|
|
State v. Sims
| 2025-CA-72 | Under the authority of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), appellant’s sentence is not reviewable on appeal because the trial court imposed a jointly-recommended sentence that is authorized by law. In addition, appellant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to have the State pay for an expert to reweigh the drug evidence and by not following through with having the drug evidence reweighed after the trial court granted a trial continuance for that purpose. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Clark |
11/13/2026
|
11/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4504 |
|
State v. Parson
| 2025-CA-30 | Appellant appeals from his convictions of third-degree felony aggravated trafficking in drugs and unlawful possession of dangerous ordnance, a fifth-degree felony, with a one-year firearm specification. Appellant’s trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to file an affidavit of indigency related to appellant’s sentencing. The trial considered appellant’s present and future ability to pay fines, and appellant has failed to establish a reasonable probability that the trial court would have not imposed fines had the affidavit been filed. Appellant’s consecutive prison sentences for unlawful possession of dangerous ordnance and the attached firearm specification are not contrary to law. Upon appellant’s sentencing for the firearm specification, the trial court was obligated to impose a prison sentence for the underlying offense. Appellant’s sentences do not violate the principles of double jeopardy, because a specification is a sentencing enhancement, not a separate offense. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Champaign |
11/13/2026
|
11/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4503 |
|
State v. Karg
| 2026-CA-4 | Appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law. Appellant’s sentence is within the authorized statutory range, and the trial court stated that it had considered the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12. The trial court considered appellant’s allocution in accordance with R.C. 2929.19(A) prior to imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Champaign |
11/13/2026
|
11/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4502 |
|
In re J.H.
| 30897 | The juvenile court’s order granting permanent custody of Mother’s minor children to a public children services agency was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and was supported by clear and convincing evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
11/13/2026
|
11/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4501 |
|
State v. Stone
| 2026-CA-28 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to correct a void judgment because litigation of the issues raised by his motion was barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
11/13/2026
|
11/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4505 |
|