|
|
In re S.R.
| 2025-CA-20 | The trial court did not err by considering the guardian ad litem’s reports and testimony when making its legal custody determination. The trial court’s finding that appellant-father is an unsuitable custodian is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that it was in the best interest of appellant’s son to grant legal custody of the child to Maternal Grandfather and his wife. The invited error doctrine precludes appellant’s claim that the trial court improperly engaged in an extrajudicial investigation for court documents and should not have admitted those records into evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Champaign |
6/26/2026
|
6/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2427 |
|
State v. Nye
| 2025-CA-25 | Appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law. The trial court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12. The trial court did not base appellant’s sentence on an uncharged offense. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Champaign |
6/26/2026
|
6/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2429 |
|
State v. Boyer
| 2025-CA-69 | After reaching a plea agreement resolving multiple felony cases, appellant pleaded guilty to four counts in three cases and was sentenced on each offense as agreed by the parties. Appellant’s sentences are not contrary to law. The offenses of discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises in violation of R.C. 2923.162(A)(3) and felonious assault are not allied offenses of similar import, even though the violation of R.C. 2923.162(A)(3) was elevated to a first-degree felony because the violation caused serious harm to a person. The record does not support appellant’s contention that the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 at sentencing. Judgments affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
6/26/2026
|
6/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2425 |
|
State v. Doucette
| 2025-CA-67 | The trial court’s imposition of a maximum prison sentence and a 25-year driver’s license suspension for appellant’s conviction of third-degree felony failure to comply is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. The prison sentence and license suspension are within the authorized statutory ranges, and the trial court stated that it had considered the purposes and principles of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the factors in R.C. 2929.12. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
6/26/2026
|
6/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2426 |
|
State v. Meriwether
| 2025-CA-53 | Appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his guilty plea. The trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C), and nothing indicates that when appellant entered his plea, he was confused about the plea’s effect on his right to appeal the court’s pretrial rulings. Appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel by entering a guilty plea rather than a no-contest plea. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
6/26/2026
|
6/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2428 |
|