|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Jenkins
| 114969 & 114970 | Conceded error; guilty plea; knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made; Crim.R. 11(C); maximum penalty; postrelease control; complete failure to comply. Appellant’s plea was required to be vacated where the trial court completely failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C) by not advising appellant of the imposition of mandatory postrelease control prior to accepting his plea. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5146 |
|
State v. Harvey
| 114869 | Guilty plea; ineffective assistance of counsel; statutory speedy trial; judicial bias or intimidation. Judgment affirmed. Trial counsel was not ineffective by failing to raise the issue of statutory speedy trial. The record demonstrates that the trial date was tolled for much of the case because of the defendant’s numerous requests for continuances and his failure to respond to the State’s request for reciprocal discovery. The record further demonstrates that the defendant’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered into. There was no indication whatsoever of judicial bias or intimidation. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5141 |
|
In re S.M.
| 114922 | Termination of parental rights; plain error; limited review; failure to object to magistrate’s decision; failure to provide transcripts for juvenile court’s review. Judgments affirmed. Mother failed to object to the magistrate’s decisions recommending permanent custody of the children be given to the Agency. Mother also failed to file the transcripts in the juvenile and therefore, although she has made them part of the appellate record, we are precluded from reviewing them. Our review is limited and for plain error. We find no error, plain or otherwise, in the trial court’s judgments granting the Agency’s motion for permanent custody. The record demonstrates that both prongs required for an agency to be granted permanent custody were met. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5144 |
|
State v. Steele
| 114554 | Jury instructions; proximate result; ineffective assistance of counsel; plain error; R.C. 1.51; general v. specific statutes; allied offenses; closing argument; vouching; weight of the evidence. The trial court did not commit plain error when it failed to instruct on proximate result where the evidence was straightforward, the issue was not disputed, and the record did not reflect that the jury lost its way when it found the appellant guilty of murder under R.C. 2903.02(B). Additionally, appellant’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to request the instruction, because appellant was not prejudiced by the omission. Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel did not move to dismiss the felonious assault serious physical harm count under R.C. 1.51. While felonious assault serious physical harm is a general statute when compared to felonious assault deadly weapon, the statutes are not irreconcilable. Counsel, therefore, did not commit an error when he did not move to dismiss the count. The trial court did not err when it allowed the prosecution to comment on the failure of the defense to call a witness with knowledge of the crime. A party may comment on the failure of the opposing party to call a witness with knowledge. Here, the appellant generally challenged the State’s key witness’s credibility and the failure of police to pursue investigative leads. The State was permitted to comment on the defense’s failure to call the family member to refute claims made in the State’s case in chief. Further, the State’s commentary did not rise to the level of vouching for its witness. The State was permitted to comment on the testimony of its witness during closing. Appellant’s convictions were supported by the weight of the evidence where the evidence was simple and direct; the sole issue was the identity of the shooter. In addition to eyewitness testimony, there was evidence that appellant took steps to obscure the car driven during the crime and that he was concerned about a witness “snitching” on him. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5133 |
|
In re D.C.
| 115133 & 115139 | Department of Youth Services commitment; disposition vacated; remand for new dispositional hearing; R.C. 2907.02; R.C. 2907.05; R.C. 2905.02. Judgment vacated and case remanded. The juvenile court erred by failing to afford D.C. his right of allocution before imposing disposition, committing him to the Ohio Department of Youth Services. Juveniles enjoy a right of allocution analogous to Crim.R. 32(A), and here the juvenile court never invited D.C. to speak in mitigation at his dispositional hearing. Remarks made at the earlier adjudicatory hearing did not cure the error. The juvenile court had moved to the State’s proffer and continued the case for disposition without soliciting mitigation remarks from D.C. Asking only one factual question and proceeding to disposition did not satisfy the allocution requirement. Because alleged lack of remorse and personal accountability were central themes at disposition, the denial was not harmless. The disposition is vacated and the case is remanded for a new dispositional hearing. | Calabrese | Cuyahoga |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5147 |
|
Cleveland Mun. Court Criminal Div. v. Edgewater Park Manor, L.L.C.
| 114829 | Motion to vacate; subject-matter jurisdiction; personal jurisdiction; mootness. Appellant sought to overturn trial court’s ruling denying its motion to vacate judgment. However, since that decision, the underlying judgment that was the basis of the order has been vacated and the associated judgments and liens were revoked. Appeal dismissed because there were no remaining controversies in issue. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5139 |
|
State v. Yancy
| 114608 | Admission of evidence; hearsay; excited utterance; Evid.R. 803; foundation; sufficiency of the evidence; complicity; R.C. 2923.03; aid or abet; principal offender; involuntary manslaughter; firearm specification; manifest weight of the evidence; credibility of witness; ineffective assistance of counsel; failure to assert defense; self-defense; trial strategy; nunc pro tunc; appeal perfected; trial court jurisdiction divested; R.C. 2929.14; mandatory prison sentence; R.C. 2941.145; sentencing entry differs from sentence imposed at hearing; Crim.R. 43; sentence contrary to law; plain error; cross-appeal; failure to file brief; App.R. 18(C). The trial court did not err in allowing statements made by the decedent as an excited-utterance exception to hearsay. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence with the exception of her conviction on the five-year firearm specification attendant to the involuntary-manslaughter charge. Appellant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, the trial court erred in failing to sentence appellant on the three-year firearm specification attendant to the aggravated-robbery count. The State’s cross-appeal was dismissed because it failed to file a merit brief in support of its cross-appeal. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5135 |
|
State v. E.B.
| 114897; 114898; 114900 | R.C. 2152.121; mandatory transfer; juvenile court; adult court; bindover; reverse bindover; plain error; ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court committed plain error when it failed to comply with the reverse bindover procedures as mandated in R.C. 2152.121. Counsel’s failure to raise this issue constituted ineffective assistance. | Klatt | Cuyahoga |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5142 |
|
State v. Miller
| 114867 | R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); jail-time credit calculation; competent, credible evidence; plain error. The trial court’s calculation of jail-time credit was not based on competent, credible evidence, and as such, its calculation was plain error. Appellant’s assignment of error is sustained, the trial court’s judgment is vacated and the matter is remanded to the trial court to recalculate appellant’s jail-time credit based on competent, credible evidence. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5140 |
|
State v. Gaines
| 114223 & 115225 | Reagan Tokes Law; constitutionality; voluntariness of plea; prejudice. - Judgment affirmed. Gaines has not met his burden to demonstrate that the trial court’s imprecise but de minimis, nonconstitutional advisements prejudiced Gaines such that justify vacating the plea. Further, Gaines’s assertions about the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law have already been addressed by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Hacker, 2023-Ohio-2535, and are accordingly overruled. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5132 |
|
State v. Massimiani
| 114755 | Postrelease control; R.C. 2967.28(C). The trial court did not properly impose postrelease control on the appellant because it failed to notify the appellant of the consequences of violating postrelease control. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5137 |
|
AGZ Properties, L.L.C. v. Zdolshek
| 114580 | Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; evidence; personal knowledge; abuse of discretion; genuine issue of material fact; breach of contract; unjust enrichment; fraud; motion to strike. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the parties’ motion to strike evidence. Further, the appellant has not shown that the trial court failed to consider evidence in accordance with Civ.R. 56. Summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee was proper. | Klatt | Cuyahoga |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5134 |
|
State v. Rykena
| 114702 | Motion to suppress; Fourth Amendment; government actors; state actors; search; Snapchat; National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; private entity; electronic service provider; expectation of privacy; hash matching; child pornography. Affirmed. Trial court did not err when it denied appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. The evidence in question was 12 images later determined to contain child pornography that appellant uploaded to his Snapchat account. The trial court did not err when it found that Snapchat was not a state actor when it conducted a hash-matching search of the uploaded images. Once he revealed the images to a third party, Snapchat, appellant no longer had an expectation of privacy in the content of the images. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children conducted their own search that did not extend outside the scope of the search conducted by Snapchat. | Calabrese | Cuyahoga |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5136 |
|
State v. R.L.
| 114828 | Expungement. The trial court erred when it denied R.L.’s application for expungement and failed to articulate and create a record for this court to engage in a meaningful appellate review. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5138 |
|
State v. Kirks
| 114949 | Petition for postconviction relief; R.C. 2953.21(A)(2); untimely petition; lack of jurisdiction; R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a); unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts. Appellant’s petitions for postconviction relief were properly denied by the trial court. The petitions were facially untimely and appellant failed to present any evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts alleged in his petitions as required pursuant to R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a). As such, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the petitions as a matter of law and they were properly denied without a hearing. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
11/13/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5145 |
|
In re E.W.
| 115323 | Parental rights; permanent custody; R.C. 2151.419; reasonable-efforts findings; reasonable efforts by the agency; manifest weight of the evidence; R.C. 2151.414(B)(1); child could not or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time; R.C. 2151.414(E)(11); R.C. 2151.414(D); best interests of the child. This court has consistently declined to require findings that reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal or return of a child safely home pursuant to R.C. 2151.419, and we continue to do so. This court found no error when the juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence to support its finding that at least one of the conditions set forth in R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a) through (e) applied and that it was in the best interests of the child to grant permanent custody to the agency. | Klatt | Cuyahoga |
11/6/2025
|
11/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5052 |
|
Davis v. JLW Constr. Group, L.L.C.
| 115033 | Failure to file transcript; App.R. 9(C); App.R. 9(D); presumption of regularity. The court found in favor of the defendant after a trial. The plaintiff appealed but failed to file the trial transcript. This court must presume regularity and affirm. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
11/6/2025
|
11/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5049 |
|
S. Shore Lake Erie Assets & Operations, L.L.C. v. Johnson
| 114777 | Summary judgment; standing; counterclaims; limited-liability company; vessel; boat; fraud; breach of contract; indemnification; defamation; flooding; broker; third-party defendant; damages; false statement of fact; genuine issue of material fact. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, a boat-brokerage firm, was affirmed as to defendant, the sole member of a limited-liability company, where the defendant failed to present evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact on his counterclaim for defamation. The defendant did not have standing to assert claims on appeal that belonged to the limited-liability company, for which he was the sole member. These claims belonged to the limited-liability company, not the defendant in his individual capacity. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
11/6/2025
|
11/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5043 |
|
State v. Chavers
| 114727 | Sufficient evidence; plain error; ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court erred when it found appellant guilty of the higher degree of the felonies charged because there was not sufficient evidence. The appellant did not argue plain error, so we are not inclined to address it. The appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
11/6/2025
|
11/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5042 |
|
In re T.F.
| 115224 | Manifest weight; sufficiency; best interest; clear and convincing; reasonable time; failure to remedy; lack of commitment; abandonment; R.C. 2151.414(B)(1); R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(a)-(e); R.C. 2151.414(E)(1); R.C. 2151.414(E)(4); R.C. 2151.414(E)(10); R.C. 2151.415(D); R.C. 2151.415(A); R.C. 2151.353(G); R.C. 2151.412(H)(2); R.C. 2151.412(F)(2). Judgment affirmed. Permanent custody to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS”) was supported by clear and convincing evidence. Mother continuously failed to remedy substance abuse, mental-health, housing, and anger-management issues. She had inconsistent visitation with the children, which did not progress beyond supervised visits. Mother missed 39 drug screens and had no prospective sobriety date. Her visits with the children often included 30- to 45-minute phone distractions. One child became inconsolable when mother no-showed. Evidence also supported the juvenile court’s finding that the children’s father had abandoned them. These findings supported the conclusion that the children could not or should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time. The statutory best-interest factors supported custody to CCDCFS, including, but not limited to, the guardian ad litem’s recommendation, the children’s custodial history since December 2023, and their need for a legally secure placement. Mother’s manifest-weight and sufficiency challenges failed because competent, credible evidence established each statutory element. A finding that a judgment is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence necessarily includes a finding that sufficient evidence supports the judgment. We reject mother’s argument that CCDCFS moved too quickly or was required to secure placement with a relative. The agency’s filing of its motion for permanent custody complied with R.C. 2151.415(A) because the R.C. 2151.353(G) one-year temporary custody deadline neared. Temporary custody continued through disposition, and the juvenile court concluded that further extension would have been improper under R.C. 2151.415(D). No relatives filed a motion for legal-custody, CCDCFS was not required to rehabilitate nonparty relatives, and there was no requirement to favor relatives under R.C. 2151.414. | Calabrese | Cuyahoga |
11/6/2025
|
11/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5051 |
|
Estate of Mikulski v. Centerior Energy Corp.
| 114713 | Motion for class certification; R.C. 2505.39; remand; mandate; law-of-the-case doctrine; standing; concrete injury. The trial court erred in granting class certification where plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not demonstrate that they had suffered a concrete injury. The court further erred by granting class certification in violation of the law-of-the-case doctrine. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
11/6/2025
|
11/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5041 |
|
State v. Zolikoff
| 114660 | Gross sexual imposition; R.C. 2907.05(A)(4); Evid.R. 404(B); other-acts evidence; motive; preparation or plan; lack of mistake or accident. Defendant appealed his conviction for gross sexual imposition, arguing that he was prejudiced by introduction of other-acts evidence that served no permissible purpose under Evid.R. 404(B). Testimony that defendant had developed relationships with and touched a friend of his daughter years prior to the charged offense did not show motive, preparation or plan, or lack of mistake or accident regarding alleged touching of victim in this case. Inadmissible other-acts evidence prejudiced defense, requiring a new trial, where only defendant and victim had firsthand knowledge regarding the touching at issue. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
11/6/2025
|
11/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5040 |
|
JTC Solutions, L.L.C. v. New Age Consulting Serv., Inc.
| 114799 | Motion to compel; statutory interpretation; de novo standard of review; R.C. 1335.11(F)(3); mootness; failure to address presented issue; reversal. The trial court erred as a matter of law when it found R.C. 1335.11(F)(3) rendered a contract’s arbitration provision void and denied defendant-appellant’s motion to compel on that basis. Pursuant to this court’s finding that R.C. 1335.11(F)(3) did not void the arbitration provision, the trial court’s alleged failure to state whether the presented facts and parties met the statutory definitions was moot. Where the trial court’s denial of the defendant-appellant’s motion to compel was in error and not based on the merits of the case, the trial court’s order was reversed and the case remanded for further inquiry on the additional arguments raised in the motion to compel. | Klatt | Cuyahoga |
11/6/2025
|
11/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5045 |
|
State v. Smith
| 114814 | Guilty plea; ineffective assistance of counsel; preindictment delay. Judgment affirmed. The defendant failed to establish that his trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to dismiss the indictment based on preindictment delay resulted in actual prejudice to him. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
11/6/2025
|
11/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5046 |
|
Monroe v. Petition for Relief From Firearms Disability
| 115011 | R.C. 2923.14(A), “law-abiding life,” application for relief from firearm disability. Denial of application for relief from firearm disability affirmed. Appellant failed to file a hearing transcript, firearm disability arose from appellant’s commission of multiple offenses of violence, and multiple arrest warrants had been issued since appellant’s conviction regarding his failure to appear in court. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
11/6/2025
|
11/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5048 |
|
Galloway v. Garmon, Exr.
| 114786, 115075 | Declaratory judgment; summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; de novo; evidence; unauthenticated; contract; agreement; property; real estate; right of first refusal; signed; statute of frauds; offer; acceptance; meeting of the minds; motion for relief from judgment; Civ.R. 60(B); grounds for relief; meritorious claim; abuse of discretion. Affirmed probate court’s decision granting summary judgment to defendants-appellees on plaintiffs-appellants’ claims for “declaration of validity of agreement to sell” and specific performance where there was a lack of admissible evidence to support appellants’ claims, and even if a purported letter were admissible, there was no valid contract. The alleged contract was not signed by a co-owner of the property and arguably violated the statute of frauds, acceptance was not made in a reasonable time, and there was no meeting of the minds. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion for relief from final judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). | S. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
11/6/2025
|
11/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5044 |
|
In re K.C.
| 114958 | Kinship Caregiver Act; legal custody; best interests; placement in temporary custody; intensive efforts; foster parents; foster placement; R.C. 2151.353(A)(3); R.C. 2151.011(B)(21); R.C. 2151.4119; R.C. 2151.4115; R.C. 5180.50; R.C. 2151.4118; R.C. 2151.4119; R.C. 2151.412(F)(2); R.C. 2151.417(A). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Order awarding legal custody to foster parents is reversed and remanded for a determination of why legal custody to foster parents rather than maternal great grandmother was in the best interests of the child. Juvenile court did not err when it determined that foster parents have a kin relationship with the child pursuant to the Kinship Caregiver Act and that determination is affirmed. | Calabrese | Cuyahoga |
11/6/2025
|
11/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5047 |
|
State v. Landers
| 114910 | Misdemeanor conviction; voluntarily service; mootness doctrine. Dismissed. The defendant has voluntarily served the entirety of the sentence imposed for the misdemeanor domestic-violence offense and has failed to demonstrate a collateral disability, and as a result, this appeal is moot and must be dismissed. | S. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
11/5/2025
|
11/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5143 |
|
In re N.A.-S.
| 115191 | Permanent custody; manifest weight of the evidence; clear and convincing evidence; plain error. The trial court’s decision to grant permanent custody to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS”) was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was also not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Mother’s other assignments of error are overruled because she did not raise them at the trial-court level nor argue plain error on appeal. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
10/31/2025
|
11/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5050 |
|
State ex rel. Eldridge v. Kilbane
| 115338 | Mandamus; prohibition; jurisdiction; priority of jurisdiction rule; forcible entry and detainer action; quiet title claim; fraud; amendment of pleadings; and unprofessional behavior. This court dismissed a complaint for mandamus and prohibition. The priority of jurisdiction rule did not apply; a forcible entry and detainer action in municipal court does not deprive the common pleas court of jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of quiet title and fraud between the same parties and the same parcel of property. Unprofessional behavior by a judge, even if true, does not deprive the judge of jurisdiction. The relator did not properly seek to amend her complaint. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
10/31/2025
|
11/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-5053 |
|
S. Shore Lake Erie Assets & Operations, L.L.C. v. Johnson
| 114726 | Motion for summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; moot; voluntary dismissal with prejudice; breach of contract; App.R. 12(A)(2); App.R. 16(A)(7); App.R. 16(A); failure to cite any authorities or statutes; failure to separately argue assigned error; failure to construct an argument on appeal. The plaintiff-appellee’s fraud claim became moot when the trial court granted the party’s motion to dismiss the claim with prejudice and, accordingly any challenge to the fraud claim is moot. Where defendant-appellant failed to cite any authorities or statutes and failed to separately argue the second and third assignments of error, those assignments of error are overruled. | Klatt | Cuyahoga |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4950 |
|
State v. Lee-Robinson
| 114783 | Forgery; receiving stolen property; sufficiency of the evidence; identity. Affirmed. The defendant’s convictions relating to an altered check were not based on insufficient evidence. Based on the evidence presented, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crimes based on circumstantial evidence, which included the check clearing in the defendant’s business bank account, the check’s endorsement matching the defendant’s name, the funds being immediately transferred to a CashApp account that bore a username similar to the defendant’s name, and signature comparisons that matched defendant’s signatures on official documents. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4951 |
|
Cleveland v. Sopjack
| 114807 | Community-control sanction; exterior inspection; abuse of discretion; excessive; overbroad; violation. The trial court abused its discretion when it ordered an exterior inspection of appellant’s uncited residential property as an expanded community-control sanction related to violations on a separate property. | Klatt | Cuyahoga |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4952 |
|
Grand v. Cleveland Clinic Found.
| 114851 | Medical claim, R.C. 2305.113(E)(3); affidavit of merit, Civ.R. 10(D)(2)(a); dismissal without prejudice; Civ.R. 10(D)(2)(d); final appealable order, R.C. 2505.02; motion to dismiss, Civ.R. 12(B)(6); Civ.R. 12(C); motion for judgment on the pleadings. Appellant’s complaint set forth a medical claim as defined by statute. Appellant’s failure to submit an affidavit of merit in support of the claim was properly dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Civ.R. 10(D)(2). Civ.R. 12(C) was not an improper procedural avenue for challenging appellant’s failure to file the affidavit of merit. The judgment did not constitute a final appealable order. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4954 |
|
In re C.H.
| 114941 | Delinquent; rape; abduction; R.C. 2907.02(A)(2); R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b); R.C. 2905.02(B); sufficiency; manifest weight; consecutive; commitment; R.C. 2152.17(F); R.C. 2929.14(C); juvenile offender; confinement; discretion. Affirmed the juvenile court’s decision adjudicating appellant delinquent of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) and 2907.02(A)(1)(b) and of abduction in violation of R.C. 2905.02(B). The decision was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The findings required under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) are not required under R.C. 2152.17(F), which vests the juvenile court with discretion to impose consecutive commitments to the department of youth services. Juvenile offenders are treated differently from adult offenders for purposes of confinement. | S. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4955 |
|
State v. Martin
| 114834 | Motion for new trial; Crim.R. 33; newly discovered evidence; recanted testimony; independent review; abuse of discretion; credibility. There was no evidence that trial court failed to independently review the record when ruling on a motion for new trial even though the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law tracked the language in the State’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions because the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law accurately reflected the facts and the law and there was no evidence that the court rubber-stamped the State’s proposed findings and conclusions. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that recanting witnesses’ testimony was not credible where the testimony required the court to believe that three law enforcement agencies and the witnesses’ defense lawyer engaged in conspiracy and the witnesses’ original trial testimony was consistent with the testimony of another eyewitness and with other corroborating evidence. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4953 |
|
State v. D.L.L.
| 115025 | Expungement; eligibility; R.C. 2953.32; statutory construction; de novo; plain language. Judgment vacated and remanded. The statutory language of the applicable version of R.C. 2953.32(A)(1) conveys a clear and definite list of exceptions and plainly and unambiguously enumerates the convictions that are ineligible for expungement. Accordingly, the trial court was required to apply the statute as written and any further interpretation of legislative intent was unwarranted. Based on the statute’s plain language, the two fourth-degree-felony convictions that the defendant sought to expunge are clearly not excluded; the statute does not prohibit the sealing or expunging of fourth-degree-felony convictions in relation to third-degree-felony convictions when the fourth-degree felony convictions are nonviolent and otherwise eligible for expungement. Consequently, the trial court erred in finding that the defendant’s two fourth-degree-felony convictions were not eligible for expungement. Since the trial court incorrectly determined the defendant was an ineligible offender based on its interpretation of excluded convictions alone and did not determine whether he was otherwise ineligible under other statutory requirements and considerations, we remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
10/30/2025
|
10/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4956 |
|
In re J.T.
| 114764 | Juvenile sex offender; register; R.C. 2152.83(D); nature of the offense; remorse; abuse of discretion. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in classifying the juvenile offender as a Tier I juvenile sex offender pursuant to R.C. 2152.83(B) given the victim’s young age, the offender’s relationship to the victim, the offender’s apparent inability to take accountability for what occurred, the serious nature of the offense, and the fact that the offense occurred while the victim was asleep. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4846 |
|
In re Z.L.
| 114984, 114986, 114987 | Parental rights; permanent custody; clear and convincing evidence; R.C. 2151.414(D)(2); best interests of the child; manifest weight of the evidence; sufficiency of the evidence; reasonable efforts. It was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the juvenile court granted permanent custody of the children to the agency. The juvenile court’s findings under R.C. 2151.414(D)(2) were supported by competent and credible evidence. Mother was unable substantially remedy the conditions that caused the child to be placed outside the child’s home, which included domestic-violence, mental-health, substance-abuse, and parenting concerns. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4852 |
|
In re J.C.
| 115103 | Child support; establishment of support; abuse of discretion; App.R. 9; App.R. 12; App.R. 16; nunc pro tunc; clerical error. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering appellant-father to pay child support. Where the appellant-father failed to comply with the appellate rules and separately argue his assignments of error or provide legal support for his arguments, the assignments of error are disregarded. The trial court’s clerical error, stating in its journal entry that paternity was established in 2019 when the record reflects it was established in 2009, is properly corrected by a nunc pro tunc. | Klatt | Cuyahoga |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4855 |
|
In re Z.L.
| 114976 | Permanent custody; domestic violence; manifest weight of the evidence; clear and convincing; best interest; case plan; legal custody; R.C. 2151.414(B)(1); R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e); R.C. 2151.414(D); R.C. 2151.414(E); R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(d); R.C. 2151.353(A)(3). Affirmed. Juvenile court did not err when it granted permanent custody of three children to the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services. The juvenile court’s finding that although Father completed most of the objectives of his case plan, he failed to benefit from those services, which was supported by the record. Permanent custody; domestic violence; manifest weight of the evidence; clear and convincing; best interest; case plan; legal custody; R.C. 2151.414(B)(1); R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(a)-(e); R.C. 2151.414(D); R.C. 2151.414(E); R.C. 2151.414(D)(2)(d); R.C. 2151.353(A)(3). Affirmed. Juvenile court did not err when it granted permanent custody of three children to the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services. The juvenile court’s finding that although Father completed most of the objectives of his case plan, he failed to benefit from those services, which was supported by the record. | Calabrese | Cuyahoga |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4851 |
|
Ellis v. Setjo, L.L.C.
| 114735 | Motion to stay pending arbitration; contract; meeting of the minds; retail installment sales contract; arbitration agreement; Civ.R. 6; abuse of discretion. Trial court did not err in denying Kia’s motion to stay pending arbitration. There was no meeting of the minds as the formation of the contract. Appellee was an elderly woman with vision, hearing, and mobility limitations and who was obviously ill when she purportedly signed two arbitration provisions for the purchase of a car. She told the salesperson she could not read the contract nor hear what he was saying but the dealership proceeded with the sales contract anyway. In addition, the arbitration provisions contained conflicting terms. The trial court also did not err in striking Kia’s reply brief. The court expressly told the parties no reply briefs would be accepted but Kia ignored the court’s order and filed a reply brief. It is well-settled that a trial court has discretion to manage its docket. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4844 |
|
Pope v. Abdullah
| 114756 | Replevin; R.C. 2737.03; failure to move for evidence to be admitted; manifest weight of the evidence; certificate of title; R.C. 4505.04; R.C. 4505.10. The trial court did not prevent appellant from presenting sufficient evidence of his claim when trial counsel had neglected to move to have the evidence admitted; the court had previously reviewed the exhibits and had heard testimony about them. The judgment denying appellant’s claim for replevin and award of permanent possession of the vehicle to appellee was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4845 |
|
Rodriguez v. Catholic Charities Corp.
| 114437 | Expert witness testimony; admissibility; causation; speculation; directed verdict; vicarious liability; respondeat superior; apportionment of damages; consent judgment entry; negligent hiring, training, and supervision; wrongful death; survival action; failure to report child abuse or neglect. The Estate of a deceased boy sought damages for claims, including wrongful death, a survival action, failure to report child abuse or neglect and negligent hiring, training and supervision, against Catholic Charities, a community service provider hired by the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services to provide services to the boy’s mother and her family. The boy’s mother and her boyfriend pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter of the boy after law enforcement discovered his body buried in the backyard of his home. Evidence in the record tends to show that the boy died of starvation. The Catholic Charities employee who was assigned to this case pled guilty to food stamp fraud for purchasing the boy’s mother’s food stamps for a reduced price. The Catholic Charities employee and the Estate entered into a consent judgment entry in which the employee admitted liability for the boy’s death. After a jury trial, the court granted a directed verdict on all claims other than Catholic Charities’ negligent hiring, training and supervision of its employee who admitted liability. The court found, as a matter of law, that Catholic Charities was not vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee. The jury found in favor of the Estate and against Catholic Charities and awarded the Estate $12 million. After the court applied the statutory cap on non-economic damages, as well as apportionment under the empty-chair defense, the damage award was reduced to $740,000. The Estate appealed. We find that the trial court erred by refusing to acknowledge the consent judgment entry; ruling that the consent judgment entry was inadmissible at trial; ruling that, as a matter of law, Catholic Charities was not vicariously liable for its employee’s negligence; granting Catholic Charities’ motion for directed verdict; ruling that expert testimony regarding causation was speculative and inadmissible at trial; and apportioning damages. Judgment reversed and case remanded for a new trial. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4840 |
|
Cerreta Interiors, L.L.C. v. New Moon, L.L.C.
| 114815 | Civ.R. 56; summary judgment; evidence; disputed issues of material fact. Vacated and remanded. The trial court erred by granting judgment in favor of both defendants because the first defendant’s motion for summary judgment did not address all claims and the second defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. | S. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4847 |
|
In re G.J.
| 114991 | Manifest weight of the evidence; R.C. 2151.414; permanent custody; best interest; clear and convincing evidence. Judgment affirmed. The juvenile court’s decision granting permanent custody to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (“CCDCFS”) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The record demonstrates that the juvenile court properly applied the two-prong statutory analysis required under R.C. 2151.414 and that clear and convincing evidence supports its decision to grant permanent custody of the children to CCDCFS. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4854 |
|
A.L.W.A.Y., L.L.C. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
| 114845 | R.C. Ch. 119; R.C. 119.01; R.C. 119.12; R.C. 5515.02; Administrative Procedure Act; agency; adjudication; subject-matter jurisdiction; Civ.R. 12(B)(1). The trial court’s judgment dismissing appellants’ appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was affirmed. R.C. 119.12 permits an appeal by a party adversely affected by an order of a state agency issued pursuant to an adjudication. But here, the Ohio Department of Transportation is not an “agency” as defined in R.C. 119.01(A) nor was there an “adjudication” as defined in R.C. 119.01(D). | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4850 |
|
State v. Carter-El
| 114603 | Sufficiency; Crim.R. 29; manifest weight; aggravated murder; R.C. 2903.01(B); murder; R.C. 2903.02(A); R.C. 2903.02(B); aggravated robbery; R.C. 2911.01(A)(1); R.C. 2911.01(A)(3); felonious assault; R.C. 2903.11(A)(1); R.C. 2903.11(A)(2); accomplice testimony instruction; DNA evidence; surveillance-video identification; sentencing; R.C. 2929.03; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b); R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); juvenile bindover; mandatory transfer; Juv.R. 30; R.C. 2152.10; R.C. 2152.12; probable cause. Judgment affirmed. The State presented sufficient evidence through surveillance footage, eyewitness identification by an accomplice, and corroborating DNA linking appellant to the vehicle involved in the crime to support convictions for aggravated murder and firearm specifications. The trial court therefore properly denied appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motions. In addition, the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The jury heard an accomplice’s identification and robbery narrative, the jury could independently evaluate surveillance video and stills depicting the perpetrator the accomplice identified as appellant, and the jury received a cautionary accomplice instruction before crediting that testimony. In sentencing appellant, the trial court did not fail to consider youth as mitigation. The sentencing record expressly reflected consideration of R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12, and the youth-specific factors in R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b). Constitutional challenges were forfeited by failure to object. The aggregate term of 36 years to life, including consecutive three-year firearm specifications, was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Finally, the juvenile court did not err in its mandatory bindover determination. Because appellant was 16 at the time and charged with category one and category two offenses, transfer under R.C. 2152.10 and 2152.12 was proper upon a showing of probable cause. Testimony and exhibits, including surveillance stills, DNA from the vehicle involved in the incident, and a Faygo bottle, as well as ballistic links tying a common firearm to incidents with common suspects, established more than a mere suspicion. Any credibility disputes were for trial, not the probable-cause phase governed by Juv.R. 30. | Calabrese | Cuyahoga |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4842 |
|
Issa v. Cleveland Metro. School Dist.
| 114830 | Motion to dismiss; failure to prosecute; motion for relief from judgment; Civ.R. 60(B); bootstrapping. Appeal dismissed. By appealing from the January 15, 2025 journal entry denying appellant’s motion for relief from judgment, appellant is attempting to bootstrap arguments that are time-barred. Appellant is attempting to utilize the instant appeal (denial of her Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment) to improperly seek review of alleged errors that she failed to timely appeal (the dismissal of her refiled case for the failure to prosecute). As a result, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4848 |
|
State v. Singleton
| 114841 | No-contact order; prison sentence; hybrid sentence; invited error; plain error; discretion. Vacated and remanded. The imposition of the no-contact order attendant to the prison sentence on the same felony offense is not authorized by statute and constitutes plain error irrespective of the defendant’s agreement to a no-contact order as part of the accepted plea deal under State v. Nelson, 2020-Ohio-6993, ¶ 11 (8th Dist.). | S. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
10/23/2025
|
10/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4849 |
|