|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
In re J.H.
| 113380 | App.R. 4(A)(1); App.R. 4(B)(2)(d); Civ.R. 52; timely filing; notice of appeal; lack of jurisdiction. Appellant guardian ad litem failed to timely file a motion to request findings of fact and conclusions of law and thereby his time to file his appeal was not tolled. Appellant failed to file his appeal within thirty days so this court has no jurisdiction to hear his first assignment of error which must be dismissed. Similarly, for the second assignment of error the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s untimely motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
11/21/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5477 |
|
S.L. v. M.E.H.
| 113646 | Civil stalking protection order; Civ.R. 60(B); motion for relief from judgment; burden; excusable neglect; meritorious defense; operative facts; abuse of discretion; discretionary authority. Reversed the trial court’s decision to deny appellant’s motion for relief from judgment of a civil stalking protection order and remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing. Relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) was warranted when the motion was filed two days after the judgment and the appellant demonstrated excusable neglect and provided operative facts that, if proven, would support a meritorious defense in the matter. | S. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
11/21/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5482 |
|
Richmond Hts. Owner, L.L.C. v. Richmond Hts. Community Reinvestment
| 113527 | Administrative appeals; municipal-tax exemptions; R.C. 2506.04. The administrative agency denied, and the trial court affirmed, a property owner’s application for a tax exemption because, according to the municipal resolutions at issue, the property did not qualify for the exemption. Specifically, the renovations to the property were completed prior to the adoption of the resolution and the resolution required the renovations to start after the adoption of the resolution. We affirm this decision. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
11/21/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5478 |
|
State v. Corbo
| 113756 | Anders procedure; frivolous appeal. After being indicted for two counts of rape, one count of kidnapping, and one count of gross sexual imposition, defendant entered into a plea agreement pleading guilty to one count of sexual battery. Appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Anders outlines the procedure counsel must follow to withdraw where counsel can find no meritorious grounds for appeal. Appellate counsel must examine the record and advise the court of their findings, or lack thereof, and furnish a copy of his brief to defendant to allow sufficient time to file a brief pro se. Once appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw, the appellate court must examine the proceedings to determine if any meritorious claims exist. An issue lacks arguable merit if no responsible contention can be made that it offers a basis for reversal. If no meritorious grounds for appeal are found to exist, the court may determine an appeal would be frivolous. A frivolous appeal is one that asserts issues lacking in arguable merit. Within the motion to withdraw, appellate counsel stated he reviewed the record and found that the plea was done in accordance with law, that the sentence was not contrary to law, and that Corbo received effective assistance of counsel at the time of the plea. Following our independent review of the entire record, we find that no meritorious arguments exist and that an appeal would be wholly frivolous. As a result, appellate counsel’s request to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
11/21/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5484 |
|
Hurley v. Betfair Interactive
| 114101 | Motion to compel arbitration; unconscionability; abuse of discretion; App.R. 16(A)(7). Plaintiff alleged causes of action regarding a contract with defendant. Defendant moved to compel arbitration based on arbitration clause in contract. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering arbitration. Plaintiff did not show why the arbitration agreement in the contract was unconscionable nor did he cite authority or argue such on appeal in contravention of App.R. 16(A)(7). | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
11/21/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5488 |
|
In re I.E.
| 114069 | Termination of parental rights; best interest of the child; R.C. 2151.414(B); R.C. 2151.414(C); R.C. 2151.414(D); manifest weight; clear and convincing. Based on substantial evidence, the juvenile court did not err when terminating the parental rights of mother and father and granting custody of the children to the agency Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services. Both mother and father failed to comply with their case plans. The guardian ad litem, the court appointed special advocate, and the agency case worker all found it was in the best interest of the children to be in the custody of the agency. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
11/21/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5487 |
|
State v. Spivey
| 113551 & 133552 | Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (c); constitutional rights; guilty plea. The trial court erred when it did not advise the appellant of his constitutional rights under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (c), therefore invalidating the appellant’s guilty plea. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
11/21/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5479 |
|
In re J.H.
| 114240 | Conceded error; Loc.App.R. 16(B); parental rights; Civ.R. 41(A); self-executing; notice of dismissal; jurisdiction. Judgment vacated. Civ.R. 41(A) applies to parental rights cases because the juvenile rules are silent regarding voluntary dismissal of complaints. Since the agency filed a notice of dismissal of the complaint, which was self-executing, the trial court was divested of jurisdiction on the date of filing. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
11/21/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5489 |
|
State v. Penington
| 113726 | Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) maximum penalty; Reagan Tokes; indefinite sentence; maximum sentence; prejudice. - Conviction upheld where defendant entered into a plea agreement that included an indefinite sentence. Although the trial court did not fully comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)’s requirement that it inform defendant of the maximum penalty that could be imposed on the indefinite sentence, it explained how the indefinite sentence would be calculated. Defendant did not argue nor demonstrate prejudice where he understood the agreed prison sentence would include an indefinite sentence. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
11/21/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5483 |
|
State v. Thomas
| 113641 | R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; sentencing; factual findings. Judgment affirmed. A sentence is contrary to law if (1) the sentence falls outside the statutory range for the particular degree of offense, or (2) the trial court failed to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11, and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. When sentencing for a felony, the trial court “shall be guided by the overriding purposes of felony sentencing.” Seriousness and recidivism factors should be considered by the trial court should consider when imposing a felony sentence. However, trial court is not required to make any specific factual finding on the record regarding its consideration of these factors, even when imposing a more-than-minimum sentence. Upon review, this court finds that the trial court considered the necessary factors and the defendant’s sentence is not contrary to law. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
11/21/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5481 |
|
In re A.H.
| 114102 | Permanent custody; R.C. 2151.353(A)(4); legal custody; disposition; manifest weight of the evidence; R.C. 2151.414(E); best interests; chronic mental illness. The juvenile court’s judgment denying Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services’ motion for permanent custody and granting father legal custody with protective supervision to the agency was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
11/21/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5485 |
|
State v. O'Boyle
| 113577 | Rape; ineffective assistance of counsel; presentation of alibi defense; failure to proffer evidence; manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant appealed his conviction for rape after trial to the bench. Defendant did not demonstrate he received ineffective assistance of counsel where the record indicates the decision to not present an alibi defense was a tactical one and he did not show the outcome at trial would have been different had the alibi defense been presented. Defendant’s complaint that counsel was ineffective for failing to proffer evidence cannot be evaluated where this court would have to speculate as to the content of the evidence. The conviction for rape was not against the weight of the evidence where the victim was able to describe the crime that occurred and explain her actions in naming a different man as the perpetrator of the rape. Court could not find victim’s testimony was incredible or trier of fact lost its way in finding defendant guilty. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
11/21/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5480 |
|
State v. Martin
| 114010 | Postconviction; petition; res judicata; sentence; void; voidable; untimely; unavoidably prevented; jurisdiction. The trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s postconviction motion. The motion was untimely and barred by res judicata. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
11/21/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5486 |
|
State v. Bailey
| 113222 | Felony sentence, consecutive sentence; disproportionate; withdrawal of plea; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); Crim.R. 11. Judgment affirmed. A reviewing court may overturn the imposition of consecutive sentences where the court clearly and convincingly finds that the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. Our review of the record indicates that the trial court engaged in the proper analysis, weighed the appropriate factors, and made the necessary findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences. A hearing on a postsentence motion to withdraw is only required if the facts alleged by the defendant, accepted as true, would require the defendant be allowed to withdraw the plea. Crim.R. 11 requires the trial court to ensure that a change of plea is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. When reviewing pleas, this court focuses on whether the dialogue between the trial court and the defendant demonstrates that the defendant understood the plea’s consequences and has rejected the assertion that a trial court is required to include an advisement regarding consecutive sentences. Here, a review of the record demonstrates that the trial court complied with the relevant provisions of Crim.R. 11(C) and a manifest injustice did not occur. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
11/21/2024
|
11/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5476 |
|
Bland v. Bldg. for the Future Mgt., L.L.C.
| 113704 | Magistrate’s authority; Civ.R. 53; magistrate’s order; magistrate’s decision; plain error. Judgment reversed and remanded. Because the magistrate exceeded the magistrate’s authority when it granted default judgment against the appellants and dismissed appellants’ counterclaim by way of a magistrate’s order, it was error for the trial court to deny appellants’ “objections.” Further, the subsequent ruling by the trial court adopting the magistrate’s decision regarding damages was plain error because it was premised on the erroneous magistrate’s order. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
11/14/2024
|
11/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5391 |
|
State v. Wagner
| 113780 | Guilty plea; alleged breach of plea agreement; plain error. The victim asked for consecutive sentences when she gave the victim-impact statement at the sentencing hearing, even though neither the State nor the victim was to ask for prison time under the plea agreement. Reviewing the claim for plain error, we conclude appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court would not have imposed a prison sentence but for the victim’s request. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
11/14/2024
|
11/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5394 |
|
Pincus v. Dubyak
| 113681 | Legal malpractice; power of attorney; saving statute; motion for summary judgment; standing; privity; malice; de novo review; R.C. 2305.11; receiver; damages; proximate cause; duty. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee on claims for legal malpractice. Appellant was able to establish that she had an attorney-client relationship with appellee so that the refiling of her complaint was not untimely. Questions of fact remain whether appellee breached his professional duty to appellant and whether appellee’s decision not to file a motion to appoint a receiver were the proximate cause of appellant’s damages. Appellant did not contest the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on her deceased husband’s claims; therefore, the grant of summary judgment as to those claims is affirmed. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
11/14/2024
|
11/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5390 |
|
Cleveland Hts. v. Swinney
| 113316 | First Amendment to the United States Constitution; Ohio Const., art. I, § 7; Evid.R. 610; religious practices; cross-examination testimony; structural error; plain error. Defendant-appellant appeals his bench trial conviction. At trial, appellant took the stand and on direct examination testified that he could not have committed the crime because he was at home, as he is every Friday, preparing to celebrate the Sabbath the next day. On cross-examination the prosecutor then inquired briefly into appellant’s religion to flesh out appellant’s alibi. Appellant argued on appeal that alleged the cross-examination between him and the prosecutor infringed on his constitutional rights to freedom of religion under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Ohio Const., art. I, § 7. Appellant argued the exchange amounted to a structural error and a plain error. On review, we find the exchange between appellant and the prosecutor was not a constitutional structural error nor was it plain error. Appellant’s assignments of error are overruled. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
11/14/2024
|
11/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5389 |
|
Fortner v. Goldberg
| 114322 | Mandamus and dismissal. The court granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss because the relator agreed to the dismissal. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
11/13/2024
|
11/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5392 |
|
State v. Coleman
| 113692 | Consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); clearly and convincingly. - Consecutive sentences affirmed where appellate court did not have a firm conviction or belief that the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings were not clearly and convincingly supported by the record. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
11/7/2024
|
11/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5324 |
|
Fuller v. Evergreen Title Servs., L.L.C.
| 113666 | Relief from judgment; Civ.R. 60(B); meritorious defense; fraud. The trial court abused its discretion in granting relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) where the movant failed to establish a meritorious claim or defense and failed to satisfy any the grounds for relief listed in the rule. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
11/7/2024
|
11/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5322 |
|
Fairview Park v. Werling
| 113684, 113686, 113687 | Menacing; ethnic intimidation; R.C. 2903.22(A); R.C. 2927.12(A); misdemeanor; Crim.R. 29; sufficiency; manifest weight; race; color; racial slurs; racially abusive language; predicate offense; underlying offense; motivating factor; totality of the circumstances; infer; venue; R.C. 2901.12(H); course of conduct. Affirmed appellant’s convictions for menacing under R.C. 2903.22(A) and ethnic intimidation under R.C. 2927.12(A). The convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Following a disagreement over a shoe return, there were multiple interactions with the employees of the store in which appellant engaged in menacing conduct and repeatedly directed racial slurs at one of the victims. Although words alone are generally not enough to establish ethnic intimidation, in this matter the appellant engaged in actions and ongoing behavior from which it could be reasonably inferred that she committed the predicate offense of menacing, at least in part, by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin. Appellant failed to demonstrate plain error in regard to her venue challenge, and venue was proper pursuant to R.C. 2901.12(H)(1) and (3). | S. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
11/7/2024
|
11/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5323 |
|
Pivonka v. Corcoran
| 113504 | Class-action certification; unjust enrichment; reimbursement to Medicaid for personal-injury awards; subrogation under R.C. 5101.58; subject-matter jurisdiction in common pleas court or Court of Claims; legal relief; equitable relief. In this class action against the State, particularly the Ohio Department of Medicaid, if the allegations in the complaint are seen as legal claims then subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the Court of Claims. However, if the allegations in the complaint are seen as equitable claims, the common pleas court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Here, the allegations in the complaint concern wrongfully collected reimbursement funds paid back to the Ohio Department of Medicaid by Medicaid participants. The remedy concerns return of the funds to the participants. The issue: is this action claiming reimbursement a civil suit for money damages or an action in equity brought to correct unjust enrichment? The answer lies in whether the plaintiffs are seeking to recover from the defendant’s general assets or specifically identified funds. Case dismissed and remanded to the trial court to develop the record with the jurisdictional facts needed for the court to determine whether this is a legal or equitable claim. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
11/7/2024
|
11/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5318 |
|
RNE Ents., L.L.C. v. Imperial Kitchen Cabinet Factory, L.L.C.
| 113768 | Stay; satisfaction; res judicata; law-of-the-case doctrine; garnishment. - Res judicata and the law-of-the-case doctrine precludes appellant’s arguments that attempt to relitigate issues that were disposed of in prior appeals. Appellant’s failure to obtain a valid stay pending appeal permitted the appellee to execute successful garnishments that satisfied the judgments rendered in favor of the appellee. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
11/7/2024
|
11/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5327 |
|
State v. Miller
| 113764 | Community control; violation; reserve; consecutive; prison; sentence; due process; waiver; plain error; notice. The trial court’s imposition of consecutive prison terms for the defendant’s violation of his community-control sanctions was not contrary to law. The record does not reflect a violation of the defendant’s due process rights. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
11/7/2024
|
11/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5326 |
|
State v. Ali
| 113750 | Bollar, R.C. 2941.25(A); allied offenses; R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b) and (g); firearm specifications; sentencing; felonious assault; R.C. 2903.11(A); merger; double jeopardy; coercion; right to trial. Judgment affirmed. Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law when the trial court followed the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Bollar, 2022-Ohio-4370, and ordered the three year firearm specifications to be run consecutively on the merged counts. The Bollar Court held that a firearm specification survives merger under the plain language of R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g). Furthermore, there is no violation of double jeopardy when a trial court complies with the statute in imposing a separate sentence on such a specification. Finally, appellant was not coerced into taking a plea to avoid consecutive sentences. Appellant exercised his right to trial. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
11/7/2024
|
11/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5325 |
|
State v. Miles
| 113645 | Self-defense; manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. The trial court’s judgment finding appellant guilty of aggravated assaulted and criminal damaging or endangering was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The State disproved at least one of the elements of appellant’s self-defense claim. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
11/7/2024
|
11/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5321 |
|
State v. Coleman
| 113541 | Felonious assault; knowingly; sufficient evidence; manifest weight; complicity; bench trial; video evidence. Judgment affirmed. While there was no eyewitness testimony to the shooting, the video evidence and testimony of the investigating officers and forensic experts, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, is sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant knowingly caused serious physical harm to victim and caused or attempted to cause physical harm to the victim when the defendant Coleman fired his gun at the victim. Additionally, the trial court could have found that the defendant supported, assisted, encouraged, cooperated with, advised, or incited the unknown shooter who can be observed on video shooting at the victim. In a bench trial, the trial court is entitled to the presumption of regularity, that is, the trial court is presumed to know and follow the law in arriving at its judgment unless it affirmatively appears to the contrary. Moreover, defendant’s convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
11/7/2024
|
11/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5320 |
|
State v. Bissell
| 113158 | R.C. 2903.02(B); merger; knowledge; sufficiency; weight of the evidence; R.C. 2945.79(D). Insufficient evidence was presented to establish guilt for predicate offense of felonious assault supporting R.C. 2903.02(B) conviction where evidence failed to establish appellant acted knowingly. Appellant, with knowledge of the surrounding circumstances, acted in a way that created a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm. Having knowledge of the surrounding circumstances and acting anyway, disregarding a substantial risk is a hallmark of reckless conduct. Insufficient evidence was presented to establish conviction for failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer where no officer testified as to an order or direction and no officer testified that the officers conducting traffic control were authorized to direct traffic as required to convict under R.C. 2921.331(A). If a court finds that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction it may find the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense if the facts warrant it without ordering a new trial under R.C. 2945.79(D). The evidence in this case supported a finding that appellant was guilty of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter with reckless assault as a predicate offense. Having found the appellant guilty of the lesser included offense, the case is remanded for resentencing. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
11/7/2024
|
11/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5317 |
|
In re M.W.
| 113820 | Permanent custody; legal custody; best interest of the child. Neither permanent custody nor legal custody was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. Mother had five children removed from the home because of educational neglect and housing issues. Three of the children were placed in the same foster home. One of the children was placed with a family member, and the fifth child was placed in a foster home on his own. Mother obtained housing and completed case plan objectives such that the agency returned the three oldest children to her care. Additionally, she gave birth to two additional children during the pendency of the case, and the agency did not establish grounds to intervene in Mother’s custody. Nevertheless, the agency sought legal custody to a family member for one of the remaining children and permanent custody to the agency for the other, in part due to Mother’s failure to consistently visit those two children. However, the record reflected that Mother had visited with both children, though not consistently. There was insufficient evidence to support the findings for permanent and legal custody. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
11/7/2024
|
11/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5328 |
|
State v. Tate
| 113532 | One-year firearm specification; three-year firearm specification; rape; kidnapping; aggravated robbery; multiplicity; inconsistent verdict; double jeopardy; ineffective assistance of counsel; plain error; insufficient evidence; manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. Appellant’s convictions on the three-year firearm specifications and acquittals on the one-year firearm specifications did not result in an inconsistent verdict. Ohio appellate courts have repeatedly held that an acquittal on a one-year firearm specification and a finding of guilt on a three-year firearm specification do not result in an inconsistent verdict requiring the vacation of the three-year specification. The jury could have rendered these seemingly inconsistent verdicts for any number of reasons. The State presented evidence sufficient that the appellant had a firearm on or about his person or under his control while raping and robbing the victim. Therefore, the seemingly inconsistent verdicts were likely a product of compromise and leniency. Multiplicity occurs when a single crime has been arbitrarily divided or separated into two or more separate counts. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek dismissal of the indictment and failing to request jury instructions requiring the jury to make specific factual findings as to the firearm specifications because (1) sentence enhancements, such as firearm specifications, are not criminal offenses; it follows that the inclusion of multiple sentence enhancements in an indictment does not render the indictment multiplicitous or violate double jeopardy principles and (2) the use of jury interrogatories in criminal cases is questionable and the appellant does not cite to any statute mandating special verdicts in the instant case. There is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain appellant’s convictions and the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The victim testified that appellant threatened the victim and raped and robbed her by gunpoint while in a dark garage. Appellant then threatened the victim to remain in the garage before he left. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
11/7/2024
|
11/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5319 |
|
In re A.C.
| 113856 | Custody action; R.C. 2151.23(A)(2); genetic testing; R.C. 3111.09; parentage action; final and appealable order. Judgment affirmed. The juvenile court’s denial of the appellant’s request for court-ordered genetic testing was a final, appealable order because it affected a substantial right in the action, determined the issue of genetic testing, and prevented a judgment for appellant. The trial court did not err by denying appellant’s request for court-ordered genetic testing. Genetic testing is provided for under R.C. 3111.09 in parentage actions, not custody actions. Appellant initiated this case as a custody action under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2). | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
11/7/2024
|
11/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5329 |
|
In re Adoption of R.L.A.
| 113860 | Adoption; adoption petition; R.C. 3107.07(A); consent to adopt; justifiable cause; failure to support; failure to communicate. The trial court did not err in finding that the biological father’s consent to adopt was not required because there was clear and convincing evidence that the biological father had failed to support or communicate with the child in the statutory time period. The biological father had never supported his child and had no communication with the child in several years. There was no evidence that the biological mother or prospective adoptive father substantially interfered in the biological father’s attempts to communicate with the child. The biological father offered no evidence of his income during the statutory time frame other than testimony that his income decreased during the pandemic. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
10/31/2024
|
10/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5218 |
|
Fast Tract Title Servs., Inc. v. Barry
| 113716 | Civ.R. 12(B)(6); motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted; res judicata. Trial court erred in dismissing complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) based on res judicata. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
10/31/2024
|
10/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5216 |
|
Tilton v. Geronimo
| 113571 | Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56(C); breach of contract; unjust enrichment; trespass; fraudulent misrepresentation; consideration. Judgment affirmed. Summary judgment was proper when there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the parties’ agreement. Appellants agreed to the removal of 16 arborvitae trees so appellees could replace their driveway. Appellees’ agreement to forgo expanding their driveway and removing all of the trees lining their property, in exchange for appellants’ permission to remove the 16 arborvitaes, was valid consideration. Appellees were not fraudulently induced into this agreement. The agreement, which was expressed in the parties’ emails, did not include reimbursement. Because there was a valid contract, the trespass and unjust enrichment claims fail as a matter of law. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
10/31/2024
|
10/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5211 |
|
State v. Malone
| 113700 | Motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial; hearing; “unavoidably prevented.” To obtain leave to file a delayed new-trial motion, a defendant must demonstrate by clear and convincing proof that the defendant was unavoidably prevented from filing his motion for a new trial. Appellant fails to attest to the circumstances relating to his late discovery of the new evidence other than the fact that he discovered the new evidence in 2023, nine years after his conviction. Furthermore, the alleged new evidence consists of several journal entries and a docket in two cases, which are matters of public record. Appellant’s affidavit offered no explanations for his efforts to uncover favorable evidence, the circumstances he discovered the new evidence, or the reasons for the nine-year delay. Because he has failed to demonstrate that he exercised due diligence to uncover the documents that have been in existence for years even before his conviction, we do not find an abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying the instant motion for leave. The trial court similarly did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion without a hearing because he fails to carry his burden of submitting documents that on their face support his claim of being unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
10/31/2024
|
10/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5215 |
|
Cleveland v. City Redevelopment, L.L.C.
| 113651 | Housing court; violations; building code; compliance; community-control sanctions; abuse of discretion; primary goal of misdemeanor sentencing; Jones test. Judgment affirmed in part, modified in part, and remanded. The housing court abused its discretion in this case when it prohibited the appellant from selling the subject property and any properties owned by appellant in the city as part of its community-control sanctions when the appellant was in full compliance with the city’s code at the time of sentencing. The primary goal of misdemeanor sentencing was satisfied in this matter — the violations were corrected and the Property was brought into full compliance with all building codes. Therefore, the matter is reversed in part and remanded to the trial court to issue a new sentencing entry modifying the appellant’s sentence by deleting only the portion of community-control sanctions requiring the appellant to “not to sell, gift, or transfer the properties it owns within the City of Cleveland while on community control without approval of the Court.” The remaining portions of the appellant’s community-city control sanctions are affirmed. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
10/31/2024
|
10/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5213 |
|
Smith v Lincoln Elec. Co.
| 113340 | Wrongful termination; summary judgment; assault and battery. Trial court properly granted summary judgment for appellee on appellant’s claims for wrongful termination against public policy where appellant failed to identify a public policy that was applicable to the facts of the case. Trial court also properly granted summary judgment for appellee on appellant’s assault and battery claim where assailant was acting outside of the scope of employment and there was no evidence that the appellee had ratified the assailant’s conduct as necessary to impute the assault and battery to the employer. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
10/31/2024
|
10/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5209 |
|
State v. Griffon
| 113608 | Community-control violations; due process; abuse of discretion; drug test; R.C. 2929.13(E)(2). The trial court abused its discretion in finding a violation of community-control sanctions because the violation was based on the defendant’s alleged violation of protection orders that were not introduced into evidence for the purposes of determining whether his conduct constituted a violation, and a single instance of testing positive for drugs cannot form an independent basis of a violation of community-control sanctions unless the trial court makes the findings under R.C. 2929.13(E)(2) on the record. | S. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
10/31/2024
|
10/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5212 |
|
State v. Walton
| 113688 | Aggravated vehicular homicide; aggravated vehicular assault; operating vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs; ineffective assistance of counsel; abuse of discretion. The then 20-year old defendant, while traveling at a high rate of speed, crashed his vehicle into a tree and three teenage girls died from injuries they sustained and two other people were injured. After his motion to suppress blood alcohol tests was denied, defendant pled guilty to several counts of aggravated vehicular homicide and aggravated vehicular assault as well as operating vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. His convictions were affirmed on appeal, and his motion to reopen appeal was denied. Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea alleging ineffective assistance of counsel that was denied. When a defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel at the time of a plea, he must show that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and defendant would have insisted on going to trial. Defendant argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a strategy to attack the procedure for blood alcohol testing and had counsel done so, he would have gone to trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to withdraw plea. Defendant did not point to anything in the record to indicate trial counsel had a basis to attack the requirements for blood testing or that such challenge would have resulted in the suppression of the blood test. As such, defendant did not show trial counsel’s decision to focus efforts on challenging the results of the blood test itself, not on the procedure, fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Further, the record did not demonstrate that even had counsel been ineffective, defendant would have gone to trial where other evidence of impairment existed. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
10/31/2024
|
10/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5214 |
|
Horn v. DeGennaro
| 113762 | Adverse possession; magistrate’s decision; objections; Civ.R. 53; transcript of all the evidence; exhibits; independent review; ruling on objections. -Trial court’s decision rejecting the magistrate’s decision on an adverse possession claim upheld where the record demonstrates that the trial court complied with Civ.R. 53 in its obligation to conduct an independent review of the magistrate’s decision and rule on the objections. Appellant failed to demonstrate error that the trial exhibits were not part of the record or that the trial court did not consider them in its Civ.R. 53 review. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
10/31/2024
|
10/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5217 |
|
State v. Medlock
| 113273 | Alford plea, knowingly, voluntarily, protestations of innocence. Judgment Affirmed. Based on the totality of circumstances, we find that appellant’s comment that he was not guilty when asked whether he was satisfied with his attorney, but then immediately reversed his position and acknowledged his guilt throughout the rest of the proceedings, including the sentencing, is not sufficient to trigger a trial court’s heightened duty under Alford. Because appellant was not protesting his innocence to the level required under Alford and State v. Padgett, 67 Ohio App.3d 332, 337-338 (2d Dist. 1990), we find that his plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
10/31/2024
|
10/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5208 |
|
State v. Mosby
| 113545 | Cross-examination; victim; bias; manifest weight of the evidence; sexually violent predator specifications; jury waiver; consecutive sentences; cumulative-error doctrine; present ability to pay fine; R.C. 2929.19(B)(5). - Trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting defense counsel’s cross-examination to comport with the evidence; prosecutor’s, State’s witnesses’, and the judge’s use of the word “victim” to refer to the complaining witness was not plain error; defendant’s convictions for rape and kidnapping were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; defendant’s waiver of a jury trial on the sexually violent predator specifications was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and defense counsel’s advice to waive a jury trial on the specifications was not ineffective assistance of counsel; trial court’s findings regarding the necessity of consecutive sentences were supported by the record; the cumulative-error doctrine did not apply because there were not numerous trial court errors; trial court erred in imposing a fine without considering the defendant’s present ability to pay the fine, as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(5). | Keough | Cuyahoga |
10/31/2024
|
10/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5210 |
|
State v. Williams
| 113141 | Ineffective assistance of counsel; restitution; R.C. 2929.19(B)(5); Marsy’s Law; sufficiency. Appellant’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. Sufficiency tests the adequacy of the evidence. Where the victim testified defining the items that were stolen, that testimony itself was sufficient, if believed, to establish the element of the value of the items stolen. Appellant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to counsel’s failure to object to the introduction of evidence in violation of the best evidence rule, because the victim’s testimony was sufficient to establish the fact. The best evidence rule did not apply, and the admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to counsel’s failure to object to the amount of restitution and the failure to consider his ability to pay. The amount of restitution was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, additionally, counsel’s may not have objected to avoid the imposition of a greater fine based on the testimony presented at trial. Secondly, Marsy’s Law supersedes consideration of a defendant’s ability to pay, accordingly, counsel did not err when he failed to object. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
10/24/2024
|
10/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5092 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 113591 | Jury Instruction; affirmative defense; entrapment; evidence; harmless error; bribery; manifest weight. Trial court properly refused to provide a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of entrapment where the evidence did not support an entrapment defense. Trial court’s decision not to instruct a witness to stop using the words “bribe” or “bribery payment” was not improper because the words “bribe” and “bribery payment” are commonly understood and did not amount to legal conclusions. Defendant’s bribery convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where video evidence clearly showed the defendant accepting cash in exchange for fake police reports. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
10/24/2024
|
10/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5098 |
|
State v. Taylor
| 113385, 113386, 113387 | Discretionary transfer; bindover; amenability; R.C. 2152.12; guilty plea; misdemeanor; plain error; Crim.R. 52(B). Judgment affirmed. Defendant argues that his convictions and bindover should be reversed and remanded to the juvenile court because the juvenile court (1) abused its discretion when it determined that he was not amenable to treatment in the juvenile court system and (2) committed plain error when it transferred misdemeanor offenses for adult criminal prosecution and accepted waivers premised on a misstatement of law. Because the record provides a rational and factual basis to support the juvenile court’s amenability decision, we cannot say that the juvenile court abused its discretion by transferring the defendant’s cases to the general division. Assuming arguendo that the juvenile court erred in transferring the defendant’s misdemeanor charges and/or failing to distinguish them from his felony charges in its colloquy, the defendant has not demonstrated how those errors impacted his convictions. Therefore, we decline to find plain error. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
10/24/2024
|
10/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5094 |
|
State v. Finklea
| 113566 | Mistrial; juror misconduct; abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s motion for a mistrial. The court did not find that there had been juror misconduct when one juror allegedly overheard another juror make a comment that she had already made her mind up about appellant’s guilt or innocence but that person denied making the comment and the other jurors in her presence denied hearing the comment. Moreover, that juror was excused mid-trial for personal reasons and did not take part in deliberations. Therefore, appellant cannot show that any alleged statement materially affected his substantial rights. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
10/24/2024
|
10/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5096 |
|
Francati v. Fuentes
| 113507 | Civ.R. 12(B)(1), subject-matter jurisdiction, probate court, definition and creation of trust within deed. Plaintiffs, members of a homeowners association, filed declaratory judgment action over dispute with actions taken by the members and of the board of directors of the homeowners association. Plaintiffs did not provide evidence the probate court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims where they claimed a trust was created by a series of deeds and other documents spanning decades or provide evidence the claims concerned the administration of an estate. As such, the probate court correctly determined it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
10/24/2024
|
10/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5095 |
|
In re J.H.
| 113855 | Permanent custody; best interest; clear and convincing evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; continuance; case plan; reunification. Juvenile court’s judgment granting permanent custody of child to Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services ("CCDCFS") was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence where Mother made no effort to comply with the agency’s case plan for reunification. Juvenile court’s denial of Mother’s day-of-trial motion for continuance was not an abuse of discretion where Mother failed to provide a legitimate reason for the requested continuance, Mother had not engaged in agency services, and the continuance would have inconvenienced many other individuals and the court. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
10/24/2024
|
10/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5102 |
|
State v. Hodges
| 113568 | Petition for postconviction relief; jurisdiction; timeliness; res judicata. The trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider defendant’s postconviction-relief petition because it was untimely and did not meet the criteria in R.C. 2953.23(A)(1). Furthermore, the arguments raised in the petition were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised in the defendant’s direct appeal. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
10/24/2024
|
10/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-5097 |
|