|
|
State v. Collins
| 2026-CA-15 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant’s community control sanctions and imposing a prison sentence where appellant admitted that he had violated the terms of his community control. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Greene |
7/31/2026
|
7/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2962 |
|
State v. Marquardt
| 2026-CA-14 | The trial court was not bound by the terms of the plea agreement between appellant and the State, so it did not err by imposing a prison term greater than the one jointly recommended by the parties. Additionally, appellant’s plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the trial court complied with the requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) through (c). Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
7/31/2026
|
7/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2964 |
|
State v. Metcalf
| 2026-CA-33 | The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to inform appellant at sentencing that a post-release control violation could result in more restrictive sanctions, a longer period of supervision, or being sent back to prison even if he completed his prison time. Assuming appellant was aggrieved by the trial court’s omissions and therefore may raise the issue on appeal, the record reveals no prejudice where he seeks a remand to be advised about things not specifically required by statute and about which he admittedly already knows. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
7/31/2026
|
7/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2965 |
|
State v. Coleman
| 30697 | Appellant’s conviction for felonious assault on a peace officer (deadly weapon) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The jury could have reasonably concluded that appellant knowingly attempted to cause physical harm to the officer and that his knife constituted a deadly weapon. Appellant’s argument that his sentence is inconsistent with the overriding purposes of felony sentencing is precluded by State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
7/31/2026
|
7/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2961 |
|
Odell v. Odell
| 30612 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the parties’ parental rights and responsibilities and designating appellee-father as residential parent and sole custodian of his minor child after finding that a change in circumstances had occurred, the modification was necessary to serve the best interest of the child, and the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment was outweighed by the advantages of the change of environment to the child. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
7/31/2026
|
7/31/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2966 |
|