|
|
Talismanic Properties, L.L.C. v. Cedar Grove of Tipp City Homeowner's Assn., Inc.
| 2025-CA-43 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting appellee’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion in which appellee alleged meritorious defenses in its motion and accompanying affidavit. Appellee was not required to submit any evidence at the hearing on its Civ.R. 60(B) motion. Any alleged error the trial court committed by admitting an exhibit into evidence at the hearing over appellant’s hearsay objection was harmless. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Miami |
5/29/2026
|
5/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2004 |
|
Gomm v. Kings Motors Group, L.L.C.
| 30729 | The trial court erred when it determined that statements by appellant’s used-car salesperson about the condition of the vehicle purchased by appellee violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“CSPA”). Considering the unambiguous language of the purchase contract that indicated the vehicle was sold as-is, a reasonable consumer would not have relied on the general representations of the salesperson over the specific language of the contract. Absent a CSPA violation, the issue of whether the trial court properly rendered its damages award is moot. Judgment reversed. | Epley | Montgomery |
5/29/2026
|
5/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2000 |
|
State v. Nation
| 2025-CA-46 | Appellant’s concurrent prison sentences of 48 months for gross sexual imposition and 30 months for attempted corrupting another with drugs are not contrary to law. The trial court considered the purposes and principals of sentencing of R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.12. The prison terms are within the statutory ranges for the offenses, and the trial court was not required to sentence appellant to community control sanctions. Although the State, the victim, defense counsel, and a defense expert all made recommendations for treatment in lieu of prison, the trial court was not bound to follow any sentence recommendation, even from the State or the victim. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Miami |
5/29/2026
|
5/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2003 |
|
BND Rentals, Inc. v. Gayhart
| 30659 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee on its claim for breach of an equipment rental agreement. Appellee’s claim was not an action on account, as asserted by appellant. Appellant’s claimed defenses did not create any genuine dispute of material fact. The trial court also did not err in granting attorney’s fees to appellee upon its post-judgment motion. Appellee properly sought attorney’s fees in its complaint and requested that the fees be determined after summary judgment on its contract claim. The rental contract did not constitute a “contract of indebtedness” as intended by R.C. 1319.02—which would have barred the recovery of attorney’s fees—and appellee was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees as set forth in the rental agreement. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
5/29/2026
|
5/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1998 |
|
Autovest, L.L.C. v. Roach
| 30676 | The trial court erred in granting motion to revive dormant judgment where appellee-creditor’s statement of account did not reflect all payments that appellant-debtor had made, and appellant’s evidence indicated that the loan had been paid in full. Judgment reversed. | Epley | Montgomery |
5/29/2026
|
5/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1997 |
|
In re Adoption of M.K.B.B.
| 30708, 30709 | The trial court reasonably concluded that Mother’s consent to her children’s adoption was not required, because Mother had failed, without justifiable cause, to have more than de minimis contact with her two children and failed to support them in the year preceding the filing of the adoption petitions. Judgments affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
5/29/2026
|
5/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2001 |
|
Worch Lumber, Inc. v. Fetzer
| 2025-CA-23 | The trial court properly dismissed on summary judgment appellant-homeowner’s counterclaims under the Home Construction Service Suppliers Act (“HCSSA”) against appellee-contractor. Appellant contracted with appellee for home remodeling, and at the time of their contract, the HCSSA applied only to contracts for new home construction, not repairs, remodels, or renovations. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Darke |
5/29/2026
|
5/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2006 |
|
State v. Day
| 30678 | Upon appellant’s admission to a violation of community control sanctions, the trial court revoked community control and sentenced appellant to prison. Appellant claims that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to make a statement in mitigation at sentencing. Nothing in the record indicates that appellant’s counsel did not act within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. The failure to present evidence in mitigation is not the proper subject of a direct appeal, because the proof of such omitted evidence necessarily lies outside the record. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
5/29/2026
|
5/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1999 |
|
In re Estate of Kendrick
| 30667 | The probate court abused its discretion by not holding a hearing on appellant’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from the court’s certificates of transfer. Appellant’s motion alleged operative facts that would warrant relief by asserting that he is the decedent’s son and is entitled to a one-third share of the decedent’s real property. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/29/2026
|
5/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2002 |
|
Ward v. Grounds
| 2025-CA-61 | During the hearing on appellant’s motion to terminate or modify spousal support, the trial court did not err in excluding some of appellant’s evidence and dismissing a witness that related to appellee’s alleged cohabitation with an unrelated adult. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to find cohabitation for purposes of terminating spousal support. Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in failing to modify appellant’s support obligation. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
5/29/2026
|
5/29/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2005 |
|
State v. Jovonni
| 30615 | Appellee was indicted under R.C. 2923.16(B) for violating the age-based statutory restriction on the right to carry firearms, applicable to adults 18 to 20 years of age. The trial court did not err in dismissing the charge because R.C. 2923.16(B) is unconstitutional as applied to appellee, an 18-year-old who did not have a concealed handgun license. See State v. Matosky, 2025-Ohio-5658 (2d Dist.). Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
5/22/2026
|
5/22/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1889 |
|
State v. Rutherford
| 2025-CA-21 | The State presented substantial evidence that appellant violated the conditions of his community control sanctions. While appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences because it failed to give adequate notice at his original sentencing that consecutive sentences were a possibility, he failed to provide a transcript of his original sentencing. Therefore, we must presume regularity in the proceedings before the trial court. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Champaign |
5/22/2026
|
5/22/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1895 |
|
State v. Kilgore
| 30660 | State’s appeal. The trial court did not err in failing to impose a sentence within the terms of the parties’ negotiated plea agreement, which it had indicated at the plea hearing that it would impose, after the court determined that the plea had not been entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Although the trial court should not have offered the defendant different sentencing terms to induce her to stand on her plea, rather than withdraw it, the State did not challenge the validity of the plea. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
5/22/2026
|
5/22/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1891 |
|
Dodd v. Preston
| 2025-CA-42 | After a forcible entry and detainer action was determined, appellant filed a motion to seal and/or redact the court records of the proceeding pursuant to Sup.R. 45(E). The trial court overruled appellant’s motion without analysis. A direct appeal is the remedy for a party aggrieved by a trial court’s failure to grant relief under Sup.R. 45(E). A de novo standard of review applies in evaluating a trial court’s decision on relief under Sup.R. 45(E), but when a trial court does not provide any basis for its decision, as in this case, remand is necessary for the trial court to provide its reasoning and enable subsequent appellate review. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Hanseman | Miami |
5/22/2026
|
5/22/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1887 |
|
Kiavi Funding, Inc. v. Native Training Solutions Inc.
| 30689 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee where appellee met the standard for summary judgement required by Civ.R. 56, and appellant failed to satisfy his reciprocal summary judgment burden. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/22/2026
|
5/22/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1890 |
|
Prausa v. Prausa
| 2025-CA-58 | The parties’ divorce decree included a requirement that a military retired pay division order be filed to divide appellant’s military pension. Appellant did not file an appeal from the divorce decree, and the order was filed. Appellant then filed a motion to set aside the military retired pay division order. Because appellant’s concerns with the pension order were manifest when the divorce decree was filed, his objections were barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
5/22/2026
|
5/22/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1894 |
|
State v. Ruhenkamp
| 2025-CA-20 | The trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. The arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion that a red-light violation had occurred, so the evidence of operating a vehicle while under the influence obtained from the improper traffic stop should have been suppressed. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Darke |
5/15/2026
|
5/15/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1791 |
|
State v. Fabian
| 30546 | Appellant’s convictions for arson were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request and pursue an accident jury instruction, which was a matter of trial strategy. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to give an accident instruction when defense counsel invited any alleged error by requesting that the instruction not be given. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/15/2026
|
5/15/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1788 |
|
State v. Logsdon
| 30502, 30507 | Appellant was convicted of vehicular homicide, speeding, and failure to control after striking and killing a pedestrian. Appellant’s convictions were based on sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Bosch crash data retrieval report was not inadmissible hearsay. Admission of the detective’s testimony regarding his calculation of appellant’s estimated speed at impact was not plain error. The evidence at trial did not support a conviction of speeding as a fourth-degree misdemeanor. Judgment in Case No. 2024-CRB-209 affirmed. Judgment in Case No. 2024-TRD-32 affirmed as to failure to control and affirmed as modified as to speeding. | Epley | Montgomery |
5/15/2026
|
5/15/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1789 |
|
State v. Roberts
| 2025-CA-44 | The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the 15-year-old appellant was not amenable to the juvenile justice system and transferring jurisdiction to the adult court. The juvenile court considered and weighed all the required statutory factors in R.C. 2152.12(D) and (E). The juvenile court was not required to follow the recommendation of the guardian ad litem or expert opinion, which were both in favor of appellant remaining in the juvenile system. The juvenile court disagreed with the ultimate conclusions of the GAL and expert witness. The evidence presented to the juvenile court was sufficient and supported the court’s conclusions by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant was not amenable to remaining in the juvenile system. Appellant was 15 years old, had a history with firearms, and was noncompliant with supervised probation for 17 months before the shooting. There was probable cause supporting the charge of attempted aggravated murder. Though the juvenile court determined that appellant was not emotionally or psychologically mature for the transfer to adult court, the factors of R.C. 2152.12(D) favoring transfer outweighed maintaining appellant in the juvenile justice system. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Clark |
5/15/2026
|
5/15/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1790 |
|
State v. Charleston
| 30605, 30606 | In Case No. 2023 CR 3667, the trial court originally imposed a three-year driver’s license suspension for appellant’s failure-to-comply conviction, so the trial court erred in imposing a lifetime driver’s license suspension upon revoking appellant’s community control. The trial court’s judgment is modified by vacating the lifetime suspension and reinstating the originally imposed three-year suspension. Judgment affirmed as modified in Case No. 2023 CR 3667. In Case No. 2024 CR 2183, the penalty for appellant’s second failure-to-comply conviction included a mandatory lifetime driver’s license suspension, which the trial court imposed. Contrary to appellant’s argument, the trial court lacked discretion to impose a shorter suspension term. Judgment affirmed in Case No. 2024 CR 2183. | Tucker | Montgomery |
5/15/2026
|
5/15/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1787 |
|
State v. Cotton
| 30664 | Appellant’s conviction for aggravated menacing is based on sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant claims ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel not calling certain witnesses at trial, but without a record of what their testimony might have been, the issue cannot be considered on direct appeal. Appellant’s judgment entry of conviction incorrectly states that he pleaded guilty, as opposed to stating that he had been found guilty following a bench trial. Judgment affirmed and remanded to the trial court for a nunc pro tunc entry reflecting that appellant was found guilty following a bench trial. | Epley | Montgomery |
5/8/2026
|
5/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1677 |
|
State v. Cantrell
| 2024-CA-68 | Appellant’s conviction for endangering children in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1), a felony of the second degree, is based on sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of evidence. The minor child was repeatedly struck by appellant and other adults in the home with a metal-studded belt, which left horizontal marks, bruises, and open wounds across the child’s lower back. The child described experiencing pain of 10 on a scale of 10 during the whipping. Serious physical harm was established under R.C. 2901.01(A)(4) and (5). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to continue the trial filed approximately 20 days before the trial was scheduled. Appellant did not establish that his case was prejudiced, and a further delay would have caused unnecessary inconvenience. Prior to the request, appellant had been informed that no further continuances would be granted, and witnesses had already been served with subpoenas. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Greene |
5/8/2026
|
5/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1675 |
|
Holland v. Dayton Children's Hosp.
| 30516 | The trial court erred by limiting its own power to control the discovery process. The trial court should have conducted further inquiry to determine whether the peer-review privilege applies to two emails sent by appellant’s employees. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that appellant failed to establish that the two emails are protected by the work-product doctrine. Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/8/2026
|
5/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1678 |
|
State v. Bryant
| 2025-CA-45 | Appellant’s convictions for three counts of felonious assault with a deadly weapon were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court erred by ordering three consecutive prison terms for the firearm specifications attached to appellant’s felonious assault counts because the law authorizes consecutive sentences for only two of the firearm specifications. The trial court, however, did not err by ordering three consecutive prison terms for appellant’s felonious assault convictions. Appellant’s claim that the imposition of maximum, consecutive prison terms was vindictive and meant to punish his exercise of his right to a jury trial lacks merit because the record does not clearly and convincingly establish that the trial court acted with actual vindictiveness in sentencing appellant. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the sole purpose of resentencing appellant on the firearm specifications. | Hanseman | Greene |
5/8/2026
|
5/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1674 |
|
State v. Booker
| 30549 | Appellant’s conviction for violating a protection order obtained by her mother was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where appellant recklessly violated the protection order by traveling in a car with her mother. The trial court erred in excluding appellant’s expected testimony that her mother had purportedly told her that the protection order was no longer in effect, but considering the evidence that appellant had been unequivocally informed that only a court could alter the protection order, the error was harmless. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/8/2026
|
5/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1673 |
|
Clayton v. Luka, Inc.
| 30581 | The trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Seeking to enforce an arbitration provision, appellant not only failed to provide the contractual agreement that he sought to enforce but also later dismissed his arbitration claim without setting forth any other cognizable claim. Appellant moved for relief from the dismissal under Civ.R. 60(B), but because appellant failed to provide a transcript of that proceeding, this court has no way to evaluate whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
5/8/2026
|
5/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1676 |
|
State v. Weeks
| 30651 | Appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor assault offense, and without seeking a stay pending appeal, he voluntarily completed his sentence. Nothing indicates that appellant has experienced any collateral disability due to his conviction, so the pending appeal is moot. Appeal dismissed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
5/8/2026
|
5/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1680 |
|
State v. Jennings
| 2025-CA-60 | The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s motion to vacate his sentence, because the motion relied on merger claims that were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Clark |
5/8/2026
|
5/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1679 |
|
State v. Barker
| 2025-CA-75 | Appellant pleaded guilty to rape (child less than 13 years of age), and he was sentenced accordingly. Approximately three years later, appellant moved to withdraw his plea. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s motion. The record does not reveal any grounds for a finding of manifest injustice that would have supported withdrawal of the guilty plea. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
5/1/2026
|
5/1/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1579 |
|
Laudato v. Teramana
| 30611 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial based on the trial court’s failure to excuse three prospective jurors for cause. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
5/1/2026
|
5/1/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1585 |
|
Henry v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety
| 30604 | The trial court erred in affirming the adjudication order of the Ohio Department of Public Safety that denied appellant’s request for a firearm bearer notation with a revolver designation. Appellant completed the requirements in R.C. 4749.10 and had a firearm bearer notation with a semiautomatic handgun designation. The additional twenty hours of training in Adm.Code 109:2-3-10 required for the revolver designation are unreasonable and conflict with the plain language of R.C. 4749.10. The statute requires only 20 hours of training in “handgun use,” and by statute, both semiautomatic handguns and revolvers are handguns. Judgment reversed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/1/2026
|
5/1/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1581 |
|
In re Z.B.
| 30690 | The trial court’s judgment entry granting appellee, a public children services agency, permanent custody of appellant’s two minor children is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The record contains clear and convincing evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that the statutory best-interest factors support an award of permanent custody to the public children services agency. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
5/1/2026
|
5/1/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1582 |
|
Aboagye v. Peake
| 30627 | Although appellant alleged a meritorious defense in her Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, she did not establish grounds for relief, and her motion was untimely. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
5/1/2026
|
5/1/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1578 |
|
Hendriks v. GNA Canadian Holding Co.
| 30469 | Appellee-cross-appellant, employee, sued for breach of employment contract by appellant-cross-appellee, employer, and employee obtained a favorable jury verdict. The record reveals no grounds for reversing the trial court’s denial of summary judgment for employer. The trial court did not err in declining to admit at trial newly discovered evidence offered by employer. The jury’s verdict is supported by legally sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. The record supports the trial court’s decision to award prejudgment interest and the amount of the award. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
5/1/2026
|
5/1/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1580 |
|
State v. Kintz
| 2025-CA-48 | Appellant’s 36-month sentence for a third-degree felony upon his admission to violating community control sanctions is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. The sentence is within the statutory range for a third-degree felony. The trial court advised appellant at his original sentencing hearing that if he violated community control sanctions, it could impose up to a 36-month prison sentence. Prior to imposing appellant’s sentence, the trial court stated that it had considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Appellant’s sentence is also not contrary to law because he was charged with, but not convicted of, new offenses while on community control sanctions. Appellant did not raise this issue with the trial court. Rather he waived the probable cause and evidentiary hearings associated with his revocation proceedings. Nothing established plain error in the trial court’s judgment, because appellant admitted to other violations of community control sanctions. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Greene |
5/1/2026
|
5/1/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1584 |
|
State v. Shafer
| 2025-CA-38 | The record does not support appellant’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim. The record lacks a transcript of the plea hearing, and appellant’s argument relies entirely on evidence outside the record. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Miami |
5/1/2026
|
5/1/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1586 |
|
Jones v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
| 30662 | Appellant’s reliance on the Civil Rules in this pro se administrative appeal is misplaced. The Appellate Rules, not the Civil Rules, applied to appellant’s appeal in the trial court from a decision by the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission. The decision of the trial court affirming the commission’s determination that appellant was terminated for just cause was not unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
5/1/2026
|
5/1/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1583 |
|
Helton v. Kettering Medical Ctr.
| 30484 | The trial court abused its discretion in granting mental health organization’s untimely motion for leave to amend its answer to add an immunity defense under R.C. 2305.51(B). The immunity offered under R.C. 2305.51(B) is not an affirmative defense because the burden of proof is on the injured patient to establish the elements of a R.C. 2305.51(B) cause of action. Additionally, even if an affirmative defense had been available, the mental health organization was not relieved of its duty to timely raise a defense. The mental health organization waived such amendment by waiting until two weeks before trial to amend its answer, after more than fifteen months of litigation had elapsed. The mental health organization offered no explanation regarding the undue delay, and allowing an amendment at that stage was prejudicial to appellant-patient. The court also erred in granting mental health organization’s second motion for summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact remained for trial on patient’s claims. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Montgomery |
4/24/2026
|
4/24/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1476 |
|
State v. Petaway
| 30424 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress the victim’s identification of him, which had been accomplished through a photospread. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of appellant’s parole officer, or in admitting evidence of ammunition and extended magazines recovered from appellant’s home and photographs discovered on appellant’s phone. Appellant’s conviction for felonious assault is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. There were not cumulative errors requiring a reversal of appellant’s conviction. Appellant’s sentence under Reagan Tokes Law is neither unconstitutional nor contrary to law. The trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences for two firearm specifications is not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
4/24/2026
|
4/24/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1479 |
|
In re C.P.
| 30705 | The trial court’s judgments granting permanent custody of three of appellant’s children to a public children services agency are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgments affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
4/24/2026
|
4/24/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1477 |
|
State v. Crowder
| 30560 | In this case in which appellant fraudulently obtained title to a home, appellant’s conviction for trespass in a habitation is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The owner of the house and an electrician hired by the owner were present at the house on days when appellant was trespassing in the house. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to merge for purposes of sentencing the appellant’s convictions for forgery and tampering with government records because the offenses involved separate victims. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
4/24/2026
|
4/24/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1474 |
|
Pheasant Ridge Assn., Inc. v. Harper
| 30661 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it entered a default judgment of foreclosure in favor of appellee. The record demonstrates that appellant failed to file an answer or to otherwise challenge appellee’s complaint in the trial court. To the extent appellant seeks to the challenge the complaint on appeal, he cannot raise arguments that he did not raise in the trial court. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
4/24/2026
|
4/24/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1480 |
|
State v. Dillard
| 30634 | Appellant’s claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by allowing him to enter guilty pleas to his offenses, as opposed to no-contest pleas, fails because appellant did not argue, let alone establish, that the State would have accepted no-contest pleas on the same terms for which it accepted appellant’s guilty pleas. Additionally, the allegedly deficient advice provided by appellant’s trial counsel is outside of the record and cannot support an ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
4/24/2026
|
4/24/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1475 |
|
State v. Boggs
| 2025-CA-22 | The trial court did not err in imposing a term in a community-based correctional facility as part of appellant’s community control sanctions. Appellant’s belief that her rehabilitation did not require time in a community-based correctional facility is not a permissible basis for finding that her sentence is contrary to law. The trial court was not obligated to obtain a professional assessment before ordering appellant to complete a term in a community-based correctional facility. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Champaign |
4/24/2026
|
4/24/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1472 |
|
State v. Carmichael
| 30618 | The trial court did not err by refusing to instruct appellant’s jury on reasonable parental discipline as an affirmative defense to strangulation and child endangering. The trial court properly overruled appellant’s motion to exclude prior-bad-acts evidence. Appellant’s strangulation and child-endangering convictions are supported by legally sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The record does not support appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
4/24/2026
|
4/24/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1473 |
|
In re P.W.
| 30671 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting legal custody of a minor child to appellee-father. The trial court applied the statutory factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and rendered a soundly reasoned decision. Even though appellant-mother had been the child’s primary caregiver, that consideration alone is not dispositive of the best interest of the child analysis. The evidence indicated that the child had adjusted well to father’s home and visits, bonded with father and his wife, and was involved in the community where father lived. The evidence supported the trial court’s finding that father was more likely to honor and facilitate parenting-time and visitations with mother. While mother had performed well on her case plan objectives, compliance with a case plan is not dispositive or focused on the best interests of the child. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
4/24/2026
|
4/24/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1478 |
|
State ex rel. Ju v. Mayer
| 2026-CA-26 | Relator’s complaint to compel a municipal court magistrate to process her affidavit in accordance with R.C. 2935.09 and 2935.10 fails to state a claim in mandamus. Respondent has no clear legal duty to, among other things, docket and assign a case number to the affidavit, to refer the affidavit to a prosecutor, or to hold a formal probable cause hearing under the Criminal Rules. A court of appeals lacks original jurisdiction to declare the municipal court’s screening procedure for affidavits to be unlawful or to issue a prohibitory injunction to restrain the procedure. Motion to dismiss sustained. Writ denied. | Per Curiam | Greene |
4/23/2026
|
4/24/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1481 |
|
State v. Sawyer
| 2025-CA-37 | Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of rape and other charges after being bound over from the juvenile court. Appellant’s guilty plea waived any challenge to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that appellant was not amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile court and transferred his case to the adult court. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
4/17/2026
|
4/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1398 |
|
K.S. v. J.C.
| 2025-CA-47 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it held that appellant’s objections to a magistrate’s issuance of a domestic violence civil protection order were moot due to the expiration of the protection order during the pendency of the objections before the trial court. Appellant failed to establish any collateral consequences related to the expired protection order. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
4/17/2026
|
4/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1395 |
|