|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
In re J.R.
| CA2024-09-008 | Juvenile court complied with Juv.R. 29(D) in accepting juvenile's admission to rape with serious-youthful-offender disposition where court personally addressed juvenile, explained consequences, used age-appropriate language, and engaged beyond yes-no questions. Court need not explain specific serious-youthful-offender procedural protections. Trial counsel was not ineffective where counsel actively participated in proceedings, obtained evaluations, and made strategic decisions about presenting mitigating youth factors. | Byrne | Brown |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2271 |
|
State v. Bowling
| CA2024-04-061 | Defendant entered plea to sexual battery and challenged voluntariness of his plea. Defendant claimed his plea was involuntary because trial court failed to advise him that each violation of postrelease control could result in nine months prison term per violation, under R.C. 2943.032. Trial court did not comply with R.C. 2943.032. But trial court properly advised defendant of the maximum postrelease control penalty and defendant failed to establish prejudice. Defendant argued court improperly considered unproven facts in sentencing. In a plea bargain, sentencing court may consider underlying facts, including charges dismissed as part of a plea agreement. | Byrne | Butler |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2272 |
|
State v. Wood
| CA2024-02-002; CA2024-02-003 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress video evidence that she was engaged in selling methamphetamine where the confidential informant was invited to the appellant's home for a prearranged transaction, or her motion to suppress evidence discovered during the search of her home because drug paraphernalia was in plain view of the police which provided probable cause to obtain a search warrant. The trial court did not err in denying appellant the use of hybrid counsel, nor did the court deny her the right of self-representation. Trial court did not err in accepting appellant's no contest plea even though her attorney vocally entered it at the hearing; the circumstances demonstrated she understood the plea was being entered and acquiesced. | Byrne | Fayette |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2273 |
|
State v. Vaughn
| CA2024-09-014 | Trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress evidence from her urine analysis and from her interview conducted in her hospital room. The state substantially complied with the regulations governing urine collection where the urine was initially collected in a clean bedpan and then immediately transferred to a sealed plastic vial. There was no requirement for a separate witness besides the detective who witnessed her produce the sample and sealed the sample. Appellant was not under custodial interrogation, therefore there was no need to provide Miranda warnings. | Hendrickson | Preble |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2274 |
|
Hopper v. Landen Auto Mart, L.L.C.
| CA2024-10-070 | The trial court did not err in entering summary judgment to a used car dealership on the plaintiff-purchaser's claim for fraud and claim of unconscionable acts in violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.03. The evidence submitted by the parties demonstrated the dealership had no knowledge that the vehicle it sold was missing emission control equipment and demonstrated that the dealership had no intent to mislead the plaintiff. The dealership had the vehicle serviced and inspected prior to sale and neither that inspection nor a later inspection by a company hired by the purchaser revealed the missing equipment. | Hendrickson | Warren |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2275 |
|
State v. Reising
| CA2024-12-092 | Defendant's statement that she was not "actually trafficking" after pleading guilty to aggravated trafficking was not grounds to invalidate her plea and sentence where (1) she and her attorney affirmed on the record she understood the charges against her, (2) she was apprehended with 21 times the bulk amount of methamphetamine, plastic baggies, a digital scale, and over $2,000, and (3) her statement served to mitigate the seriousness of her actions for sentencing purposes. R.C. 2925.03 criminalizes both the sale of methamphetamine and the preparation of it for sale. | Siebert | Warren |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2276 |
|
State v. Williams
| CA2024-05-010 | Defendant appeals conviction for felony possession of marihuana. Defendant failed to establish Brady violation where he claimed state combined non-illegal mature stalks with remainder of marihuana. Court did not err in refusing to give jury instruction on the legal definition of "hemp" where no evidence of hemp presented at trial. Defendant did not prove he was denied a fair trial by alleged prosecutorial misconduct. | Byrne | Fayette |
6/23/2025
|
6/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2190 |
|
Lakes v. Lakes
| CA2024-04-052 | Husband appeals decision modifying spousal support. Husband argued court erred by not dismissing objections not stated with particularity. Regardless of lack of compliance with Civ.R. 53, domestic relations court could modify the magistrate's decision. | Byrne | Butler |
6/23/2025
|
6/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2187 |
|
State v. Flack
| CA2024-12-134 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Butler |
6/23/2025
|
6/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2188 |
|
State v. Simason
| CA2024-12-142 | The trial court's verdict finding appellant guilty of aggravated menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.21(A) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim testified appellant pointed a firearm at the victim's face and threatened to shoot the victim if he took another step. | Piper | Butler |
6/23/2025
|
6/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2189 |
|
State v. Sanchez
| CA2024-07-012 | The trial court did not err and abuse its discretion by denying appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea filed pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 where the motion was filed over a decade after appellant entered his guilty plea to murder and kidnapping, appellant did not file a plea hearing transcript, and res judicata applied to bar most of appellant's claims. | Piper | Clinton |
6/16/2025
|
6/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2101 |
|
State v. Thompson
| CA2024-10-122 | Appellant's conviction for speeding in violation of R.C. 4511.21(D)(1) was supported by sufficient evidence where, rather than a peace officer's unaided visual estimation of the speed of appellant's motor vehicle, appellant's conviction was based on a peace officer's use of both his radar and his speedometer to determine the speed of appellant's motor vehicle. | Piper | Butler |
6/16/2025
|
6/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2099 |
|
State v. Geter
| CA2025-01-007 | Appellant's conviction for obstructing official business was supported by sufficient evidence where the state presented testimony that appellant hampered or impeded the official duties of the arresting officers by ignoring orders to stop and leading the officers on a brief foot chase. | Hendrickson | Butler |
6/16/2025
|
6/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2100 |
|
State v. Hopkins
| CA2024-07-051 | The time between the dismissal and a subsequent indictment on the same conduct does not count toward the speedy trial deadline. The nolle prosequi was entered in open court and for good cause shown. In addition, the trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion to suppress. While in jail on an unrelated charge, appellant made a phone call discussing illegal activity, which was then used in the application for a search warrant. Finally, appellant's convictions for possessing drugs and criminal tools were supported by sufficient evidence. The State presented evidence that appellant was not acting within the lawful scope of his professional capacity as a pharmacist. | Hendrickson | Warren |
6/16/2025
|
6/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2102 |
|
Fisher v. Fisher
| CA2024-07-043 | Appellant, party in a divorce proceeding, appeals from domestic relations courts decision dividing the parties' marital property and debt. Competent and credible evidence supported the court's findings with respect to marital property and debt. | Byrne | Warren |
6/9/2025
|
6/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2040 |
|
State v. Craddock
| CA2024-09-060 | Appellant's conviction for violating a protection order in violation of R.C. 2919.27(A)(2) was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the record established that appellant harassed the victim and committed acts of abuse towards the victim contrary to the terms of a protection order. | Piper | Warren |
6/9/2025
|
6/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2041 |
|
Kokaliares v. Decker & Assocs. – Architectural Design & Planning Servs., L.L.C.
| CA2024-11-132 | Judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $10,805 for unpaid architectural services against defendant in his personal capacity is affirmed. The defendant's failure to timely answer requests for admissions resulted in defendant admitting as truth that he entered into a contract with plaintiff and was jointly liable under that contract. Nothing in the record demonstrated that defendant disclosed, during negotiations, that he was acting on behalf of a disclosed principal, and defendant did not take affirmative action to pursue the defense that his principal should be joined to the action. | Siebert | Butler |
6/9/2025
|
6/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2038 |
|
State v. Miller
| CA2024-12-139 & CA2024-12-140 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Butler |
6/9/2025
|
6/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2039 |
|
State v. Barnes
| CA2024-01-011 | Defendant appeals conviction for felonious assault and having weapons while under disability. Trial court erred by providing non-standard jury instructions that overly suggested or mandated a result conflicting with statutory language. But defendant failed to establish prejudice. Defendant argued that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay statements. Assuming the testimony was inadmissible, the defendant failed to establish plain error. | Byrne | Butler |
6/2/2025
|
6/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1967 |
|
In re M.W.
| CA2025-01-010 | A juvenile court did not err by granting permanent custody of appellant's daughter to a children services agency where the juvenile court's decision finding a grant of permanent custody was in the child's best interest was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence given that appellant had failed to adequately protect the child from being sexually abused by her older brother and others. | Piper | Warren |
6/2/2025
|
6/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1968 |
|
Sherman v. Eichenlaub
| CA2024-08-017 | The probate court did not abuse its discretion in granting default judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellees or in denying defendant-appellant's motion to strike appellees' notice of admissions where appellant failed to timely file an answer to the complaint and failed to timely provide responses to the request for admissions without any justification. | M. Powell | Madison |
5/27/2025
|
5/27/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1880 |
|
State v. Jones
| CA2024-07-050 | Trial court did not err in accepting defendant's written and signed waiver of counsel. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's request to continue the jury trial so that he could secure counsel. | M. Powell | Warren |
5/19/2025
|
5/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1780 |
|
State v. Salines
| CA2024-12-088 | The trial court did not plainly err by failing to merge the offenses for sentencing purposes where appellant's convictions for aggravated trafficking in drugs and conspiracy to commit aggravated trafficking in drugs were committed with separate conduct and therefore, are not allied offenses of similar import. | Piper | Clermont |
5/19/2025
|
5/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1777 |
|
Neyer Holding II, Inc. v. Huang
| CA2024-01-015 | Commercial lessee appeals order granting judgment in favor of lessor, after lessee abandoned the leased premises. The lessor was contractually entitled to pass through costs referred to as common area maintenance to lessee. Lessor was entitled to incidental damages for breach of the lease, but only if such damages were foreseeable to the lessee. Matter remanded for foreseeability determination. | Byrne | Butler |
5/19/2025
|
5/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1776 |
|
State v. Hymer
| CA2024-02-026 | Defendant appeals convictions for burglary and violating a protection order. Defendant argued that the offenses should merge. Burglary and violating-a-protection-order offenses were not required to merge where each offense had a dissimilar import, i.e., each offense created separate and identifiable harms. | Byrne | Butler |
5/12/2025
|
5/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1691 |
|
Calista Ents., L.L.C. v. Oxford Bd. of Zoning Appeals
| CA2024-09-116 | On remand in an administrative appeal, common pleas court abused its discretion when it affirmed a decision of the board of zoning appeals denying a property owner's request for an area variance. | M. Powell | Butler |
5/12/2025
|
5/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1692 |
|
State v. Bowling
| CA2024-12-138 | Driver's conviction for marked lanes violation was not supported by sufficient evidence. | M. Powell | Butler |
5/12/2025
|
5/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1693 |
|
State v. Wright
| CA2024-10-011 | Defendant's 24-year indefinite sentence for four counts of use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance is affirmed. The trial court expressly considered the purposes of felony sentencing and the relevant sentencing factors and was not required to make any specific findings regarding them; the appellate court has no legal authority to second-guess the trial court's consideration of these factors. Defendant did not demonstrate his sentence was disproportionate to other similar defendants. Defendant also failed to show how his counsel's performance was objectively deficient or how those alleged deficiencies would have changed the outcome for defendant. Finally, the fact defendant's attorney is subject to disciplinary action does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that a defendant experienced ineffective assistance of counsel. | Siebert | Brown |
5/12/2025
|
5/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1690 |
|
State v. Barone
| CA2024-02-061 | Trial court did not err in finding probation violation where defendant committed new offense during court-ordered probation period despite probation officer's clerical error regarding termination date. | Hendrickson | Warren |
5/12/2025
|
5/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1695 |
|
State v. Wilson
| CA2024-12-086 | Appeal dismissed for lack of a final appealable order where the sentencing entry failed to set forth the fact of conviction, as required by Crim.R. 32(C). The entry failed to identify the offense, by name or reference to the specific ordinance violated, for which appellant was convicted. | Hendrickson | Warren |
5/12/2025
|
5/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1696 |
|
Copas v. Luikart
| CA2024-08-020 | The trial court's decision to grant a civil stalking protection order in favor of the victim was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where her testimony established that appellant engaged in a pattern of conduct pursuant to R.C. 2903.211(D)(1). The victim was not required to prove immediate and present danger, as that heightened burden only applies to civil stalking protection orders issued ex parte, not after a full hearing. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to reopen where he failed to establish excusable neglect in failing to attend the full hearing on the civil stalking protection order petition. | Siebert | Fayette |
5/12/2025
|
5/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1694 |
|
Naiman v. Naiman
| CA2024-06-074 | Trial court did not err in finding parent voluntarily unemployed and imputing income for purposes of child-support calculation despite the parent's 100% VA disability status where medical documentation of inability to work was lacking and evidence contradicted claimed inability to work. Trial court erred in failing to award attorney fees specifically related to motion to compel discovery where the motion to compel is granted under Civ.R. 37, mandating attorney fees unless specific exceptions apply, and the trial court had affirmed the magistrate's discovery sanctions order but later denied all attorney fees without addressing the prior ruling or explaining why the mandate of Civ.R. 37 should not apply. Trial court did not err in characterizing cash as marital property rather than separate property where the party claiming separate property failed to meet that party's burden of proving separate property. Trial court did not err in accepting one party's expert valuation of a business rather than the other party's expert valuation where competent evidence supported the accepted valuation. Trial court erred in failing to address disputed property in the property division where the property was explicitly listed as a disputed issue in joint trial stipulations, and both parties testified to its existence, but the divorce decree made no mention of it. | Siebert | Butler |
5/5/2025
|
5/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1589 |
|
Smith v. Mercy Health-Clermont Hosp., L.L.C.
| CA2024-02-010 | Trial court properly dismissed medical-negligence claims where the statute of limitations expired before federal jurisdiction attached upon removal. 28 U.S.C. 1367(d) does not retroactively cover pre-removal period in state court. Tolling begins when case enters federal court. Trial court properly dismissed medical-negligence claims where relation-back doctrine cannot connect a second federal complaint to earlier dismissed federal case or resurrect previously dismissed actions. Relation-back doctrine applies only to amendments within ongoing actions, not between separate lawsuits. | Piper | Clermont |
5/5/2025
|
5/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1590 |
|
State v. Whisner
| CA2024-08-062 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Clermont |
5/5/2025
|
5/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1591 |
|
Egan v. Egan
| CA2024-08-102 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it modified the magistrate's decision and ordered a smaller reduction in Husband's spousal support obligation because Husband failed to meet his burden of proof that he did not voluntarily reduce his income. There was no evidence in the record to support a partial credit toward the attorney fees Husband was ordered to pay. | Hendrickson | Butler |
4/28/2025
|
4/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1493 |
|
State v. Schaffer
| CA2024-06-041 | Appellant's conviction for illegal conveyance of drugs into a detention facility was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the jury disbelieved appellant's testimony and believed the testimony offered by the state indicating appellant knew the packages being conveyed into the detention facility contained drugs. However, because of an issue that occurred at appellant's sentencing hearing with respect to the trial court making the requisite consecutive sentence findings, appellant was entitled to resentencing and the matter was reversed and remanded for that limited purpose. | Piper | Warren |
4/28/2025
|
4/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1494 |
|
State v. Alexander
| CA2025-01-001 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Butler |
4/21/2025
|
4/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1402 |
|
State v. Griffin
| CA2024-04-029 | The trial court did not err by permitting Evid.R. 404(B) other-acts evidence where the identity of the perpetrator was at issue and the other-acts evidence was permissible modus operandi evidence. Appellant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. The jury could reasonably infer that appellant was the individual responsible without engaging in impermissible inference stacking. The trial court did not infringe on appellant's constitutional rights when it informed him that he was subject to cross-examination if he voluntarily took the stand in his own defense. | Powell | Clermont |
4/21/2025
|
4/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1403 |
|
Schaible v. Schaible
| CA2024-10-073 | The domestic relations court did not err by finding appellant in contempt, for denying appellant’s motion to change venue, or for determining it was in her child’s best interest to limit appellant’s parenting time with the child where none of the domestic | Piper | Clermont |
4/21/2025
|
4/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1404 |
|
State v. Ward
| CA2024-10-076 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Clermont |
4/21/2025
|
4/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1405 |
|
In re J.M.
| CA2025-01-008 | The juvenile court's decision to grant permanent custody of the minor child to a children services agency was in the child's best interest and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where Father failed to visit or maintain contact with the child for more than 90 days, failed to maintain sobriety, failed to complete case plan objectives, and failed to demonstrate a commitment to financially supporting the child. | Hendrickson | Clermont |
4/21/2025
|
4/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1406 |
|
Williams v. Williams
| CA2024-06-051 | Trial court erred in assigning husband any outstanding liability to a third person in its property division where trial court failed to address the third party's advances to the parties during the parties' marriage, much less classify the advances as a marital or separate debt or a gift, and where trial court failed to make the required R.C. 3105.171(G) written findings of fact. | Powell | Clermont |
4/14/2025
|
4/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1319 |
|
State v. Palma
| CA2024-08-101 & CA2024-08-108 | Appellant's conviction for failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer and obstructing official business were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence and no plain error occurred with respect to the verdict form for appellant's conviction of failing to comply with an order or signal of a police officer where appellant failed to prove any defect in the verdict form affected the outcome of his trial. | Piper | Butler |
4/14/2025
|
4/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1318 |
|
State v. Chambers
| CA2024-06-034 | Trial court abused its discretion by imposing five-year no-contact order between father and his minor children as condition of community control following domestic violence conviction against children's mother. No-contact order was not an appropriate community-control condition as it lacked rehabilitative focus and was overly broad. | Byrne | Warren |
4/14/2025
|
4/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1320 |
|
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Chibinda
| CA2024-07-094 | The trial court did not err by denying the Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment where the appellants failed to point to a meritorious defense or claim they could present if relief were granted and there were no grounds for relief as set forth in Civ.R. 60(B)(1)-(5). | Byrne | Butler |
4/7/2025
|
4/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1212 |
|
State v. Spain
| CA2023-11-123 | Juvenile defendant appeals from his manslaughter conviction. Defendant argued that the court erred by failing to expressly consider R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b), the youth-mitigation factors, at sentencing. Sentencing record supported conclusion that trial court considered defendant's youth before imposing sentence. | Byrne | Butler |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1121 |
|
State v. Marcum
| CA2024-05-072 | Appellant's conviction for obstructing official business was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the state demonstrated appellant obstructed and delayed officers in their duty to fully investigate a 9-1-1 hang-up call made by his wife. | Hendrickson | Butler |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1122 |
|
State v. McQueen
| CA2024-07-087 | Appellant's convictions for abduction and strangulation were not allied offenses of similar import as the offenses were committed with separate conduct and the harms that resulted from the two offenses were separate and identifiable. | Hendrickson | Butler |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1123 |
|
State v. Sweet
| CA2024-10-074 | Anders no error. | Per Curiam | Clermont |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1126 |
|
State v. Wu
| CA2024-05-027 | Appellant's plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered where the totality of the circumstances indicated appellant understood the nature of the charges and the bill of particulars, which served as the state's recitation of facts, provided a sufficient basis to satisfy the elements of the offenses and to establish venue in Warren County. As enrollment in the violent offender database, R.C. 2903.41 et seq., is a collateral consequence rather than a punishment, Crim.R. 11 does not require a trial court to inform a defendant of the registration and notification requirements before accepting the defendant's guilty plea. Appellant's convictions for aggravated burglary, kidnapping, felonious assault, and retaliation were not allied offenses of similar import. Notice of postrelease control provided at the plea hearing and set forth in the sentencing entry does not correct the trial court's failure to impose postrelease control at the sentencing hearing. | Hendrickson | Warren |
3/31/2025
|
3/31/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1138 |
|