2/17/2017 2/17/2017 2017-Ohio-549