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 433 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Hill 104463Burglary; trespass in a habitation; R.C. 2911.12(B); R.C. 2911.12(E); privilege; R.C. 2911.21(A)(1); R.C. 2901.01(A)(12); sufficiency; manifest weight. Appellant's conviction for burglary was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where testimony established that appellant, while intoxicated, forced his way into an apartment, and was found by police, naked and unconscious inside.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 6/22/2017 6/22/2017 2017-Ohio-4434
State v. Thomas 104567R.C. 2913.31; R.C. 2929.18; R.C. 2947.23; Crim.R. 43(A); forgery; allied offenses; merger; court costs; apportionment; restitution; plain error; harmless error. Arguing merger of allied offenses for first time on appeal forfeits all but plain error. No plain error where merger of allied offenses is not raised or challenged before trial court. Disputing amount of restitution for first time on appeal waives all but plain error. No plain error where the record does not show restitution amount is greater than victims' loss. Trial court committed harmless error by imposing court costs outside of defendant's presence. That error is harmless because trial court retains jurisdiction over costs and defendant may seek waiver at any time pursuant to amended R.C. 2947.23(C).StewartCuyahoga 6/22/2017 6/22/2017 2017-Ohio-4436
State v. Dennis 104742Evidence; Evid.R. 403; relevancy; Crim.R. 52(A); harmless error; jury instructions; manifest weight; ineffective assistance of counsel; merger; allied offenses; consecutive sentences. The trial court did not err: (1) by admitting the victim's hospital records because at best the error was harmless; (2) by omitting a jury instruction on gross sexual imposition when the sole evidence demonstrated a rape occurred; or (3) by imposing consecutive sentences on the offenses that were not allied. The rape and kidnapping conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence and trial counsel was not ineffective (1) for failing to file a motion to dismiss based on preindictment delay when the defendant is unable to demonstrate any missing or compromised evidence, or (2) for failing to seek an independent forensic expert when the defendant lacked a specialized need for such an expert.GallagherCuyahoga 6/22/2017 6/22/2017 2017-Ohio-4437
State v. Golson 104776Juvenile; discretionary bindover; mandatory bindover; due process; cruel and unusual punishment; adult court; irrebuttable presumption; Tier II sex offender; classification; automatic; ineffective assistance of counsel; plain error; jail-time credit. Defendant was neither denied due process nor subjected to cruel and unusual punishment when he was automatically classified as a Tier II sex offender even though he was a juvenile at the time he committed the sex offense because he was bound over to the common pleas court pursuant to discretionary bindover procedures. Defendant was entitled to jail-time credit.GallagherCuyahoga 6/22/2017 6/22/2017 2017-Ohio-4438
State v. Lindon 104902Crim.R. 16(B)/request for discovery; Crim.R. 47/requirements for submission of motions. The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to dismiss the case based on the state's alleged discovery violation. In his motion to suppress, appellant sufficiently met the requirements set forth in Crim.R. 47, and was therefore entitled to a hearing.JonesCuyahoga 6/22/2017 6/22/2017 2017-Ohio-4439
State v. Zimmer 104946Defendant's conviction for various sex offenses involving female children affirmed as being supported by sufficient evidence and not being against the manifest weight of the evidence.BlackmonCuyahoga 6/22/2017 6/22/2017 2017-Ohio-4440
State v. Richardson 104958Anders; withdrawal of counsel; frivolous; guilty plea; Crim.R. 11; sentencing; sentencing factors; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; contrary to law; high tier third-degree felony; maximum sentence; victim's age. Counsel's request to withdraw is granted where review of the trial court's proceedings revealed no error.GallagherCuyahoga 6/22/2017 6/22/2017 2017-Ohio-4441
Cleveland v. Maxwell 104964Operation; influence; alcohol; manifest weight; suppress; traffic stop; probable cause; ineffective assistance; counsel; prejudice; field sobriety test; futile; standards; instructions; odor; psychological factors. Defendant's OVI conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress the results of defendant's field sobriety test where the motion would have been futile.GallagherCuyahoga 6/22/2017 6/22/2017 2017-Ohio-4442
State v. Staton 104983Consecutive sentences; costs; nunc pro tunc. Trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences; remanded for nunc pro tunc correction of sentencing entry to reflect that at sentencing hearing, costs were waived.BlackmonCuyahoga 6/22/2017 6/22/2017 2017-Ohio-4443
State v. Blevins 105023Consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); R.C. 2953.08; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; contrary to law; proportionality; maximum sentence; plea agreement. The trial court did not err by imposing consecutive sentences and appellant's sentence is not contrary to law.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 6/22/2017 6/22/2017 2017-Ohio-4444