|
|
State v. Portman
| 2025-CA-93 | Appellant’s pandering convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence and were supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court did not err in failing to give limiting instructions regarding knowledge and lack of mistake. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a State’s witness to be recalled in the State’s case-in-chief. Ineffective assistance of counsel is not established, and cruel and unusual punishment is not demonstrated. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
11/6/2026
|
11/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4401 |
|
State v. Sitzes
| 2026-CA-10 | An abuse of discretion is not demonstrated in the denial of appellant’s petition for postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct; appellant failed to present competent evidence outside the record, and his claims are barred by res judicata. Cumulative error is not demonstrated. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
11/6/2026
|
11/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4404 |
|
State v. Davis
| 2025-CA-42 | Appellant’s statutory speedy trial rights were not violated, because the trial clock started anew after appellant’s failure to appear and subsequent arrest, in addition to several tolling events. Appellant failed to raise a constitutional speedy trial argument in the trial court and therefore waived it on appeal. Appellant failed to establish ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to submit documents in support of his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. Appellant did not object to the admission of alleged other-acts evidence or prosecutorial misconduct, and no plain error occurred as a result of the admission of such evidence where it was elicited by defense counsel during cross-examination. No prosecutorial misconduct occurred during closing arguments where the State relied upon evidence admitted at trial without objection. Appellant failed to establish that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the admission of alleged other-acts evidence that defense counsel elicited because it was trial strategy. Any error as to the sufficiency or the weight of the evidence supporting appellant’s strangulation offense is harmless because the offense was merged into the domestic violence offense for which he was convicted. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
11/6/2026
|
11/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4399 |
|
State v. Pulley
| 30749 | The trial court improperly considered the merits of defendant’s potential motion for a new trial when ruling on defendant’s motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Epley | Montgomery |
11/6/2026
|
11/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4402 |
|
State v. McClanahan
| 2026-CA-21 | In an appeal challenging the imposition of consecutive sentences, appellant did not file notices of appeal in the cases in which consecutive sentences were imposed. The sole judgment that appellant attached to his notice of appeal included a seven-month prison sentence in which a consecutive sentence was not ordered. Therefore, appellant’s consecutive sentences are not properly before the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Clark |
11/6/2026
|
11/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4400 |
|