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 351 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Gibson 2017-CA-47Appellant’s conviction for felonious assault was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, as the jury did not lose its way in finding the greater weight of the evidence did not establish that Appellant acted in self-defense. In addition, the trial court’s response to a question posed by the jury during deliberations did not amount to plain error. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant’s Crim.R. 33 motion for new trial as the motion was based on unsubstantiated juror statements and was therefore barred by the aliunde rule and Evid.R. 606(B). Judgment affirmed.WelbaumGreene 9/21/2018 9/21/2018 2018-Ohio-3809
King v. Miami Cty. Bd. of Commrs. 2017-CA-32The judgment of the trial court upholding the decision of the Miami County Board of Commissioners and dismissing the Appellants’ petition for the improvement or replacement of the Children’s Home drainage tile, pursuant to R.C. 6131.04, was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellants failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence at trial de novo that the benefits to be derived from the proposed improvements would exceed the cost. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMiami 9/21/2018 9/21/2018 2018-Ohio-3810
State v. Lewis 27682Officers approached Lewis on RTA property when they observed him smoking in an area designated as non-smoking. The trial court did not err in overruling Lewis’s motion to suppress, since the officers’ encounter with him was consensual and not a seizure. Lewis then pled no contest to one count of possession of heroin. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 9/21/2018 9/21/2018 2018-Ohio-3811
State v. Ojezua 27768Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), there is no arguable merit to the potential assigned errors, and an independent review reveals no issues with arguable merit for Appellant to assert on appeal. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., dissenting.)WelbaumMontgomery 9/21/2018 9/21/2018 2018-Ohio-3812
State v. Pendergrass 27814Defendant-appellee was indicted for two counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, violations of R.C. 2907.04(A), as second, as opposed to fourth, degree felonies based upon his previous conviction for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. The previous conviction was for conduct which occurred after the conduct alleged in the current indictment. The trial court dismissed the indictment concluding that for Defendant-appellee to have been indicted for a second degree felony upon the basis of a previous conviction, the previous conviction must have already been a matter of record at the time he committed the acts alleged in the indictment. R.C. 2907.04(B) allows an offense degree elevation “if the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to * * * a violation of [R.C.] 2907.04.” This language unambiguously allows a violation of R.C. 2907.04 to be elevated to a second degree felony if the defendant, at the time of the indictment, had already been convicted of a violation of R.C. 2907.04. The trial court, since this conclusion applies to Defendant-appellee’s situation, erred by dismissing the indictment. Judgment reversed and remanded. (Froelich, J., concurring.) (Donovan, J., dissenting.)TuckerMontgomery 9/21/2018 9/21/2018 2018-Ohio-3813
State v. Portman 2018-CA-22Appellant was convicted following a guilty plea to one count of possession of cocaine, a felony of the fifth degree, in exchange for the dismissal of one count of aggravated possession of drugs. He was not eligible for mandatory community control sanctions, and he was sentenced to 12 months in prison. Appellate counsel asserts an absence of meritorious issues for review, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). A thorough and independent review of the record reveals no arguably meritorious appellate issues. Judgment affirmed.DonovanClark 9/21/2018 9/21/2018 2018-Ohio-3814
State v. Ropp 2017-CA-32The trial court’s imposition of some maximum and some consecutive sentences was not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring.)DonovanChampaign 9/21/2018 9/21/2018 2018-Ohio-3815
State v. Shaw 2017-CA-35, 2017-CA-36, 2017-CA-37Defendant’s plea, which included agreements that he pay a specific amount of restitution in two cases, was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The trial court did not err in ordering the amounts of restitution as agreed by the parties. Although the trial court’s order of restitution did not specifically identify to whom the restitution was to be paid, the record clearly identifies the victims to whom restitution was owed. The trial court erred in its award of jail time credit in two cases when it imposed concurrent sentences. One judgment affirmed. Two judgments reversed as to the amount of jail time credit, and those matters are remanded for amended judgment entries of conviction reflecting the correct amount of jail time credit and for the trial court to notify the appropriate prison officials of the amended judgment entries. (Welbaum, P.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.)FroelichGreene 9/21/2018 9/21/2018 2018-Ohio-3816
State v. Erby 27799Appellant’s conviction after a bench trial of reckless homicide with a firearm specification was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, where undisputed evidence showed that Appellant unintentionally shot and killed his girlfriend while excitedly “waving” loaded handgun in her vicinity with his finger on the trigger. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 9/14/2018 9/14/2018 2018-Ohio-3695
State v. Gary 27829The trial court did not erroneously apply the plain view doctrine when overruling Appellant’s motion to suppress. The detective who discovered Appellant’s drugs in plain view was lawfully located in an area from which he could observe the drugs because he had a legitimate purpose for entering the area in question and the area in question was substantially open to public view and part of a premises that had a reduced expectation of privacy. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring.)WelbaumMontgomery 9/14/2018 9/14/2018 2018-Ohio-3696
12345678910...>>