|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Ackerman
| 2025-CA-25 | Conceded error. The trial court failed to specify at appellant’s sentencing hearing the total number of days of jail-time credit to which she was entitled or to provide her an opportunity to be heard on the issue. The trial court further failed to provide at the sentencing hearing all the notifications set forth in R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) in connection with its imposition of an indefinite prison sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law. Judgment is reversed in part and remanded solely for the trial court to specify the total number of days of jail-time credit to which appellant was entitled as of the date of her sentencing; to allow appellant the opportunity to be heard on the issue of jail-time credit; and to properly advise her of the notifications set forth in R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c). Judgment affirmed in all other respects. | Huffman | Clark |
10/31/2025
|
10/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4966 |
|
State v. Smith
| 2025-CA-8 | The trial court did not err in failing to dismiss a charge against appellant based on a speedy-trial violation. While appellant was incarcerated in federal prison, he failed to follow the statutory procedure to demand a trial within 180 days on his pending Ohio charge. Appellant’s later-appointed counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to raise the foregoing issue. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Darke |
10/31/2025
|
10/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4973 |
|
State v. Hudson
| 2025-CA-11 | Appellant’s conviction for violating a protection order was based on sufficient evidence. Circumstantial evidence supported the conclusion that appellant was found at the complainant’s residence, a prohibited location. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
10/31/2025
|
10/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4969 |
|
State v. Kanyamihigo
| 2025-CA-12 | The trial court strictly complied with its obligation under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) to advise appellant a guilty plea would waive his right “to require the state to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
10/31/2025
|
10/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4970 |
|
State v. Damico
| 2025-CA-18 | The appeal is moot because appellant has completely served the jail sentences that he challenges on appeal and has not shown that he has suffered any collateral disability from his convictions. Appeal dismissed. | Lewis | Miami |
10/31/2025
|
10/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4968 |
|
Columbus State Community College v. Chanthunya
| 30486 | Appellant was properly served by e-mail with appellee’s motion for summary judgment and written requests for admission. Based on appellant’s failure to respond to the requests, the trial court did not err in deeming the matters at issue admitted. The deemed admissions and an affidavit accompanying appellee’s motion established appellee’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on appellant’s non-payment of a delinquent student account. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
10/31/2025
|
10/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4967 |
|
Landers v. Montgomery Cty. Veterans Serv. Comm.
| 30370 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees in appellant’s defamation claim. The statements made by a commissioner and employee were protected by a qualified privilege. The trial court did err in granting more than $200,000 in back pay as a result of Open Meetings Act violations because such an award is not contemplated by the statute. Finally, the trial court did not err when it failed to grant appellant attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, salary, and benefits. Attorney fees are not available for pro se litigants, and pre- and post-judgment interest, salary, and benefits are not contemplated by the statute. Judgment reversed as to back pay but affirmed in all other respects. The case will, however, be remanded to the Montgomery County Veterans Service Commission to terminate appellant in accordance with the Open Meetings Act. | Epley | Montgomery |
10/31/2025
|
10/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4971 |
|
Reilly v. Rastegar
| 30445 | The trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for partial summary judgment was not a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(6) because it did not determine the constitutionality of the cap on noneconomic damages in R.C. 2323.43(A)(3). Appeal dismissed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
10/31/2025
|
10/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4972 |
|
State v. Bell
| 30467 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling appellant’s motion seeking the disclosure of public records related to his murder case. Appellant was incarcerated for his convictions in the murder case, and the trial court reasonably concluded that the requested records did not support any justiciable claim of appellant, as required for access to the records under R.C. 149.43(B)(8). Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
10/24/2025
|
10/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4873 |
|
Sholar v. Sholar
| 30550 | The trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion for disqualification of appellant’s counsel under Prof.Cond.R. 3.7(a). Appellant did not respond to appellee’s motion within the time provided by Civ.R. 6(C)(1). The uncontested facts stated in appellee’s affidavit accompanying her motion provided sufficient support for the trial court’s conclusion that appellant’s counsel was a necessary witness and that none of the exceptions of Rule 3.7(a) applied. The trial did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion without a hearing and disqualifying appellant’s counsel. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
10/24/2025
|
10/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4883 |
|
State v. Dearth
| 2025-CA-16 | Appellant’s conviction for assault was based upon sufficient evidence, and it was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
10/24/2025
|
10/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4879 |
|
State v. Sheppard
| 2024-CA-50 | Under the doctrine of res judicata, appellant was precluded from moving to withdraw his guilty pleas on the grounds that they were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made and that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. By means of a stipulation in appellant’s plea agreement, he waived his argument that his murder and felonious assault offenses were allied offenses of similar import. Nothing in the record demonstrates manifest injustice or that the trial abused its discretion in overruling appellant’s motion to withdraw his pleas. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Greene |
10/24/2025
|
10/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4882 |
|
State v. Brown
| 2025-CA-19 | The record does not portray ineffective assistance of counsel based on a failure to tell appellant a guilty plea would waive his ability to challenge the trial court’s overruling of a motion to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds. Judgments affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
10/24/2025
|
10/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4874 |
|
State v. Daniels
| 2025-CA-21 | The sentence imposed on appellant for complicity to felonious assault was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law because it was within the statutory range for the offense and the trial court stated in its sentencing entry that it had considered the principles and purposes of sentencing of R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.12. Based on the authority of State v. Hacker, 2023-Ohio-2535, appellant’s indefinite sentence imposed under the Reagan Tokes Law did not violate her constitutional right to due process. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
10/24/2025
|
10/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4876 |
|
State v. Dearmond
| 2025-CA-29 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced appellant to a jail term following his no contest plea to assault, a first-degree misdemeanor. The court’s decision was based on sound reasoning. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Clark |
10/24/2025
|
10/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4878 |
|
State v. Hall
| 2025-CA-2 | The record fails to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel predicated on defense counsel allowing appellant to plead guilty without raising a speedy-trial argument. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
10/24/2025
|
10/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4880 |
|
State v. Rivera
| 2025-CA-10 | The sentence pronounced orally by the trial court at appellant’s first sentencing hearing was not a final order, so at appellant’s subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court did not err when it entered a final judgment entry of conviction that increased appellant’s sentence. The three-year delay between appellant’s original sentencing hearing and imposition of her sentence was wholly attributable to her failure to appear for court and did not warrant discharge. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Champaign |
10/24/2025
|
10/24/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4881 |
|
In re K.S.
| 2025-CA-28 | The trial court did not err when it granted permanent custody to the children services agency over the objection of the children’s former legal custodian. The children had been in the temporary custody of the agency for at least 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, and it was in the best interest of the children. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
10/17/2025
|
10/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4773 |
|
In re A.B.
| 2025-CA-24 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err by overruling appellant’s motion to terminate or modify a previous order granting legal custody of her minor child to her parents. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Miami |
10/17/2025
|
10/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4771 |
|
In re A.J.W.
| 30453 | This court lacks jurisdiction over appellant’s untimely appeal of the denial of his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, which had sought to vacate the award of legal custody of his biological child to the child’s maternal grandparents. To the extent that appellant’s appeal is directed at judgments of the trial court preceding the order on appeal, this court similarly lacks jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
10/17/2025
|
10/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4772 |
|
Jones v. Montgomery Cty. Educational Serv. Ctr. Bd. of Edn.
| 30415 | The trial court did not err in dismissing appellant-employee’s administrative appeal due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellee-board had not issued a final appealable order from which appellant could have appealed, and the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to resolve the appealability of the contested personnel action. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
10/17/2025
|
10/17/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4774 |
|
Arnett v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati
| 30452 | The trial court properly granted summary judgment for appellees in this negligence case because under the “no-duty winter rule,” they had no duty to warn appellant of potential ice and snow in the parking lot where he slipped and fell on ice. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
10/10/2025
|
10/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4679 |
|
In re Furrey v. Furrey
| 30381 | The trial court abused its discretion in deeming appellee’s requests for admission admitted and denying appellants’ request for the court to permit their untimely response. Consequently, the court erred in granting summary judgment to appellee based on appellants’ admissions. Discussion of statute of limitations in summary judgment decision was dicta. Judgment reversed and case remanded. | Epley | Montgomery |
10/10/2025
|
10/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4683 |
|
State v. Simpson
| 30420 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s application for postconviction DNA testing under the authority of R.C. 2953.74 where the requested DNA testing would not be outcome determinative and where appellant’s identity as one of the victim’s assailants was not an issue during trial. The trial court also did not err by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s application, as R.C. 2953.73(D) specifically provides that such a hearing is not required. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
10/10/2025
|
10/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4684 |
|
Woodmansee v. Woodmansee
| 30446 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that it was in the best interests of the minor child to grant legal custody to mother. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that mother was not voluntarily underemployed where father did not provide any evidence that mother voluntarily left her previous, higher-paying job or that other higher-paying jobs were available to mother that she was qualified for but did not consider. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
10/10/2025
|
10/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4685 |
|
State v. Fails
| 2024-CA-70 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence alleged hearsay statements contained in the police officer’s cruiser video and body-worn video. Appellant’s conviction for the underlying misdemeanor offense was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The State failed to present sufficient evidence that appellant’s driving caused a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property, which precluded a conviction for the third-degree felony version of the underlying offense. Although the prosecutor engaged in misconduct during closing arguments, absent the improper conduct, there was overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt for the underlying misdemeanor conviction such that the error did not amount to plain error. Plain error is not found with the trial court’s curative instructions provided during closing argument. No cumulative error denied appellant the right to a fair trial. Judgment affirmed in part as modified, reversed in part, and remanded. | Lewis | Clark |
10/10/2025
|
10/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4680 |
|
State v. Hopkins
| 2024-CA-59 | Appellant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to: (1) file a motion to suppress; (2) subpoena the victim’s cell phone records; (3) obtain a firearms and ballistics expert; (4) hire an expert witness in the field of eye witness identification; (5) subpoena defense witnesses; (6) object to the State indicating that appellant was under a weapons disability; (7) file a motion in limine to exclude a certain witness’s testimony; (8) object to testimony describing the way in which a detective observed a firearm in appellant’s pants pocket; or (9) file a motion to dismiss his case on statutory speedy-trial grounds. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling appellant’s mid-trial requests to hire new counsel and continue trial. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Clark |
10/10/2025
|
10/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4681 |
|
State v. Howard
| 2025-CA-4 | Appellant appealed from the trial court’s denial of his motion for postconviction discovery. Because that judgment is not a final appealable order, this court lacks jurisdiction to review it on appeal. Appeal dismissed. | Hanseman | Greene |
10/10/2025
|
10/10/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4682 |
|
State v. Hayes
| 2024-CA-71 | Appellant’s speedy-trial rights were not violated. The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. The trial court did not err by imposing a mandatory sentence for appellant’s third-degree felony possession of cocaine offense or by not merging the offense with appellant’s fifth-degree felony aggravated possession of drugs offense. Appellant’s claims that his drug possession convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence based on a purportedly unclear chain of custody for the drugs lack merit. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Greene |
10/3/2025
|
10/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4603 |
|
State v. Bayman
| 2023-CA-31 | Conceded error. In this reopened appeal, the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress where the deputy lacked probable cause to search appellant for contraband based solely on a K-9 alert while appellant was seated as a passenger in a vehicle. Appellant’s original counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to raise the issue. Prior appellate judgment vacated. Trial court judgment reversed and remanded. | Epley | Darke |
10/3/2025
|
10/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4600 |
|
State v. Shanks
| 2024-CA-32 | Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law because it was within the statutory range, and the trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.12. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Champaign |
10/3/2025
|
10/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4604 |
|
State v. Dumas
| 30406 | Appellant’s conviction for carrying a concealed weapon was supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court did not commit plain error in allowing the police officer to refresh his recollection. Trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to object to the officer’s use of his police report to refresh his recollection where no prejudice was established. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
10/3/2025
|
10/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4602 |
|
SRM Materials, L.L.C. v. German Twp.
| 30419 | Under Columbus Bituminous Concrete Corp. v. Harrison Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2020-Ohio-845, appellee-board of zoning appeals erred in relying on the general standards of its township zoning resolution to deny appellant’s conditional use application to engage in mining activity. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Epley | Montgomery |
10/3/2025
|
10/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4605 |
|
State v. Davis
| 2025-CA-20 | Following a bench trial, appellant was convicted of several misdemeanor offenses. Without a transcript of the trial and sentencing hearing, there is no basis to conclude that appellant’s due process rights were violated, that the verdicts were not supported by sufficient evidence, or that any sentencing errors were committed. Judgments affirmed. | Tucker | Miami |
10/3/2025
|
10/3/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4601 |
|
State v. Kemper
| 2025-CA-10 | The record did not support the trial court’s determination that appellant had requested a pretrial conference at his arraignment, so it was not a proper basis to toll speedy-trial time. Appellee made no alternative tolling argument before the trial court and cannot introduce on appeal any additional reason speedy-trial time should have been tolled. Appellant was entitled to dismissal of the charge against him on speedy-trial grounds. Judgment vacated. | Tucker | Miami |
9/26/2025
|
9/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4481 |
|
State v. Vargas
| 2025-CA-1 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. The court correctly concluded that appellant’s initial encounter with a police officer was consensual and that during the interaction the officer saw illegal drugs on appellant’s person in plain view. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Greene |
9/26/2025
|
9/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4482 |
|
In re M.B.E.
| 2025-CA-2 | The juvenile court erred in denying appellant’s motion to review juvenile sex offender classification under R.C. 2152.85(A)(1). At the time that appellant filed his motion, the court had not yet held the mandatory completion-of-disposition hearing under R.C. 2152.84. Absent the completion-of-disposition hearing, the court lacked authority to consider appellant’s motion, and the motion should have been dismissed as premature. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Greene |
9/19/2025
|
9/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4391 |
|
Marshall v. Marshall
| 30537 | The trial court did not err in terminating shared parenting at both parties’ request and designating appellee as the residential parent and sole legal custodian of their children with appellant receiving standard parenting time. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
9/19/2025
|
9/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4392 |
|
McManus v. Ingram
| 30416 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a default judgment in favor of the county treasurer on the treasurer’s complaint for foreclosure of delinquent real estate taxes against appellant. Appellant was properly served and failed to answer, appear, or defend. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
9/19/2025
|
9/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4393 |
|
State v. Rankin
| 30330 | Following appellant’s admission to violating community control by absconding, the trial court did not infringe on her due process rights by revoking community control without requiring the State to present evidence of the other violations alleged in her notice of community control revocation. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
9/19/2025
|
9/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4395 |
|
Monroe v. Richards
| 2025-CA-23 | Appellee was entitled to summary judgment in this legal malpractice case because appellant, as a matter of law, had not sustained any damages as a result of appellee’s alleged breach of the duty of professional representation. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
9/18/2025
|
9/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4394 |
|
State v. McMahon
| 2025-CA-7 | The trial court was not required to inform appellant that no one could comment on his silence if he chose to go forward with a trial and did not testify. The trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 by informing appellant of the constitutional rights he was waiving by entering his guilty pleas, including the right against self-incrimination. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
9/12/2025
|
9/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3295 |
|
State v. Scott
| 2025-CA-4 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s successive petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.23, as the matters raised in the petition had been previously litigated and were barred by res judicata. Although the trial court did not rule on appellant’s motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial, any error was harmless, as the claims raised in the motion were also barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Clark |
9/12/2025
|
9/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3296 |
|
State v. Brooks
| 2024-CA-36 | The trial court was not obligated to tell appellant that a guilty plea would waive his ability to challenge its suppression ruling. The record does not portray ineffective assistance of counsel based on appellant’s attorney advising him to plead guilty rather than no contest. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Champaign |
9/12/2025
|
9/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3292 |
|
In re J.P.
| 30437 | The trial court’s conclusion that appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily agreed to appellee obtaining legal custody of the parties’ minor child was supported by the record. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
9/12/2025
|
9/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3293 |
|
State v. Jones
| 30333 | Jury’s verdicts finding appellant guilty of murder, felonious assault, and related firearm specifications and consequent rejection of appellant’s self-defense claim were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to enter a nolle prosequi for a reckless homicide charge. Appellant was not denied a fair trial by the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. The trial court did not deny appellant his right to a public trial by excluding his father from the courtroom for a portion of one day. The trial court did not err in allowing the State to present a witness’s prior consistent statement during redirect examination. Absent any error by the trial court, cumulative error doctrine was inapplicable to appellant’s convictions. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
9/12/2025
|
9/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3294 |
|
State v. Cox
| 30356 | Appellant’s felonious assault convictions were supported by legally sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant admitted to shooting the victim in the face, the victim suffered extensive injuries, and the evidence revealed appellant did not have a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm at the time of the shooting. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
9/5/2025
|
9/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3163 |
|
In re Adoption of W.M.J.
| 30444 | The probate court properly exercised jurisdiction over the petition for adoption filed by appellee, the spouse of an active-duty military service member. In determining whether a petitioner for adoption “resides” in the probate court’s jurisdiction, as required by R.C. 3107.04, a probate court should consider domicile if the petitioner, or the petitioner’s spouse, is in active military service when the petition is filed. Sufficient evidence supported the probate court’s determination that appellee was domiciled in Montgomery County. Judgments affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
9/5/2025
|
9/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3166 |
|
State v. Nalls
| 30414 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s pro se amended petition for postconviction relief based on untimeliness. The trial court also did not err in overruling motions for voluntary recusal, to consolidate the present case with an unrelated 1989 rape case, for summary judgment on the untimely petition for postconviction relief, and for judicial notice related to the untimely petition. The trial court did err, however, in overruling without explanation appellant’s two motions to vacate court costs. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. | Tucker | Montgomery |
9/5/2025
|
9/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3168 |
|
State v. Devore
| 2025-CA-7 | Appellant’s sentences were contrary to law because the trial court failed to provide a notification at sentencing that was required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)(iii). Judgments affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing in accordance with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c). | Lewis | Champaign |
9/5/2025
|
9/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3164 |
|