|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Cline
| 2024-CA-14 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s untimely and successive Civ.R. 60(B) motion. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Champaign |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1080 |
|
State v. Isa
| 2024-CA-22 | Appellant’s argument that his 24.5-year sentence should actually be 23 years is barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Champaign |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1083 |
|
Meddock v. Meddock
| 2024-CA-11 | The trial court erred in dismissing a partition action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, where the land was located within the trial court’s jurisdiction and the action was not a collateral attack on the parties’ prior divorce decree. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Lewis | Darke |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1087 |
|
State v. Frost
| 2024-CA-24 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress; the search warrant was supported by probable cause, and appellant was properly advised of all Miranda warnings prior to being interrogated. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss based on venue where the indictment sufficiently identified the element of venue. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Greene |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1081 |
|
State v. Mason
| 2024-CA-20 | Appellant’s objection to the trial court’s finding as to his lack of remorse is precluded by res judicata; this issue could have been raised on direct appeal, and our remand was limited to a different, specific issue. The trial court did not err by failing to give notice under Crim.R. 43(A)(2) of appellant’s appearance for resentencing by video. Appellant waived his appearance in person during the resentencing hearing and did not object to any lack of notice. Appellant concedes that the trial court did not err in imposing court costs without considering his ability to pay. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Miami |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1086 |
|
State v. Brown
| 30127 | Appellant has not established a due-process violation based on the State’s failure to preserve bloody items recovered from the scene of the victim’s kidnapping. The record does not reflect prosecutorial misconduct based on a failure to disclose the victim’s cell-phone records or the identity of her cell-phone service provider. The trial court did not err in admitting testimony about the victim’s bloody wallet and cell phone being found near the scene of her kidnapping. The record does not portray ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Appellant’s convictions were supported by legally sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1079 |
|
State v. Irvin
| 30152 | The trial court did not err in allowing the jury to consider the agreed-upon exhibits during deliberations; the trial court’s statements to counsel and the jury reflected that it had deemed those exhibits admitted. Appellant did not demonstrate that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to cite Evid.R. 616(A) in seeking to ask a State’s witness about her pending indictment on drug charges and motion for intervention in lieu of conviction. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1082 |
|
In re Estate of Taylor
| 30224 | Because appellant’s pro se brief does not comply with the requirements of App.R. 16(A), including setting forth assignments of error or arguments supported by references to the record, we cannot address the merits of his appeal. Appeal dismissed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1084 |
|
State v. Letts
| 30143; 30147 | The trial court did not err in determining that a Five Rivers Metroparks ranger possessed territorial jurisdiction to initiate a traffic stop of the appellant’s vehicle on a public road adjacent to Metroparks property and adjacent to Miami Conservancy District property that Five Rivers Metroparks policed under a memorandum of understanding. Judgments affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1085 |
|
Nationstar Mtge., L.L.C. v. Thompson
| 30312 | The trial court erred in dismissing defendant-appellant’s counterclaim for breach of contract under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). The trial court did not err, however, in entering summary judgment for plaintiff-appellee on its foreclosure complaint. As for the trial court’s overruling of a motion for disqualification, appellant lacks standing to raise the issue, as the motion was filed by a non-appellant co-defendant. In addition, a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over disqualification and recusal issues involving common pleas court judges. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1088 |
|
State v. Sawitke
| 30179 | Appellant’s conviction for loitering to engage in solicitation was not against the manifest weight of the evidence even though the witnesses presented conflicting testimony. The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony were matters for the trier of fact to resolve. In addition, the evidence presented, viewed in a light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to demonstrate that appellant acted purposely in engaging another in a conversation to solicit sexual activity for hire while in a public place. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1089 |
|
State v. Boyd
| 30098 | Appellant’s convictions for having weapons while under disability and a firearm specification were supported by sufficient evidence. The court had jurisdiction to try appellant on the firearm specification, collateral estoppel did not bar the prosecution for having weapons while under disability, and defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to move for dismissal. The trial court did not violate Evid.R. 404(B); the court was free to consider evidence from the jury trial at the bench trial. Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law and was supported by the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-984 |
|
Rupp v. Premier Health Partners
| 30146 | The trial court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of appellees-patients on appellant-physicians' counterclaim for breach of contract. Although the court found the contract unconscionable, there were genuine issues of fact concerning whether the contract was substantively unconscionable. The court did not err in rejecting appellant’s claim for unjust enrichment where the parties had entered into an express contract. The court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony of appellees’ billing expert or in refusing to bifurcate the trial. Appellees did not waive any defenses, and the court did not err in allowing them to amend their answer during trial; appellant was well aware of the parties’ positions and did not object at trial to amendment of the answer or to the defenses raised. The trial court also did not err in denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment on his counterclaim, as there were genuine issues of material fact as to the validity of the contract. Finally, objections to the court’s limitation of appellant’s attorney fee request to expenses associated with his counterclaim are premature because the court bifurcated the attorney fee claim, and no trial was ever held on that point, and because we are reversing and remanding the trial court’s judgment with respect to the counterclaim. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-985 |
|
Rupp v. Premier Health Partners
| 30154 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee-hospital on appellants’ claim for violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. The hospital had no duty to inform appellants about the billing practices of an independent contractor physician who treated appellants after they came to the hospital’s emergency room. However, the court did err in granting summary judgment to appellee-physician on appellants’ fraud claims. There were genuine issues of material fact concerning whether the physician acted fraudulently and with actual malice, in conscious disregard of appellants’ rights. The court also erred in granting the physician summary judgment on appellants’ claims for breach of the physician’s contracts with the hospital. Appellants were clearly intended third-party beneficiaries of those contracts and could assert breach of contract claims. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-986 |
|
Huber v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
| 30205 | The trial court did not err in affirming the decision of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services denying appellant Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. His family’s income exceeded the income eligibility standard for benefits following his new marriage. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-987 |
|
In re D.L.M.
| 30291 | The $9 in costs imposed at appellant’s sentencing pursuant to Marsy’s Law was mandatory, but the juvenile court had discretion to waive it. Because appellant requested a waiver, the court erred in failing to exercise its discretion and evaluate his indigency for purposes of paying the costs. Judgment reversed and remanded as to the imposition of costs. In all other respects, judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-988 |
|
State v. Smith
| 30246 | The misinformation concerning appellant’s post-release control in the plea form did not prejudice appellant and therefore does not warrant vacating his guilty plea to domestic violence. Because the trial court failed to give certain statutorily-required advisements about appellant’s duty to enroll in the violent offender database, the portion of the trial court’s judgment pertaining to that duty is reversed, and the matter is remanded for the trial court to comply with the statutory requirements. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-990 |
|
State v. Jeffers
| 2024-CA-28 | Appellant’s convictions on three counts of felonious assault, with attendant firearm specifications, were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on the element of knowingly. Appellant’s sentences on the felonious assault offenses were not contrary to law. Pursuant to State v. Beatty, 2024-Ohio-5684, only two of the three prison terms on the firearm specifications could be imposed consecutively; the imposition of the third consecutive firearm specification was contrary to law. Judgment reversed as to the third firearm specification and remanded for resentencing on that specification. In all other respects, judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-989 |
|
Boyle v. State
| 2024-CA-46 | The trial court did not err in dismissing appellant’s complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, because appellant’s complaint for declaratory judgment was a collateral attack on his criminal conviction. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Greene |
3/14/2025
|
3/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-859 |
|
State v. Boyle
| 2024-CA-59 | The trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion to strike, because appellant’s motions were not “legal nullities.” They should have been considered on the merits. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Epley | Greene |
3/14/2025
|
3/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-860 |
|
State v. Miller
| 2025-CA-6 | The trial court did not err in striking appellant crime victim’s motion to modify defendant’s bond conditions. Neither Marsy’s Law nor R.C. 2930.09 gave appellant a right to file a pretrial motion to modify the defendant’s bond outside the context of a “public proceeding” such as the arraignment at which bond initially was set. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
3/14/2025
|
3/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-865 |
|
State v. Conner
| 30044 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress; he was not subject to a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings, and his statements were voluntary. Appellant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/14/2025
|
3/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-861 |
|
State v. Dalton
| 30217 | Appellant was convicted of obstructing official business for refusing to provide identification to police officers. Appellant’s failure to identify himself to police officers did not constitute an “act” that hampered or impeded police officers, and such an act is a necessary element of obstructing official business. As such, appellant’s conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence. Judgment vacated. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/14/2025
|
3/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-862 |
|
Goebel v. Colonial Lane Improvement Assn.
| 30148 | The trial court did not err when it granted appellee’s motion for directed verdict, which denied appellants’ request for injunctive relief. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/14/2025
|
3/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-863 |
|
Martin v. LexisNexis
| 30265 | The trial court properly denied appellant’s Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion for relief from judgment where the alleged errors raised in the motion could have been raised in a direct appeal from the dismissal of appellant’s complaint. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
3/14/2025
|
3/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-864 |
|
State v. Wolfe
| 29759 | After appellant stole a car with a child inside, he was convicted of kidnapping, grand theft (auto), and petty theft. The trial court correctly found that it, and not the jury, was required to determine the repeat violent offender specification. Appellant’s convictions for kidnapping and grand theft were not subject to merger. Plain error is not demonstrated in the trial court’s denial of separate trials for appellant’s offenses. There was no evidence that the State had failed to preserve materially exculpatory evidence allegedly contained in a body camera video and, in any event, the failure to admit such evidence would have been harmless error. Appellant’s right to confrontation was not violated by the court’s admission of the child-victim’s excited utterance or by the fact that the child did not testify at trial. Appellant was not denied due process or the right to cross-examine a witness who identified him by means of a photo array by the fact that she did not testify at a suppression hearing; the identification procedure was not unduly suggestive, and the witness was not required to testify. The trial court correctly instructed the jury that direct and circumstantial evidence are of equal weight. The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress surveillance video footage from a nearby business; appellant’s challenge was not based upon Fourth Amendment principles but on the video’s authenticity, which went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Appellant was not denied compulsory process because a witness he subpoenaed for a suppression hearing was not properly served, and he had no right to subpoena a witness to a pretrial conference. Because appellant did not raise the issue of the witnesses’ failure to appear at trial, the issue was waived. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. Appellant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated. The Reagan Tokes Act, under which appellant was sentenced, is not unconstitutional. However, the trial court did not provide all of the advisements required under the Reagan Tokes Act at sentencing, and it committed plain error in failing to determine restitution at the sentencing hearing. Although the Tier I sex offender/child victim offender designation arose by operation of law, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose it in a separate judgment entry after an appeal had been filed. Judgment reversed with respect to sentencing and remanded for resentencing consistent with the Reagan Tokes Act, the proper imposition of the Tier 1 designation, and proper consideration of restitution. Judgment affirmed in all other respects. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/14/2025
|
3/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-866 |
|
State v. Little
| 2024-CA-48; 2024-CA-56; 2024-CA-57 | The trial court erred in failing to make required findings before imposing a consecutive sentence in Case No. 2024CR0041 for having a weapon while under disability. If the findings had been made, however, the trial court would have possessed authority to order that sentence to be served consecutively to existing sentences in Case Nos. 2021CR0634 and 2022CR0518, which involved concurrent prison terms imposed upon revocation of community control. Judgments in Case Nos. 2021CR0634 and 2022CR0518 affirmed. Judgment in Case No. 2024CR0041 reversed and remanded for the trial court either to make the necessary findings or to impose a concurrent sentence. | Tucker | Greene |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-768 |
|
In re W.E.-N.
| 2024-CA-19 | The parties’ shared parenting plan addressed most parenting issues, but they did not agree on which parent would be the residential parent for school purposes. The trial court’s conclusion that it was in the child’s best interest that Father be designated as the residential parent for school purposes was not an abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Champaign |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-767 |
|
Clayburn v. Clayburn
| 30261 | Because the trial court had retained jurisdiction over spousal support for ten years, it had jurisdiction to establish monthly spousal support even though no periodic spousal support had been awarded in the divorce decree. The trial court reasonably determined that a change of circumstances had occurred and that spousal support to the former wife was appropriate. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the spousal support to continue indefinitely. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-766 |
|
Skouri v. Skouri
| 30181 | Res judicata precludes appellant from challenging the trial court’s personal jurisdiction over him. Appellant previously raised the same issue in an unsuccessful Civ.R. 60(B) motion. The record reflects, however, that appellant was not served with an April 9, 2024 notice of the trial court’s intent to emancipate the parties’ oldest child and to order him to pay a child-support arrearage. The lack of service of that notice deprived appellant of an opportunity to object to those proposed actions. As a result, the trial court’s subsequent May 13, 2024 judgment entry emancipating the child and ordering appellant to pay the arrearage will be reversed and the case will be remanded to give appellant a chance to object to the arrearage. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-769 |
|
State v. Wallace
| 30101 | The trial court erred in ordering restitution, over defense counsel’s objection, without holding a hearing on the amount of restitution. The trial court erred in failing to consider appellant’s ability to pay restitution. Judgment reversed and remanded as to the restitution order; judgment affirmed in all other respects. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/7/2025
|
3/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-770 |
|
State v. Ramilla
| 2024-CA-33 | Appellant’s motion seeking specific performance of his 2014 plea agreement with the State was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Moreover, appellant would not be entitled to specific performance based upon his own breach of the plea agreement. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
2/28/2025
|
2/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-678 |
|
Bautista v. Kettering Health
| 30219 | The trial court erred in ordering appellant to produce potentially privileged materials to opposing counsel without first determining if the documents were, in fact, privileged. Judgment reversed and remanded. (Epley, P.J., dissenting.) | Huffman | Montgomery |
2/28/2025
|
2/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-674 |
|
State v. Cole
| 30194 | The record does not portray any ineffective assistance of counsel affecting the validity of the appellant’s guilty plea. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
2/28/2025
|
2/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-675 |
|
In re J.G.
| 30242 | State’s appeal. The juvenile court erred in finding no probable cause to believe that appellee, a minor, aided and abetted in the commission of felony murder, aggravated robbery, felonious assault, attempted grand theft of a motor vehicle, and possession of criminal tools. The juvenile court’s judgment will be reversed as to those offenses, and the case will be remanded for an amenability hearing. Absent any argument from the State regarding probable cause to believe that appellee also was responsible for evidence tampering, the juvenile court’s finding of no probable cause as to that offense will not be disturbed. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. | Tucker | Montgomery |
2/28/2025
|
2/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-676 |
|
State v. Smith
| 30248 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress because appellant voluntarily consented to the search of his backpack. The State presented sufficient evidence to support convictions on aggravated murder, murder, and aggravated burglary, and the jury’s guilty verdicts were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The State failed to provide sufficient evidence on each “alternate means” of committing tampering with evidence where there was no evidence that appellant tampered with the gun. The trial court properly imposed sentence on a firearm specification for a count of aggravated murder that was merged into another count of aggravated murder. The record supports the conclusion that the trial court considered appellant’s ability to pay restitution of nearly $10,000. Conviction for tampering with evidence reversed; in all other respects, judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
2/28/2025
|
2/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-679 |
|
State v. Peeples
| 2024-CA-13 | Appellant’s guilty pleas were not less than knowing, voluntary, and intelligent solely because the trial court sentenced him to a lengthier prison term than the parties’ joint recommendation. Appellant had been informed orally and in writing that the trial court was not required to follow the joint recommendation. Appellant failed to show he was prejudiced by the trial court’s alleged error in ordering part of his sentence to run concurrently to a previous sentence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Miami |
2/28/2025
|
2/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-677 |
|
In re X.F.
| 2024-CA-21; 2024-CA-22 | The trial court’s decision to terminate appellants’ parental rights and grant custody of their minor children to a children services agency was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and was supported by sufficient evidence. Judgments affirmed. | Lewis | Miami |
2/21/2025
|
2/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-562 |
|
Stephan v. Wacaster
| 2024-CA-19 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellees in their partition action where there was no genuine issue of material fact that they had a present, possessory interest in the property resulting from a bequest made by their grandmother. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Miami |
2/21/2025
|
2/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-565 |
|
State v. Shartle
| 2024-CA-8 | The jury reasonably concluded that the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant did not act in self-defense when he committed an assault. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
2/21/2025
|
2/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-564 |
|
Woodstock Solar Project, L.L.C. v. Rush Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals
| 2024-CA-24 | The trial court erred in finding that appellee had a vested right to build its solar facility when it did not first appeal the zoning inspector’s stop work order to the board of zoning appeals. Judgment reversed. | Epley | Champaign |
2/21/2025
|
2/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-567 |
|
State v. Lenoir
| 2024-CA-24 | The fact that the trial court did not orally inform appellant of his appellate rights prior to accepting his guilty pleas did not render the pleas less than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary where there was no evidence in the record that appellant was confused about his appellate rights. Appellant failed to establish that his guilty pleas were less than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Judgments affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
2/21/2025
|
2/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-563 |
|
Weber v. MTH Real Estate, L.L.C.
| 30221 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to a landlord based on the doctrine of res judicata. The claims raised in the tenant’s second lawsuit against the landlord could have and should have been raised in his first lawsuit, because they arose out of the same rental transaction that was litigated in the first lawsuit. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
2/21/2025
|
2/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-566 |
|
State v. Allison
| 2024-CA-6 | The denial of a criminal defendant’s right to allocution does not amount to constitutional error. The trial court did not deny, and the appellant fully exercised, the right to allocution pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(A) and Crim.R. 32(A)(1). Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Champaign |
2/14/2025
|
2/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-484 |
|
State v. Sutherland
| 2024-CA-6 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s petitions for postconviction relief. Although part of an investigative report was erroneously submitted to the jury at trial, issues related to that exhibit had been litigated on direct appeal and were barred by res judicata. Appellant’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct based on the prosecutor’s alleged nodding, head shaking, and facial expressions during witness questioning were not “new evidence” and could have been raised on direct appeal, but were not. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Darke |
2/14/2025
|
2/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-488 |
|
State v. Goings
| 2024-CA-9 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s Crim.R. 29(A) motion for acquittal on two counts of aggravated menacing and one count each of menacing by stalking and telecommunications harassment. The threatening and harassing text messages were properly admitted into evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
2/14/2025
|
2/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-485 |
|
State v. Adams
| 30234 | State’s appeal. The trial court did not err in dismissing misdemeanor charges against appellee based upon a speedy-trial violation. The appellee’s pretrial suppression motion only tolled the speedy-trial clock for the time reasonably necessary to decide the motion. The record contains no conceivable justification for a 513-day delay between a hearing on appellee’s motion and the trial court’s resolution of it. The fact that appellee’s suppression motion may have been untimely did not negate the speedy-trial issue. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
2/14/2025
|
2/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-483 |
|
State v. Tobe
| 30267 | Appellant’s plea of guilty to the petty offense of criminal damaging was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the trial court informed her that the plea was a complete admission of guilt. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
2/14/2025
|
2/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-489 |
|
Hudnell v. Alexander
| 30260 | Appellant cannot demonstrate error in the trial court’s bench-trial verdict against him without a transcript of the proceeding. In the absence of a transcript, we must presume regularity and affirm the trial court’s judgment. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
2/7/2025
|
2/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-390 |
|
Trabzon Express, Inc. v. Dayton
| 30184 | The trial court correctly ruled that appellant’s administrative appeal was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
2/7/2025
|
2/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-391 |
|