|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Pruitt
| 1-23-71 | COMMUNITY-CONTROL REVOCATION; FELONY SENTENCING; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.14(B)(4); CRIM.R. 32(A)(1); RIGHT TO ALLOCUTION. The defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law because the trial court complied with the requirements of R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) and Crim.R. 32(A)(1). The trial court properly advised the defendant-appellant of the maximum prison sentence that could be imposed if he violated his community-control sanctions but imposed a lesser term. The trial court did not violate the defendant-appellant’s right to allocution by denying him the opportunity to respond to additional statements made by the trial court at sentencing because no new information was presented. | Zimmerman | Allen |
11/18/2024
|
11/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5434 |
|
State v. Hobbs
| 1-24-04 | R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); Consecutive Sentences. Imposition of consecutive sentences was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Waldick | Allen |
11/18/2024
|
11/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5435 |
|
Warner v. Allen Metro. Hous. Auth.
| 1-24-33 | Summary Judgment; Open and Obvious; Step in the Dark; Attendant Circumstances. Summary judgment award was proper where headboard appellant tripped over was open and obvious. | Waldick | Allen |
11/12/2024
|
11/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5363 |
|
State v. Henry
| 5-24-12; 5-24-13 | R.C. 1.58; R.C. 2967.28; Applicability of statutory reduction in post-release control time to a defendant whose sentencing was delayed due to the defendant absconding and during which time the amended statute took effect. Pursuant to R.C. 1.58, the trial court erred in failing to apply an amended version of R.C. 2967.28 in ordering the terms of post-release control at the time of sentencing in this case, when that amended statute took effect prior to the time of the defendant's sentencing. | Waldick | Hancock |
11/12/2024
|
11/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5364 |
|
Stults v. Hale
| 1-24-18 | Modification of Custody; Change of Circumstances; Substantive; Best Interest. Trial court fully considered the wishes of the child. Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that there was no change of circumstances. Trial court did not need to consider the best interests of the child when there was no change of circumstances. | Willamowski | Allen |
11/12/2024
|
11/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5362 |
|
State v. Pitman
| 9-24-06 | Aggravated Possession of Drugs; R.C. 2925.11(A). Defendant-appellant's conviction for aggravated possession of drugs was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Miller | Marion |
11/12/2024
|
11/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5365 |
|
In re G.F.
| 13-24-01, 13-24-02 | SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE; MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. The appellant’s disorderly-conduct adjudication is based on sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellant’s domestic-violence adjudication is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Zimmerman | Seneca |
11/12/2024
|
11/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5366 |
|
Price v. Price
| 8-24-06 | Summary Contempt Proceeding; Immediate threat to the proceedings. Trial court erred by denying the motion to vacate a magistrate's finding of contempt when the behavior of the attorney did not present an immediate threat to the orderly proceedings and was not contemptuous beyond a reasonable doubt. | Willamowski | Logan |
11/4/2024
|
11/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5253 |
|
State v. Blackman
| 1-23-75 | Competency; continued jurisdiction; R.C. 2945.39(A)(2) | Epley | Allen |
11/4/2024
|
11/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5249 |
|
State v. Buckner
| 15-24-02 | Aggravated Burglary; R.C. 2911.11(A)(1); Force, Stealth, or Deception; Lesser-Included-Offense Jury Instruction. Defendant-appellant did not demonstrate he is entitled to plain-error relief where the jury instructions did not include an instruction concerning the lesser-included offense of trespass. The evidence was not insufficient as a matter of law to sustain defendant-appellant's conviction for aggravated burglary. Defendant-appellant's conviction for aggravated burglary was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Miller | Van Wert |
11/4/2024
|
11/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5256 |
|
State v. Green
| 9-23-59 | Petition for Post-Conviction Relief; Res Judicata; Affirmative Defense; Cumulative Error. The trial court properly denied defendant-appellant's petition for postconviction relief as it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The doctrine of cumulative error does not apply. | Miller | Marion |
11/4/2024
|
11/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5254 |
|
State v. Garner
| 1-23-60 | juvenile; mandatory bindover; cruel and unusual punishment; felony murder | Epley | Allen |
11/4/2024
|
11/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5248 |
|
State v. Seibert
| 15-24-03 | Manifest Weight; Failure to Comply. Conviction for Failure to Comply was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Waldick | Van Wert |
11/4/2024
|
11/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5257 |
|
State v. Baker
| 1-24-12 | Post-conviction DNA testing; rape; outcome determinative; definitive DNA test | Epley | Allen |
11/4/2024
|
11/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5250 |
|
State v. Jiminez
| 12-23-06 | KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, VOLUNTARY GUILTY PLEA; CRIM.R. 11(E); PETTY OFFENSE; CRIM.R. 44(B), (C); WAIVER OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL. The defendant-appellant did not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily waive his right to counsel when pleading guilty to a misdemeanor offense. Because the defendant-appellant did not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily waive his right to counsel prior to entering his plea, the defendant-appellant’s imposition of a sentence of confinement is vacated. | Zimmerman | Putnam |
11/4/2024
|
11/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5255 |
|
Price v. Aspen Dental
| 4-24-14 | Civ.R. 12(B)(6); Motion to dismiss; Dental malpractice. The trial court did not err in granting the defendant-appellee's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss on the basis that the plaintiff-appellant failed to name individual dentists as defendants in the plaintiff's dental malpractice complaint. | Waldick | Defiance |
11/4/2024
|
11/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5251 |
|
In re J.C.
| 5-24-01; 5-24-02; 5-24-03 | PERMANENT CUSTODY; REASONABLE EFFORTS; ANDERS BRIEF. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Children’s Protective Services Unit (the “agency”) engaged in reasonable efforts toward reunification. Mother-appellant’s own actions thwarted the agency’s reunification efforts. Appointed counsel for father-appellant filed an Anders brief. Based on this court’s full examination of the record, we find the two issues of potential error for review raised in the Anders brief to be without merit and wholly frivolous. | Zimmerman | Hancock |
11/4/2024
|
11/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5252 |
|
In re F.R.-C.
| 9-24-03 | Permanent Custody; Manifest Weight of the Evidence. Trial court's decision to grant permanent custody to the agency was supported by competent, credible evidence and the decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Willamowski | Marion |
10/28/2024
|
10/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5156 |
|
State v. Wedel
| 14-24-20 | Maximum Sentence; Factors Outside the Statutory Factors in R.C. 2929.12; Consideration of Facts Supporting Dismissed Charges. The trial court did not err in considering the facts supporting a dismissed charge in addition to the statutory factors listed in R.C. 2929.12. The statute permits the consideration of all relevant factors. | Willamowski | Union |
10/28/2024
|
10/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5157 |
|
State v. Briggs
| 1-23-70 | SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE; MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; DENIAL OF MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT. The defendant-appellant’s illegal-use-of-a-minor-in-nudity-oriented-material conviction is based on sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by denying the defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the indictment since the indictment is valid on its face. | Zimmerman | Allen |
10/28/2024
|
10/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5155 |
|
State v. Runyon
| 14-24-21 | FELONY SENTENCING; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES; R.C. 2929.14(C)(3); PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION; R.C. 2951.03(B)(5). The defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law because it is within the sentencing range and the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. The trial court was not required to make a finding under R.C. 2951.03(B)(5) because the defendant-appellant did not challenge any factual inconsistences in the presentence-investigation report. The trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings are not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record and the defendant-appellant’s consecutive sentences are not contrary to law. | Zimmerman | Union |
10/21/2024
|
10/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5039 |
|
State v. Nevels
| 8-23-31 | Crim.R. 48; Dismissal of criminal case by trial court; Exclusion of evidence on the basis of non-compliance with Crim.R. 41. The trial court erred in sua sponte dismissing one count of an indictment without adequate notice to the prosecution, and the trial court erred in excluding evidence at trial when a motion to suppress that same evidence was properly denied by the trial court. | Waldick | Logan |
10/15/2024
|
10/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4964 |
|
Frankart v. Frankart
| 5-24-04 | SPOUSAL SUPPORT; CHILD SUPPORT; R.C. 3105.18(C). Trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding spousal support or child support. | Waldick | Hancock |
10/15/2024
|
10/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4963 |
|
State v. Leeper
| 8-24-01 | R.C. 2901.22(A); Definition of "purposely"; Jury instruction on "purpose" in attempted murder; Mistrial; Non-admitted exhibits submitted to jury; Manifest weight of the evidence; Proof of firearm. The judgment of conviction and sentence entered in the Logan County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. | Waldick | Logan |
10/15/2024
|
10/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4965 |
|
State v. Morgan
| 10-24-01 | KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY PLEAS; PLAIN-ERROR DOCTRINE; COURT-APPOINTED-COUNSEL FEES. The defendant-appellant’s guilty pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Because the defendant-appellant failed to raise the issue of allied offenses of similar import in the trial court, we review solely for plain error. The specific facts and circumstances of this case are not exceptional to warrant intervention under the plain-error doctrine. The trial court erred by imposing court-appointed-counsel fees as part of the defendant-appellant’s sentence. We vacate that portion of the judgment entry of sentencing imposing court-appointed-counsel fees. | Zimmerman | Mercer |
10/15/2024
|
10/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4966 |
|
State v. Lopez
| 13-24-07, 08 | Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence ("OVI"); Prosecutorial Misconduct; Reasonable Doubt Instruction. Although convictions were supported by the evidence, prosecutor committed misconduct in closing arguments that impacted Lopez's substantial rights. | Waldick | Seneca |
10/15/2024
|
10/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4967 |
|
In re T.S.
| 14-24-14; 14-24-15; 14-24-16; 14-24-17; 14-24-18 | JURISDICTION OF JUVENILE COURT; R.C. 2152.02(C)(6); PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF; R.C. 2953.21. The juvenile court not err in dismissing the petitioner-appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief. The juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition for post-conviction relief since the petition was filed after the petitioner-appellant had attained the age of 21. | Zimmerman | Union |
10/7/2024
|
10/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4841 |
|
State v. Wolfe
| 14-23-35 | JURY LIMITING INSTRUCTION; ADMISSION AND EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE; HEARSAY; EVID.R. 803(4); SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE; RAPE; ATTEMPTED GROSS SEXUAL IMPOSITION; DATE OF OFFENSE; INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL; SENTENCING; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES. The trial court’s unsolicited limiting instruction did not rise to the level of plain error. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the jury to view a video recording of the victim’s interview with a social worker and forensic interviewer at the Center for Family Safety and Healing at Nationwide Children’s Hospital or by admitting the video and corresponding report into evidence. The defendant-appellant’s rape and attempted-gross-sexual-imposition convictions are based on sufficient evidence. The defendant-appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the State’s reference to inadmissible hearsay, prior-bad-acts, evidence, or the defendant-appellant’s pre-arrest silence, or by failing to request a mistrial. The defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law. | Zimmerman | Union |
10/7/2024
|
10/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4861 |
|
State v. Williams
| 2-24-02 | FELONY SENTENCING; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law because the sentence is within the permissible statutory range and the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. | Zimmerman | Auglaize |
10/7/2024
|
10/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4837 |
|
In re E.R.
| 12-24-02; 12-24-03 | Permanent Custody; Motion to Dismiss. Trial court erred in sua sponte reconsidering its judgment unconditionally dismissing a case. Once a case has been unconditionally dismissed, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to enter any judgment. | Willamowski | Putnam |
10/7/2024
|
10/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4840 |
|
State v. Snyder
| 6-24-04 | Crim.R. 11; Change of Plea; Self-Incrimination. Because the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) during the plea colloquy, defendant-appellant's guilty plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. | Miller | Hardin |
10/7/2024
|
10/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4860 |
|
State v. Webb
| 14-23-38 | FELONY SENTENCING; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(b); CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES; R.C. 2929.14(C)(3). The defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law because it is within the sentencing range and the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12, and 2921.331(C)(5)(b). The defendant-appellant’s consecutive sentences are not contrary to law because consecutive sentences are mandatory under R.C. 2929.14(C)(3) since the defendant-appellant was convicted of a felony violation of R.C. 2921.331. | Zimmerman | Union |
10/7/2024
|
10/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4862 |
|
Bayliff v. Stokes Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals
| 8-24-12 | Administrative appeal; Zoning; Variance; Unnecessary hardship. The trial court erred in affirming a township board of zoning appeals' grant of a variance application relating to setback requirements when an unnecessary hardship was not established and where the trial court utilized an inapplicable legal standard. | Waldick | Logan |
10/7/2024
|
10/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4839 |
|
State v. Marks
| 15-23-11 & 15-23-12 | Joinder; Crim.R. 14; Motion for Change of Venue; Extortion; R.C. 2905.11(A)(3); Protected Speech; Jury Instructions. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in joining offenses for trial where the evidence of each crime was simple and distinct. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant-appellant's motion for change of venue. Defendant-appellant's convictions were not against the manifest weight or sufficiency of the evidence. Defendant-appellant did not establish plain-error relief was warranted regarding the jury instructions. | Miller | Van Wert |
10/7/2024
|
10/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4863 |
|
Fertilizer Storage Co., L.L.C. v. Heartland Bank
| 2-23-16 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT; FRAUD. The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees and dismissing plaintiffs-appellants’ fraud claim. Because plaintiffs-appellants failed to read the loan documents before signing them, plaintiffs-appellants cannot establish justifiable reliance on representations made by defendants-appellees regarding any prepayment penalties contained in the documents. | Zimmerman | Auglaize |
10/7/2024
|
10/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4836 |
|
State v. Reed
| 5-23-50 | Sufficient Evidence; Manifest Weight; Expert Testimony. In evaluating a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the appellate court must examine the record in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether some evidence was produced at trial to substantiate each of the essential elements of the crime. To establish a conviction for aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A), the State must prove that the defendant purposely, and with prior calculation and design, caused the death of another. The failure of the State to request that a witness be formally designated as an expert does not rise to the level of plain error where the witness gave testimony regarding his or her qualifications. | Willamowski | Hancock |
10/7/2024
|
10/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4838 |
|
State v. Manns
| 6-23-17 | Felony Sentencing; R.C. 2953.08; Contrary to Law; Presentence Investigation; Plain Error. A trial court's reliance on evidence from outside the record may violate a defendant's due process rights and render a sentence contrary to law. However, references to information from a co-defendant's case after the defendant's sentence has been imposed do not necessarily constitute plain error where the findings made in support of the defendant's sentence have an independent basis in the record or where the trial court does not rely on such information in fashioning a sentence. A presentence investigation report is confidential. A defendant does not have the right to access a co-defendant's PSI from another case. A trial court's reference to a co-defendant's PSI does not constitute plain error where the record contains no indication that the sentence imposed on the defendant was based on any information contained therein. | Willamowski | Hardin |
9/23/2024
|
9/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4632 |
|
Akroyd v. Akroyd
| 5-24-09 | R.C. 3105.011; Civ.R. 75. Trial court did not err by using equitable powers to modify visitation. | Waldick | Hancock |
9/23/2024
|
9/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4631 |
|
Starr v. Statler-Houchin
| 4-23-18 | REALLOCATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES; SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT; R.C. 3127.15(A); DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL; CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES; BEST INTERESTS; R.C. 3109.04. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by exercising its jurisdiction under the UCCJEA since it possessed home-state jurisdiction under R.C. 3127.15(A)(1). Petitioner-appellant is judicially estopped from raising her jurisdictional argument since she conceded the facts underlying the legal conclusion that Ohio was [the child’s] home state at the time this matter commenced. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by modifying the shared-parenting decree and by concluding that it is in child’s best interest for petitioner-appellee to have residential and legal custody of the child. | Zimmerman | Defiance |
9/23/2024
|
9/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4628 |
|
In re S.K.
| 4-24-07, 4-24-08, 4-24-09 | R.C. 2151.03(A)(2); Neglected Children; R.C. 2151.04(C); Dependent Children. The trial court did not err in finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Appellant's children were neglected under R.C. 2151.03. The trial court did not err in finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Appellant's children were dependent under R.C. 2151.04. | Miller | Defiance |
9/23/2024
|
9/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4629 |
|
Cornwell v. Eufracio
| 13-24-17; 13-24-18 | PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES; R.C. 3109.04; IN CAMERA INTERVIEW OF A CHILD. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allocating the parties’ parental rights and responsibilities or by designating petitioner-appellee as the children’s residential parent and legal custodian. | Zimmerman | Seneca |
9/23/2024
|
9/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4634 |
|
Gardner v. XPO Logistics Freight, Inc.
| 9-23-80 | Civ.R. 53(D)(3); Magistrate's Decision; Objections; Summary Judgment; Assured Clear Distance Ahead; Peripheral Object; Sudden Emergence. The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure give a party fourteen days from the issuance of a magistrate's decision to file written objections with the trial court. With the exception of raising a claim of plain error, a party may not assign error on appeal unless that party previously filed a corresponding objection to the magistrate's decision in compliance with Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b). Thus, the failure to file objections to the magistrate's decision waives all but plain error on appeal. When a tractor-trailer was driving in the only eastbound lane on a roadway and activated its turn signal before making a wide-right turn, the tractor-trailer was clearly indicating that it was going to remain in the line of travel ahead of the motorcycle following behind it until the right turn had been completed. For this reason, the tractor-trailer was not a peripheral object that suddenly emerged into the assured clear distance of the motorcycle. | Willamowski | Marion |
9/23/2024
|
9/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4633 |
|
Evans v. Walmart Defiance Supercenter #5385
| 4-24-13 | Summary Judgment; Slip and Fall; Constructive Notice; Duty of Care. To recover from a shopkeeper in a slip and fall case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant created the hazard, had actual knowledge of the hazard, or had constructive notice of the hazard. In turn, the plaintiff must present some evidence as to how long the condition was present to establish constructive notice. Such evidence is required because, without information about how long a condition existed, no inference can be drawn as to whether the shopkeeper breached a duty of care with regard to that condition. | Willamowski | Defiance |
9/23/2024
|
9/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4630 |
|
State v. Glass
| 1-23-55 | Ineffective assistance of counsel; Voir dire; Fair and impartial jury; Actual prejudice; Presumed prejudice. Defendant-appellant's trial counsel was ineffective in failing to voir dire a prospective juror whose son was the primary witness for the prosecution. | Waldick | Allen |
9/16/2024
|
9/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4535 |
|
State v. Taylor
| 9-24-02 | Presentence motion to withdraw no contest plea; Crim.R. 32.1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant-appellant's presentence motion to withdraw his plea of no contest. | Waldick | Marion |
9/16/2024
|
9/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4537 |
|
State v. Jones
| 15-24-01 | SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE; IDENTITY; COMPLICITY TO ATTEMPTED MURDER; KIDNAPPING; FELONIOUS ASSAULT; AGGRAVATED BURGLARY; ALLIED OFFENSES OF SIMILAR IMPORT; SENTENCING; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES; INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL; MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; CRIM.R. 33. The defendant-appellant’s complicity-to-attempted-murder, kidnapping, felonious-assault, and aggravated-burglary convictions are based on sufficient evidence. The defendant-appellant’s complicity-to-attempted-murder, kidnapping, felonious-assault, and aggravated-burglary convictions are not allied offenses of similar import. The trial court made the appropriate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings before imposing consecutive sentences and incorporated those findings into its sentencing entry and those findings are not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. The defendant-appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the jury pool. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant-appellant’s motion for new trial under Crim.R. 33(A)(1), (4). | Zimmerman | Van Wert |
9/16/2024
|
9/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4538 |
|
State v. Moore
| 5-24-05 | Restitution; Jointly-Recommended Sentence; Indefinite Sentencing; R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c). The trial court did not err by ordering the defendant-appellant to pay restitution in accordance with the parties' agreement. The trial court satisfied the notification requirements in R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c). | Miller | Hancock |
9/16/2024
|
9/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4536 |
|
In re E.A.
| 3-23-36 | Final Appealable Order. The trial court's judgment entry granting temporary custody of the child to a non-parent was not a final, appealable order. | Miller | Crawford |
9/9/2024
|
9/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4449 |
|
State v. Baker
| 1-23-59 | PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF; R.C. 2953.21; R.C. 2953.23(A). The defendant-appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief is untimely because it was filed many years after the 365-day deadline set forth in R.C. 2953.21. Because the defendant-appellant failed to establish that he is entitled to file a delayed petition for post-conviction relief under one of the exceptions in R.C. 2953.23(A), the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider the untimely petition. | Zimmerman | Allen |
9/9/2024
|
9/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-4448 |
|
In re C.W.
| 5-23-51 | Permanent Custody; Reasonable Efforts; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Trial court did not err by determining that Children's Protective Services Unit ("CPSU") engaged in reasonable efforts to support reunification. Appellant did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. | Waldick | Hancock |
9/3/2024
|
9/3/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3366 |
|