|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Kittle
| 2-25-02 & 2-25-03 | Felony Sentencing; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Defendant-appellant's prison sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Miller | Auglaize |
10/20/2025
|
10/20/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4793 |
|
In re P.S.
| 6-25-03 & 6-25-04 | Permanent Custody; Reasonable Efforts; Sunset Date. Trial court's determination to grant permanent custody to children's services agency was not against the weight of the evidence. In addition, trial court did not err by determining agency engaged in reasonable efforts to support reunification. | Waldick | Hardin |
10/14/2025
|
10/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4726 |
|
State v. Wyne
| 8-25-05 | Court Costs, Waiver. Trial court did not err by not waiving court costs when no motion was made to do so and the record contains insufficient evidence to grant the waiver sua sponte. | Willamowski | Logan |
10/14/2025
|
10/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4712 |
|
State v. Murphy
| 10-25-05 | Pretrial Delay; Constitutional Right to a Speedy Trial; Withdrawal of Guilty Plea; Criminal Rule 43; and Effectiveness of Counsel. The trial court did not violate Criminal Rule 43 when it required the defendant to appear remotely when no objection was made and no prejudice to the defendant is shown. Trial court did not err in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea when it weighed the factors for granting it and determined that they fell against granting the motion. Constitutional right to a speedy trial was waived by defendant and was fully considered by the trial court. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the speedy trial issue when it was considered and denied by the trial court. | Willamowski | Mercer |
10/14/2025
|
10/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4713 |
|
In re K.B.
| 11-25-05 | Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Breaking and Entering; Vandalism; Identity; Evidence Admissibility; Authentication; Evid.R. 901. The child-appellant’s breaking and entering and vandalism adjudications were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting photographs into evidence because the State properly authenticated the photographs by presenting testimony from a witness with personal knowledge of the scene. | Zimmerman | Paulding |
10/14/2025
|
10/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4714 |
|
In re K.S.
| 11-25-06 | Delinquency; Sufficiency; Manifest Weight. Juvenile adjudications were supported by the evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence. | Waldick | Paulding |
10/14/2025
|
10/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4715 |
|
Williams v. D&J House Doctors, L.L.C.
| 13-25-08 | Summary Judgment; "As Is" Clause; Fraud; Bad Faith Claim. An "as is" clause in a purchase agreement for fraud will not bar a claim of positive fraud against the seller of the property. Unlike a claim for negligence, a buyer must prove that the seller had some knowledge of the defect in question where an "as is" clause is contained in the purchase agreement. R.C. 5302.30 directs sellers to complete a residential property disclosure form. However, this document is not a warranty. Thus, the purchaser has a duty to inspect the premises and is charged with knowledge of the conditions that a reasonable inspection would uncover. | Willamowski | Seneca |
10/14/2025
|
10/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4716 |
|
State v. Light
| 14-25-08 | Plea Withdrawal; Ineffective Counsel. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying presentence motion to withdraw guilty plea. | Waldick | Union |
10/6/2025
|
10/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4628 |
|
State v. Bleam
| 16-25-02 | Guilty Plea to Petty Offense; Crim.R. 11(E). The trial court did not err in fulfilling its obligations for accepting defendant-appellant's guilty plea to the petty offense. | Miller | Wyandot |
10/6/2025
|
10/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4629 |
|
In re X.G.
| 8-24-42 | Permanent Custody; R.C. 2151.414. The trial court’s decision to grant permanent custody of the child to the agency is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Clear and convincing evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time or should not be placed with either parent, and that it was in the child’s best interest that the agency be granted permanent custody. | Zimmerman | Logan |
10/6/2025
|
10/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4627 |
|
State v. Parsons
| 7-25-01 | Motion For Leave For A New Trial; Crim.R. 33; Unavoidably Prevented: Brady v. Maryland. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by partially denying the defendant-appellant’s motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial because the defendant-appellant did not carry his burden of demonstrating a Brady violation. Therefore, the defendant-appellant was not unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence. | Zimmerman | Henry |
10/6/2025
|
10/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4626 |
|
State v. Cobb
| 8-25-03 | Adequacy of Counsel; Duty to Investigate. The trial court did not err in failing to inquire into the adequacy of counsel when the statements made by defendant during the trial regarding counsel's performance contained no specific allegations. Without the specific allegations, the trial court had no duty to investigate the performance. | Willamowski | Logan |
9/29/2025
|
9/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4515 |
|
State v. Soto
| 12-24-06 | Final and Appealable Order; Plea Agreement; Motion to Dismiss Indictment. The trial court's order denying defendant-appellant's motion to enforce his plea agreement and dismiss the criminal case was a final, appealable order. For two independent reasons, the trial court did not err in denying the motion. First, circumstances for applying the principles from Supreme Court of Ohio caselaw on which defendant-appellant's appeal relies are absent from the peculiar facts and scenario presented. Second, defendant-appellant breached the plea agreement, so he is barred from attempting to enforce it against the State to dismiss the current indictment. | Miller | Putnam |
9/29/2025
|
9/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4517 |
|
Kemmler v. Kemmler
| 10-25-06 | Withholding Order; Abuse of Discretion. Under R.C. 3121.441(A), a trial court may permit an obligor to make spousal support payments directly to the obligee if no minor children were born as the result of the marriage. This issue is committed to the discretion of the trial court. Before rendering a decision, a trial court must fully consider the circumstances of a case before issuing a judgment. | Willamowski | Mercer |
9/29/2025
|
9/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4516 |
|
In re B.S.
| 17-24-16, 17-24-18, 17-24-19 | Permanent Custody; Best Interest; Reasonable Efforts; Manifest Weight of the Evidence; In Camera Interview; Kinship Caregiver Act; R.C. 2951.4117; Plain Error. The trial court’s decision granting the Agency permanent custody was supported by clear and convincing evidence. Mother-appellant’s arguments relating to the trial court’s compliance with the Kinship Caregiver Act are untimely. The trial court did not commit reversible error by not appointing an attorney for the children. | Miller | Shelby |
9/29/2025
|
9/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4518 |
|
Morrison v. Dible
| 16-25-01 | Domestic violence civil protection order; R.C. 3113.31; Menacing by stalking; R.C. 2903.211; First Amendment; Freedom of speech. The trial court did not err in granting the petitioner-appellee's petition for a domestic violence civil protection order as the pattern of conduct of the respondent-appellant giving rise to the protection order is not protected by his First Amendment right to free speech. | Waldick | Wyandot |
9/22/2025
|
9/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4415 |
|
State v. Gochenour
| 14-25-07 | Sentencing Factors; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider the application of the sentencing factors. Counsel was not ineffective for not raising all the factors that possibly could have been raised in mitigation when the trial court indicated it had considered those factors. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a letter written to the court by the defendant's mother when there was no indication counsel even knew it existed. | Willamowski | Union |
9/22/2025
|
9/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4414 |
|
State v. Fisher
| 1-24-74 | Sentencing; Bias; Consecutive Sentences. Trial court did not demonstrate bias when statements were viewed in context. Defendant did not demonstrate that sentence was clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Waldick | Allen |
9/22/2025
|
9/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4412 |
|
State v. Tucker
| 3-25-07 | Allied Offenses of Similar Import, Merger. Trial court did not err in declining to merge the convictions when the offenses were committed separately and caused separate harm. | Willamowski | Crawford |
9/22/2025
|
9/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4413 |
|
In re B.S.
| 4-25-03 | Permanent Custody; Facial Constitutionality of a Statute; R.C. 2151.414(C); Waiver; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. By failing to raise her constitutional argument in the trial court, the mother-appellant waived the issue for appeal. Mother-appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise her constitutional claim because she cannot demonstrate prejudice given that courts have consistently rejected similar constitutional challenges to R.C. 2151.414. | Zimmerman | Hancock |
9/15/2025
|
9/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4318 |
|
State v. Treece
| 5-23-42, 5-23-43 | Joinder; Simple and Direct Test; Plain Error. The law generally favors joining multiple criminal offenses together for trial. However, separate trials are to occur if the joinder of the charges would prejudice the defendant. The defendant cannot demonstrate prejudice where the evidence presented at trial satisfies the simple-and-direct test. Under this test, evidence is simple and direct if the jury can readily separate the proof for each offense; the evidence is unlikely to confuse the jurors; the evidence is straightforward; and there is little danger that the jury would improperly consider the evidence of one offense as corroborative of the others. | Willamowski | Hancock |
9/15/2025
|
9/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4319 |
|
In re B.L.
| 5-24-42; 5-24-44; 5-24-45 | Permanent Custody; R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d); Legal Custody; R.C. 2151.353(A); Reasonable Efforts Toward Reunification; R.C. 2151.419. The trial court did not err by awarding permanent custody of the children to the agency. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the grandparents-appellants’ motions for legal custody of the children. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the agency made reasonable efforts toward reunification. | Zimmerman | Hancock |
9/15/2025
|
9/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4320 |
|
Homon v. Curtis
| 14-24-49 | Transcripts; App.R. 9; App.R. 10; R.C. 3109.051(K); Attorney's Fees; Court Costs. Defendant-appellant failed to provide the transcript necessary to resolve several of her assignments of error, so the trial court’s decisions as to those assignments of error are affirmed. Where defendant-appellant requested attorney’s fees and court costs and the trial court found the adverse party in contempt of court, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to award appellant any attorney's fees, but it erred as a matter of law in failing to address the issue of court costs under R.C. 3109.051(K). | Miller | Union |
9/15/2025
|
9/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4322 |
|
Houle v. Broters
| 13-25-03 | Modification of Custody; Access to Visitation Summaries; Independent Review; Abuse of Discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a change of circumstances and determining that a modification of custody would be in the child's best interest when the decision is supported by substantial credible evidence. Trial court conducted an independent review. | Willamowski | Seneca |
9/15/2025
|
9/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4321 |
|
State v. Gallant
| 3-25-05 | Consecutive Sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c). The trial court's decision to run the sentences for the convictions consecutively was not contrary to law. | Miller | Crawford |
9/8/2025
|
9/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3182 |
|
In re E.C.
| 5-24-36 | Juv.R. 29; Delinquency Admission. Adjudicated-delinquent child-appellant's delinquency admissions were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because, based on the totality of the circumstances, the juvenile court substantially complied with the requirements of Juv.R. 29(D). | Miller | Hancock |
8/25/2025
|
8/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3024 |
|
State v. Rutledge
| 5-24-43 | Conviction for Aggravated Possession of Drugs based on a theory of constructive possession was supported by the evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Waldick | Hancock |
8/25/2025
|
8/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3025 |
|
State v. Thompson
| 1-24-51 | SUFFICIENCY; MANIFEST WEIGHT; INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE. The defendant-appellant’s gross sexual imposition conviction is based on sufficient evidence because the State presented sufficient evidence of the force or threat of force element. The defendant-appellant’s sexual battery and gross sexual imposition convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The defendant-appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to obtain his medical records. | Zimmerman | Allen |
8/25/2025
|
8/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3022 |
|
State v. Lawrence
| 1-24-76 | Consecutive Sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c); Merger. The record does not clearly and convincingly fail to support the trial court's consecutive-sentence findings. The trial court did not err by failing to merge the defendant-appellant's conviction for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity with the predicate offenses. | Miller | Allen |
8/25/2025
|
8/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3023 |
|
In re L.F.
| 6-25-02 | Permanent Custody; Reasonable Efforts; Service. Evidence supported trial court granting permanent custody of minor child to Hardin County Department of Job and Family Services ("JFS") where Father made virtually no effort to secure custody of his daughter. | Waldick | Hardin |
8/25/2025
|
8/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3026 |
|
State v. Hilz
| 14-24-45 | Consecutive Sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. The trial court made the appropriate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings necessary to impose consecutive sentences and the record supports the trial court’s findings. Absent a showing that the defendant-appellant’s prison term is disproportionate to other similarly-situated offenders, the defendant-appellant has not established deficient performance by his attorney or prejudice in this matter. | Zimmerman | Union |
8/25/2025
|
8/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3027 |
|
State v. Richard
| 9-24-62 | Postconviction Relief; Res Judicata; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Res judicata can operate to bar claims in a petition for postconviction relief where the claims could have been raised on direct appeal. However, res judicata does not bar a petition for postconviction relief if the petition had the same attorney at trial and on direct appeal or if the petitioner must rely on evidence outside the trial record to establish his claim. Appellate courts review a decision to deny a petition for postconviction relief under an abuse of discretion standard. | Willamowski | Marion |
8/18/2025
|
8/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2943 |
|
State v. Smith
| 1-24-53 | Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity; R.C. 2923.32; Sufficiency of the evidence; Proof of "association with an enterprise"; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Consecutive sentences; Speedy trial; R.C. 2945.71; Crim.R. 45. The judgment of conviction and sentence entered in the trial court is affirmed. | Waldick | Allen |
8/18/2025
|
8/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2939 |
|
State v. Austin
| 1-24-66 | Mandatory prison time; Firearm specification. Pursuant to State v. Logan, 2025-Ohio-1772, the trial court did not err in imposing a mandatory prison term for a felony conviction that has a corresponding firearm specification. | Waldick | Allen |
8/18/2025
|
8/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2940 |
|
State v. Pitts
| 1-24-72 | Post-release control; R.C. 2929.141(A); Presentence Motion to Withdraw. Defendant-appellant failed to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the prison term the trial court imposed for his violation of post-release control supervision was not reduced by the prison term administratively imposed by the parole board. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-appellant's presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. | Miller | Allen |
8/18/2025
|
8/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2941 |
|
State v. Foster
| 1-25-01 | Supplemental Discovery; Motion to Compel Discovery; Motion to Quash Subpoena; Crim.R.17(C); Motion to Continue; Motion in Limine; Waiver; No Contest Plea. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by partially granting the State's motion to quash the defendant-appellant’s subpoenas because he failed to satisfy the requirements for their issuance. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-appellant’s supplementary discovery request and motion to compel because his claims were speculative and he failed to demonstrate that the evidence was material. Based on the determination that the defendant-appellant was not entitled to the supplemental discovery, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to continue trial. The defendant-appellant waived his right to appeal the trial court's decision on his motion in limine regarding other-acts evidence by entering a no contest plea. | Zimmerman | Allen |
8/18/2025
|
8/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2942 |
|
State v. Mollett
| 1-24-35 | Felonious Assault; R.C. 2903.11(A)(2); Jury Instructions; Harmless Error; R.C. 2929.19(B)(2); Proportionate Consecutive Sentences. Any error in the jury instructions concerning the "knowingly" element of felonious assault was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court failed to provide all the required notifications under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2) when it imposed indefinite sentences. The record does not clearly and convincingly fail to support the trial court's consecutive sentence findings. | Miller | Allen |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2826 |
|
Hubbard v. Hubbard
| 4-24-27 | Prenuptial Agreement; Overreaching; Spousal Support Waiver; Mootness. In addition to the general requirements for contracts, prenuptial agreements must satisfy three additional "special conditions." The prenuptial agreement (1) must be entered into freely and cannot be the product of fraud, duress, coercion, or overreaching; (2) must be accompanied by full disclosure or full understanding of the parties' assets; and (3) does not encourage or profit from divorce. Before a spousal support waiver in a prenuptial agreement can be enforced, the trial court must examine the conscionability of the provision at the time of the divorce. | Willamowski | Defiance |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2828 |
|
State v. Caldwell
| 3-24-17 | Venue; Text Messages; R.C. 2945.75; Verdict Forms. Venue in Crawford County was properly established when the State established a significant nexus with the jurisdiction in which it was tried. The verdict forms did not properly identify the level of the offense or the elevating factors which would raise the level of the offense. As such, the defendant can only be found guilty of the least degree of the offense charged. | Willamowski | Crawford |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2827 |
|
Basford v. Butler
| 9-24-64 | Summary Judgment; Unjust Enrichment; Promissory Estoppel. The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee and dismissing defendant-appellant’s counterclaims. The defendant-appellant failed to meet his burden to produce evidence to show that a genuine issue of material fact remains for trial. When viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the defendant-appellant, reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the defendant-appellant. The evidence shows that plaintiff-appellant was not unjustly enriched by the work performed and improvements made to her property when the defendant-appellant lived rent free on the property for 20 years and was able to enjoy the improvements himself. The evidence further shows that the parties agreed that the plaintiff-appellee would provide the materials for the maintenance and improvements to the property, and the defendant-appellant would provide the labor. | Zimmerman | Marion |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2829 |
|
State v. Sowards
| 14-24-43 | Ineffective Assistance. Appellant did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel in bench trial on domestic violence charge. | Waldick | Union |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2831 |
|
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Ohio Logistics, Ltd.
| 13-25-05 | Personal Jurisdiction; R.C. 2307.382; Civ. R. 4.3; Minimum Contacts. Trial court did not err by dismissing complaint against two of eight defendants where insurance company did not establish personal jurisdiction over two out-of-state defendants in Ohio. | Waldick | Seneca |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2830 |
|
State v. Toney
| 13-24-43 | Pre-indictment delay; ineffective assistance of counsel; manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court did not err in finding no actual prejudice due to pre-indictment delay when appellant provided no specific claims of prejudice. Counsel was not ineffective for not providing evidence of prejudice resulting from delay when appellant points to no specific instances of prejudice. Verdict that appellant was guilty of involuntary manslaughter is not against the manifest weight of the evidence when the testimony shows defendant sold the victim the drugs which resulted in her death. | Willamowski | Seneca |
8/4/2025
|
8/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2732 |
|
State v. Stinson
| 9-24-37 | Brady Violations; Sanctions; Dismissing Criminal Indictment; Double Jeopardy. The trial court erred in deciding that the State committed a Brady violation. The trial court erred in deciding to dismiss the case on the basis of double jeopardy. The sanctions imposed by the trial court must be vacated. | Miller | Marion |
8/4/2025
|
8/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2731 |
|
In re X.F.
| 5-25-01 | Juvenile Adjudication; Sufficiency; Manifest Weight; Allied Offenses; Juvenile Disposition; R.C. 2152.01. The adjudicated delinquent child-appellant’s kidnapping delinquency adjudication is based on sufficient evidence and the adjudicated delinquent child-appellant’s kidnapping and rape adjudications are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by failing to merge the adjudicated delinquent child-appellant’s kidnapping and rape convictions. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by committing the adjudicated delinquent child-appellant to the legal care and custody of the Department of Youth Services for a minimum period of two years and a maximum period not to exceed his attainment of 21 years of age as to each of his rape adjudications. | Zimmerman | Hancock |
8/4/2025
|
8/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2730 |
|
State v. Allen
| 1-23-73 | Sufficiency of Evidence; Manifest weight; Aggravated Robbery; Firearm Specification. Defendant-appellant’s convictions for aggravated robbery and its attendant firearm specification are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Miller | Allen |
8/4/2025
|
8/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2728 |
|
State v. Bowman
| 1-24-47 | Admission and Exclusion of Evidence at Trial; Witness Vouching; Evid.R. 701; Harmless Error. Even if the case worker's testimony constituted improper witness vouching, any such error was harmless because the victim testified at trial and was available for cross-examination. | Zimmerman | Allen |
8/4/2025
|
8/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2729 |
|
State v. Shurelds
| 1-24-39 | SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE; MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; AGGRAVATED BURGLARY; R.C. 2911.11(A)(1); TRESPASS. The defendant-appellant’s aggravated-burglary conviction is based on sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The State presented sufficient evidence to show that the defendant-appellant did not have permission to enter the home on the morning of the incident and that the defendant-appellant was a trespasser. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that the defendant-appellant did not have permission to enter the home on the morning of the incident. | Zimmerman | Allen |
7/28/2025
|
7/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2638 |
|
State v. Nicholson
| 5-24-24 | EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES; EVID.R. 609(B); REVERSIBLE ERROR; SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE. The trial court committed reversible error when it admitted evidence of defendant-appellant’s prior convictions—wherein more than ten years has elapsed since the date of each conviction, the release from confinement, or the termination of community control sanctions—without first making a determination as required under Evid.R. 609(B). The defendant-appellant was materially prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to make a determination as required under Evid.R. 609(B) because he was denied a fair trial. The State presented sufficient evidence during its case-in-chief to support a possession-of-cocaine conviction such that remand for a new trial is warranted. | Zimmerman | Hancock |
7/28/2025
|
7/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2639 |
|
State v. Pullom
| 13-24-35 | R.C. 2937.29; R.C. 2937.99; FAILURE TO APPEAR; RECKLESSLY; CRIM.R. 29 MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL AT CLOSE OF STATE’S CASE-IN-CHIEF; SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE; MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; ABUSE OF DISCRETION; FELONY SENTENCING; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. To prove failure to appear, the State must show that the defendant-appellant was released on his own recognizance, and recklessly failed to appear as required by the court. The State presented sufficient evidence during its case-in-chief to support the defendant-appellant’s failure-to-appear conviction, and the trial court did not err by denying the defendant-appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal. The defendant-appellant’s failure-to-appear conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The defendant-appellant testified on direct examination that he was not notified of the hearing date. By voluntarily testifying on the subject of notice, the defendant-appellant waived the attorney-client privilege and opened the door for the State to cross-examine him on whether his trial counsel notified him of the hearing date. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to cross-examine the defendant-appellant accordingly. The defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law because the sentence is within the permissible statutory range and the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. | Zimmerman | Seneca |
7/28/2025
|
7/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2640 |
|