|
|
State v. Avery
| 2025-CA-51 | Appellant’s conviction for failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B) and (C)(5)(a)(ii) was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant failed to establish that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in closing argument by conceding appellant’s guilt of R.C. 2921.331(B) and arguing the State had not proven the offense’s enhancement under R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(a)(ii). Trial counsel’s defense was a reasonable strategy, and matters of trial strategy may not form the basis of an ineffective-assistance claim. Appellant’s claim that a different trial strategy would have resulted in his acquittal is unfounded. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Clark |
7/10/2026
|
7/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2632 |
|
State v. Coleman
| 2025-CA-47 | Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant’s glove containing his DNA was linked to the crime scene, and the DNA evidence provided the basis of a reasonable inference that he was one of the perpetrators of the crimes for which he was convicted. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
7/10/2026
|
7/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2634 |
|
State v. Barker
| 30482 | Following a trial, appellant was convicted of murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B) (with an attached firearm specification) and having weapons while under disability. Appellant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were not violated because the contested testimony did not implicate the Confrontation Clause. The in-court identification of appellant by two witnesses did not implicate appellant’s due process rights. The trial court committed plain error by allowing the introduction of improper propensity evidence regarding guns that were discovered during a search of appellant’s home but were not connected to the charged offenses. However, given the overwhelming independent evidence of appellant’s guilt, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court did not err by allowing the admission of evidence regarding ammunition of an unusual caliber that was discovered during the search of appellant’s home, because the same caliber ammunition was found at the crime scene. The trial court did not err in admitting video footage of a portion of a witness’s statement at the scene under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. An officer’s testimony that he recognized appellant as a patron of a bar located near the crime scene was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s motion to suppress two witnesses’ pretrial identification testimony. Appellant’s cumulative error assignment of error is without merit. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
7/10/2026
|
7/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2633 |
|
State v. Paddock
| 30640 | The trial court properly denied appellant’s post-conviction motion to vacate his violent offender database enrollment requirement. The trial court erred in concluding that the failure to provide the notifications in R.C. 2903.42(A)(1)(a) was harmless because appellant’s testimony at his co-defendant’s trial precluded him from rebutting the presumption of enrollment. Nevertheless, any claim of error in the trial court’s failure to provide the notifications prior to sentencing is barred by res judicata. Appellant’s additional claims, which are unrelated to his enrollment obligation, either are not properly before us or are also barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
7/10/2026
|
7/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2635 |
|
State v. Sexton
| 30665 | In this case involving a police officer’s detention and arrest of appellant, which occurred outside of the officer’s jurisdiction, the trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motions to suppress and dismiss. Appellant obstructed official business by interfering with the officer’s traffic stop of another person, and when the officer pursued appellant for that offense, he saw appellant commit traffic violations. The officer signaled appellant to stop his vehicle, but appellant failed to comply. There was sufficient evidence to prove appellant’s guilt of obstructing official business and failure to comply with an order of a police officer. The trial court did not mislead the jury in giving a clarifying instruction regarding the officer’s authority to give an order because it was an accurate statement of law. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
7/10/2026
|
7/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2636 |
|