Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Search Truncation Warning:
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-    What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 209 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Burnett 2018-CA-134Appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief was untimely, and he failed to show that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon which his petition relied and that, but for constitutional error at trial, no reasonable fact-finder would have found him guilty. The claims in his petition were also barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed.DonovanClark 6/21/2019 6/21/2019 2019-Ohio-2461
State v. Dover 2018-CA-107; 2018-CA-108The record does not fail to support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings or the length of the sentences imposed for appellant’s offenses. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumClark 6/21/2019 6/21/2019 2019-Ohio-2462
State v. Massie 2018-CA-3; 2018-CA-5The claims of appellant—that the trial court erred by imposing maximum, consecutive sentences and by denying him his right to allocution—are moot because appellant already served his entire jail sentence. Additionally, appellant’s claim that he has been denied the right to a meaningful appeal due to there being no transcript of the trial court proceedings lacks merit because it was appellant’s duty to provide the record on appeal. Furthermore, appellant was not prejudiced by this court’s inability to review a transcript of the proceedings since appellant only challenges his sentence on appeal and any such challenge is moot given that appellant already completed his sentence. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumClark 6/21/2019 6/21/2019 2019-Ohio-2464
In re A.R.-B. 2019-CA-1The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s motion for a change of custody. The trial court reasonably concluded that Father’s decision to remain with the minor child at his residence on a Caribbean island during a hurricane and the condition of the island following the hurricane did not constitute a change of circumstances warranting a change of custody. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMiami 6/21/2019 6/21/2019 2019-Ohio-2463
State v. Mitchell 28280The trial court did not err in granting the State’s motion for no bond under R.C. 2937.222. Ample evidence supported the trial court’s findings that appellant posed a substantial risk of serious physical harm to police officers and the community and that no conditions of release would reasonably assure their safety. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 6/21/2019 6/21/2019 2019-Ohio-2465
State v. Parker 28119An independent review of the record under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) reveals no non-frivolous issues for appeal. There is no potential merit to claims that appellant’s sentences of nine months for a fourth-degree felony following a community control sanction violation and of nine months for third-degree felony escape were contrary to law or clearly and convincingly unsupported by the evidence in the record. The sentences were statutorily required to be served consecutively. R.C. 2929.14(C)(2). There is no support in the record for an argument asserting a denial of due process in the community control sanction revocation. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 6/21/2019 6/21/2019 2019-Ohio-2466
State v. Smith 28083Evidence that defendant “spanked” his girlfriend’s 11-year-old son with a belt over schoolwork, leaving extensive bruising that lasted a few weeks, was sufficient to sustain defendant’s assault conviction. Evidence supported a conclusion that the physical harm inflicted was not consistent with reasonable parental discipline, and the guilty verdict was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. In addition, the defense failed to proffer mother’s excluded testimony about past disciplinary issues with son, and no basis exists to conclude that such testimony would have changed the outcome of defendant’s bench trial. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 6/21/2019 6/21/2019 2019-Ohio-2467
State v. Turner 28128The appellant’s conviction for aggravated drug possession was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The record supports a finding that the appellant “knowingly” possessed a controlled substance where a police officer observed her holding a cigarette pack containing a visible baggie of methamphetamine. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 6/21/2019 6/21/2019 2019-Ohio-2468
State v. Wade 28165Appellant’s appeal, in which counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), fails to establish any arguably meritorious claims, nor do we find any in our independent review of the record. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 6/21/2019 6/21/2019 2019-Ohio-2469
State v. Easterling 2018-CA-33Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of domestic violence and obstructing official business. The State presented sufficient evidence to support those convictions. Defendant did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations, nor does the record indicate that the trial court denied defendant the opportunity to explain his reasons for rejecting a previously offered plea agreement. The trial court did not err in allowing testimony at trial about the deceased victim’s statements to his son as an excited utterance; the admission of those statements also did not violate the Confrontation Clause. The trial court erred in convicting defendant of domestic violence as a third-degree felony; although the parties stipulated that defendant had at least two prior domestic violence offenses, the jury did not make a factual finding as to those prior convictions or as to the degree of the offense. Defendant’s conviction for domestic violence is modified to a first-degree misdemeanor, and his sentence for that offense is modified to the maximum 180 days in jail. Defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in imposing a maximum 36-month sentence is moot. Judgment affirmed in part and affirmed as modified in part, and defendant is ordered to be released from custody as to this matter, subject to any detainers, hold orders, or other orders that would require his continued imprisonment or detention.FroelichGreene 6/20/2019 6/21/2019 2019-Ohio-2470