|
|
State v. Jennings
| 2025-CA-26 | The trial court did not completely fail to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b)’s requirement to inform appellant of the effect of his guilty plea. Appellant reviewed his plea form and signed it prior to entering his guilty plea, the plea form advised him of the effect of entering a guilty plea, and appellant has not demonstrated any prejudice. Appellant’s guilty plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The State’s sentencing arguments that relied on the record before the trial court were not improper, and appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
6/5/2026
|
6/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2105 |
|
Robinson v. Robinson
| 30698 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant-father’s motion to modify parenting time and child support and converting appellant’s support arrearages to a judgment. Appellant’s motion was properly dismissed as a discovery sanction because appellant failed to comply with multiple court orders to provide discovery, including a financial disclosure affidavit required by local rules. Appellant’s failure to provide discovery would have prejudiced appellee’s and the trial court’s abilities to examine his claim of changed circumstances at a hearing on his motion. The trial court did not err in converting the unpaid arrearages into a judgment because appellant’s motion to modify support was dismissed and thus not pending at the time of the court’s order. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
6/5/2026
|
6/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2107 |
|
Veritext, L.L.C. v. Newman Law Group, L.L.C.
| 30699 | The trial court did not err by awarding appellee partial summary judgment on its claim of money due on account for court reporting services rendered for the clients of appellant-law-firm. Absent an express agreement or express notice by a lawyer or law firm that its clients are responsible for the payment of litigation services, the lawyer or law firm is liable for the payment of such services. The trial court also correctly concluded that appellee’s claim on account was not barred by the statute of frauds. At the bench trial on damages, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting appellee’s invoices as evidence under the business-records exception to the hearsay rule and by not finding a failure to mitigate damages. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
6/5/2026
|
6/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2108 |
|
State v. Mikhak
| 2025-CA-36 | After having been found not guilty by reason of insanity, appellant was determined to be a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant violated the terms of his conditional release and remanding him to an inpatient setting. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Greene |
6/5/2026
|
6/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2106 |
|
State v. Charleston
| 30566 | The federal firearm restriction attendant to a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction is a collateral consequence that precludes dismissal of a direct appeal from the conviction for mootness. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s motion for new counsel, which was made after appellant’s trial had started. Appellant’s request was untimely, and appellant has failed to establish a conflict resulting in a complete lack of communication between the appellant and defense counsel that rendered defense counsel unable to represent appellant. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
6/5/2026
|
6/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2103 |
|