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 72 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Baker 27593After Baker entered pleas of no contest, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling his oral motion to withdraw his pleas at sentencing without a hearing. Baker's motion falls under a post-sentence standard since Baker moved to withdraw his pleas upon discovering that the trial court fully intended to impose a prison term and not community control sanctions. A manifest injustice is not demonstrated. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 2/23/2018 2/23/2018 2018-Ohio-669
Burks v. Burks 27734The trial court did not err by imposing a supervision requirement on Appellant's parenting time. Nor did the court err by increasing Appellant's child-support obligation. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 2/23/2018 2/23/2018 2018-Ohio-670
State v. Jacobs 2017-CA-39Trial court erred in ordering the payment of restitution in the full amount of the victim's medical expenses. Based on the testimony at the restitution hearing, it was clear that the victim had health insurance, and it was likely that some or all of the medical expenses would be covered by insurance. Double recovery is not permitted, and the court's failure to determine the amount of restitution to a reasonable degree of certainty was error. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further consideration of restitution order.FroelichClark 2/23/2018 2/23/2018 2018-Ohio-671
In re G.Y. 2017-CA-20The trial court's determination that permanent custody to the county children services agency was in the best interest of the child was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court did not err in granting permanent custody of the child to the agency. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMiami 2/23/2018 2/23/2018 2018-Ohio-672
State v. Jones 2016-CA-22The trial court did not err in denying the appellant's petition for post- conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no resulting prejudice. Although defense counsel did not retain an expert witness to rebut the prosecution's medical experts, who opined that the four-year-old victim's brain injury while in the appellant's care was a non- accidental injury, the expert opinions presented in post-conviction proceedings do not create a reasonable probability of a different result and it was therefore not unreasonable for the trial court to deny post-conviction relief. Appellant's post-conviction evidence is not sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of his trial. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., dissenting.)HallMiami 2/23/2018 2/23/2018 2018-Ohio-673
State v. McComb 27468Defendant was granted a delayed appeal from his October 2015 conviction for aggravated robbery and felonious assault, for which he received a mandatory three-year sentence and a two-year sentence, respectively. Defendant challenges his sentence under State v. Hand, 149 Ohio St.3d 94, 2016-Ohio-5504, 73 N.E.3d 448. Hand applies to defendant's three-year sentence for aggravated robbery, which was made mandatory due to a prior juvenile adjudication. Having granted defendant's motion for a delayed appeal, pursuant to App.R. 5, defendant's conviction is pending on direct appeal, and his conviction was not final for purposes of applying Hand. Defendant has completely served his two-year sentence for felonious assault, and thus his appeal of that sentence is moot. Regardless, the trial court did not impose a mandatory sentence for the felonious assault. Judgment affirmed in part, modified in part, and remanded for the court to issue a revised judgment entry that eliminates the mandatory nature of defendant's sentence for aggravated robbery.FroelichMontgomery 2/23/2018 2/23/2018 2018-Ohio-674
Dayton v. Smith 27535Appellant's conviction for failing to control her dogs in violation of R.C.G.O. 91.50(A)(5) is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Contrary to Appellant's claim otherwise, the weight of the evidence does not establish that Appellant proved the affirmative defense codified in R.C.G.O. 91.50(D)(2). Appellant's claim that the language in R.C.G.O. 91.50(D)(2) is void for vagueness also lacks merit, as the language in the ordinance sufficiently indicates what Appellant must prove to establish the affirmative defense described therein. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 2/23/2018 2/23/2018 2018-Ohio-675
State ex rel. Jones v. Dayton Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn. 27649A school board's special meeting notice failed to comply with R.C. 121.22(F), because the board failed to properly state the purpose of the open session of the meeting. The board's resolution not to renew an employee's contract, therefore, was invalid, and the trial court erred in rendering summary judgment in the board's favor. Although the school board also failed to comply with certain requirements of R.C. 3313.16 when it sent out the notice for the special meeting, the trial court did not err in finding a lack of prejudice because the employee had actual notice of the meeting. In addition, the board's motion to go into executive session facially complied with R.C. 121.22(G)(1). Whether the Board improperly disguised its intentions in calling the meeting and in moving into executive session do not need to be considered, due to the invalidity of the resolution adopted at the special meeting. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.WelbaumMontgomery 2/23/2018 2/23/2018 2018-Ohio-676
State v. Adams 2017-CA-7Appellant's conviction for domestic violence is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Contrary to Appellant's claim otherwise, the weight of the evidence establishes that Appellant was the primary aggressor during the physical altercation in question and that Appellant was not acting in self defense. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumChampaign 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-604
State v. Ball 2017-CA-54Defendant's conviction for burglary, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant's sentence of three years in prison was not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgment affirmed.FroelichClark 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-605