|
|
State v. Barnum
| F-25-010 | Per Mayle, J., trial court did not err by denying appellant’s motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy. Double jeopardy protections provided by Ohio and United States Constitutions are coextensive, and Ohio Supreme Court has rejected rule barring retrial after appellate reversal based on prosecutorial misconduct calculated or intended to prevent likely acquittal, even though no mistrial was declared. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by deciding motion without a hearing. | Mayle | Fulton |
6/23/2026
|
6/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2384 |
|
State v. Richter
| L-25-00008 | Trial court’s failure to provide an unrequested jury instruction on inferior offense of aggravated assault, in a case devoid of evidence of serious provocation, was not an obvious defect, so as to be plain error. Aggravated arson conviction, in a case where appellant’s use of a lit blowtorch to set victim’s hair on fire, was captured on store camera surveillance system and observed by three eyewitnesses, was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Osowik | Lucas |
6/23/2026
|
6/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2386 |
|
State v. Fonseca-Mora
| E-25-017 | Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, finds that appellant’s arguments are subject to review under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) and, under that standard, the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences. Judgement affirmed. | Zmuda | Erie |
6/23/2026
|
6/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2385 |
|
State v. Dyer
| WD-25-061 | Per Mayle, J., trial court did not abuse discretion when it revoked community control and imposed reserved sentence after defendant committed three separate community-control violations. After each of first two violations, court cautioned that additional violations could result in imposition of reserved prison term. Trial court was not obligated to give defendant unlimited opportunities to demonstrate amenability to community control. | Mayle | Wood |
6/23/2026
|
6/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2387 |
|
UNIFUND CCR, L.L.C. v. House
| L-25-00271 | Per Sulek, J., appellant’s challenges to the underlying judgment are not appropriate in a garnishment proceeding. The trial court properly denied appellant’s motion to quash the garnishment. Appellant did not properly appeal trial court’s order on attorney fees, so appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider that order. | Sulek | Lucas |
6/23/2026
|
6/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2388 |
|