|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Cornelison
| 2023-CA-36 | Appellant failed to demonstrate that the findings on which the trial court based its imposition of consecutive sentences were clearly and convincingly not supported by the record. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Champaign |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2482 |
|
K.W. v. D.O.
| 30094 | Appellant failed to file objections to the magistrate’s decision granting a civil stalking protection order against her. As such, she cannot challenge the order on appeal. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2488 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 2023-CA-50 | Appellant’s guilty verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The evidence showed that appellant and the victim lived together and that appellant struck the victim, causing physical harm. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it permitted a witness to testify as to what a five-year-old child said shortly after the incident, as it was an excited utterance. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2478 |
|
D.B. v. J.P.
| 30063 | Appellant failed to file objections to the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision granting appellee’s petition for a civil stalking protection order before filing this appeal, as required by Civ.R. 65.1(G). Accordingly, appellant may not appeal from the trial court’s judgment. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2489 |
|
State v. McElrath
| 2023-CA-45 | The record does not clearly and convincingly fail to support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings. Appellant’s professed lack of awareness about the potential for consecutive sentences did not invalidate his guilty plea. Defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to address the statutory consecutive-sentencing factors. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2475 |
|
State v. Weprin
| 29979 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. The judge who issued the search warrant had a substantial basis for finding probable cause that evidence of a crime would be found at appellant’s home. The search warrant affiant did not intentionally or recklessly omit pertinent information from his affidavit. Even if a prior recantation by the victim in an earlier case against appellant had been included in the affidavit, that information was not exculpatory and would not have altered the finding of probable cause, because lengthy and detailed allegations were made in this case which were not recanted. The State concedes that the trial court failed to properly advise appellant of Reagan Tokes Act notifications and failed to properly advise appellant regarding post-release control at sentencing. Judgment reversed in part and remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion; judgment affirmed in all other respects. | Huffman | Montgomery |
6/28/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2469 |
|
State v. Dean
| 2023-CA-31 | The trial court did not commit plain error when it failed to merge appellant’s convictions for possessing criminal tools and aggravated trafficking in drugs where the two offenses involved separate conduct. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Champaign |
6/21/2024
|
6/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2385 |
|
Barry v. Maxim Roofing Co., L.L.C.
| 30038 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to employer-appellee on employee-appellant’s intentional tort claims based on appellant’s fall from a ladder during a roofing job. Appellant was not entitled to the presumption of intent to injure contained in R.C. 2745.01(C) because, as a matter of law, the safety feet of the ladder did not constitute “an equipment safety guard” within the meaning of that section. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
6/21/2024
|
6/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2387 |
|
State v. Tunstall
| 29946 | Appellant was convicted of felony murder and obstructing official business, among other charges. The jury’s determination that appellant did not act in self defense was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The obstructing official business conviction included a finding that appellant’s conduct had created a risk of physical harm to any person; this finding was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
6/21/2024
|
6/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2376 |
|
B.B. v. O.D.
| 2023-CA-30 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found appellant in contempt of court for her failure to obey an agreed custody order. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Darke |
6/21/2024
|
6/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2388 |
|
State v. Simpson
| 2023-CA-51 | Appellant’s convictions for rape, kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and violation of a protection order were based on sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Additionally, the trial court did not err when it imposed consecutive sentences. The court’s findings with respect to the consecutive sentences were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgments affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
6/21/2024
|
6/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2378 |
|
Shehee v. Kings Furniture
| 29902 | The trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s complaint based on his failure to serve appellees within the time specified in Civ.R. 3(A). Appellant requested service to be made on appellees within the statute of limitations for several claims, and the court should have considered this as a refiling of the complaint pursuant to Goolsby v. Anderson Concrete Corp., 61 Ohio St.3d 549, 575 N.E.2d 801 (1991), which would have made failure to comply with Civ.R. 3(A) irrelevant. Judgments reversed and remanded. | Welbaum | Montgomery |
6/21/2024
|
6/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2379 |
|
State v. Moore
| 2023-CA-32 | The trial court did not commit either plain error or any error in considering whether appellant had the ability to pay financial sanctions. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Champaign |
6/21/2024
|
6/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2382 |
|
Trinity Fin. Servs. v. Unknown Heirs of King
| 30066 | The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to plaintiff-appellee in a residential foreclosure case. The trial court abused its discretion in failing to compel appellee to produce the original note for inspection and to give an additional opportunity for discovery, pursuant to Civ.R. 56(F), prior to granting summary judgment. Genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether appellee had satisfied all conditions precedent prior to filing its action. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Epley | Montgomery |
6/21/2024
|
6/21/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2377 |
|
State ex rel. Clark-Shawnee Local School Bd. of Edn v. Springfield
| 2024-CA-9 | Relator’s mandamus claim is moot because respondent has provided all records that are the subject of its public records request. Relator is entitled to statutory damages because respondent unreasonably delayed its response to the request. Relator did not demonstrate that respondent acted in bad faith. Attorney fees and court costs denied. Writ denied. | Per Curiam | Clark |
6/20/2024
|
6/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2483 |
|
State v. Olson-Graf
| 29988 | Appellant pleaded guilty to violating a protection order by committing a felony, telecommunications harassment, and violating a protection order. Appellant’s argument that her guilty pleas were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary is without merit. But the trial court erred by failing to merge the three counts as allied offenses of similar import, which the State concedes. Judgment affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and remanded. | Tucker | Montgomery |
6/14/2024
|
6/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2291 |
|
State v. Dzekunskas
| 2023-CA-69 | Appellant’s conviction for domestic violence was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; his mother testified that he pushed her onto her bed, struck her with a closed fist, and briefly put his hands around her neck. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Greene |
6/14/2024
|
6/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2287 |
|
R.L.R. Invests., L.L.C. v. Cross Street Partners, L.L.C.
| 30034 | The trial court erred in granting defendant-appellee a preliminary injunction to prevent plaintiff-appellant from arbitrating against a third party. Defendant, an agent performing construction work on behalf of its principal, lacked standing to enjoin plaintiff from arbitrating against the principal. Judgment reversed; preliminary injunction dissolved. | Tucker | Montgomery |
6/14/2024
|
6/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2292 |
|
In re Adoption of B.M.M.
| 2024-CA-5 | Putative father did not register with the putative father registry or otherwise establish a legal relationship with the child prior to petitioner-appellant’s filing of a petition for adoption. Although putative father’s paternity was subsequently established by DNA testing, he had not attained the status of one whose consent to the adoption was required at the time the petition was filed. The trial court erred in concluding that the contact and support provisions of R.C. 3107.07(A) applied to putative father. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that putative father’s consent to the adoption was not required. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Champaign |
6/14/2024
|
6/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2288 |
|
State v. Mason
| 2023-CA-27 | Appellant was convicted of reckless homicide with a firearm specification; he was sentenced to a mandatory three-year prison term on the firearm specification to be served prior and consecutive to a 36-month “mandatory” prison term on the reckless homicide. Although the trial court was required to impose a prison term on the reckless homicide because of the firearm specification, the sentence on the reckless homicide was not otherwise a statutorily-mandated prison sentence. Thus, the trial court erred by designating the reckless homicide prison sentence as a mandatory sentence, which would preclude appellant’s consideration for judicial release and other potential sentence reductions. The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal of the reckless homicide; the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence several autopsy photographs used by a pathologist during her testimony regarding the cause of the victim’s death. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing. | Tucker | Miami |
6/14/2024
|
6/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2290 |
|
State v. Apple
| 2023-CA-21 | The trial court did not err by failing to suppress firearms and methamphetamine found in a locked safe by probation officers during a probationer search. The search in question was authorized under R.C. 2951.02(A)(1)(a), which is a valid statute that meets the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. Accordingly, the search of the safe was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and suppression of the evidence found therein was not required. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Darke |
6/14/2024
|
6/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2286 |
|
State v. Cuffie
| 2023-CA-61 | Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law, and the court’s findings in imposing consecutive sentences were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
6/7/2024
|
6/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2193 |
|
State v. S.R.S.
| 2023-CA-43 | The trial court erred in granting appellee’s application to seal his conviction. Appellee pled guilty to failure to comply with the order of a police officer, a third-degree felony. Although convictions for certain felony offenses may be sealed, R.C. 2953.32(A)(2) precludes sealing convictions for felony offenses of violence. Under R.C. 2901.01(A)(9)(c), appellee’s conviction is classified as an offense of violence. Judgment reversed. | Welbaum | Champaign |
6/7/2024
|
6/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2195 |
|
State v. Turner
| 2023-CA-51 | Appellant’s conviction for leaving the scene of an accident was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Greene |
6/7/2024
|
6/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2196 |
|
State v. Anderson
| 2023-CA-49 | The trial court did not violate Crim.R. 11 by failing to advise appellant of the potential for consecutive sentences or about his eligibility for community-control sanctions. The record does not affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’s failure to consider the youth sentencing factors found in R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b). The trial court did err, however, in its award of jail-time credit. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for recalculation of jail-time credit. | Tucker | Clark |
6/7/2024
|
6/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2191 |
|
State v. Knott
| 2023-CA-54 | The trial court erred by failing to dismiss appellant’s aggravated trafficking in drugs charge on grounds that her statutory right to a speedy trial was violated. Judgment vacated. | Welbaum | Clark |
6/7/2024
|
6/14/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2289 |
|
State v. Compston
| 2023-CA-47 | The jury verdicts in three consolidated cases, which found appellant guilty of felony violations of a protection order, were not based on insufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgments affirmed. | Welbaum | Clark |
6/7/2024
|
6/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2192 |
|
State v. Quinn
| 29981 | State’s appeal. Appellee’s vehicle and its license plates were seized when he was arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs (OVI); the trial court subsequently released the vehicle and ordered the Ohio State Highway Patrol (“OSHP”) to pay the costs associated with its towing and storage. The State’s argument that the trial court erred in releasing appellee’s vehicle is moot; the OVI charge was dismissed and, as such, the trial court would have been required to order the release of the vehicle if it had not already done so. However, because the OSHP properly seized and retained appellee’s vehicle and license plates pursuant to R.C. 4511.195, the trial court erred in ordering the OSHP to pay all costs associated with the towing, storage, and return of appellee’s vehicle. Judgment reversed. | Welbaum | Montgomery |
6/7/2024
|
6/7/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2194 |
|
State v. Litteral
| 2022-CA-80 & 2022-CA-81 | The trial court committed plain error in its calculation of jail-time credit in two cases. The judgments of conviction are reversed only as to the jail-time credit calculations and remanded for the trial court to 1) issue nunc pro tunc judgment entries that credit appellant with proper amounts of jail-time credit and 2) notify the appropriate prison officials of the nunc pro tunc judgment entries. In all other respects, judgments affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
5/31/2024
|
5/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2092 |
|
State v. Jackson
| 29944 | The trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider appellant’s successive petition for postconviction relief because appellant failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A). Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/31/2024
|
5/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2091 |
|
McManus v. Stump
| 30041 | Appellants failed to challenge the validity of the trial court’s foreclosure order, instead asking to be permitted to redeem the foreclosed property. Because a foreclosure order is final and appealable and is separate from confirmation proceedings, there is no basis for reversing the judgment of the trial court. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
5/31/2024
|
5/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2093 |
|
In re Adoption of O.S.R.
| 2024-CA-2 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that adoption petitioners, the child’s maternal aunt and uncle, failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the child’s father had failed to have more than de minimis contact with the child or to provide for the maintenance and support of the child for the relevant period of time. Therefore, the trial court reasonably concluded that father’s consent to the adoption was required. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Darke |
5/31/2024
|
5/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2090 |
|
State v. Bierma
| 29912 | Appellant’s aggravated burglary and felony murder offenses were dissimilar in import because they resulted in separate, identifiable harms and were also committed separately. Accordingly, those offenses were not allied offenses that should have been merged at sentencing. The trial court’s conclusion that the State had satisfied its burden to disprove appellant’s self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. (Tucker, J., concurring.) | Welbaum | Montgomery |
5/31/2024
|
5/31/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2089 |
|
State v. Kelly
| 29896 | Conceded error. The trial court did not make all the necessary findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when it ordered the imposition of consecutive sentences, and therefore its sentences are contrary to law. Judgments reversed and remanded for resentencing. | Tucker | Montgomery |
5/24/2024
|
5/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2007 |
|
State v. McPeek
| 29959 | The trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. The police officers did not lawfully enter the property based on an arrest warrant, because they did not know if the wanted men were present. They also did not have an “implied license” to enter the curtilage, because they went where a “reasonably respectful citizen” would not be permitted to go. Finally, the seizure of contraband was not justified by the “plain view doctrine,” because the contraband was discovered in a place where the officers did not have a right to be. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Epley | Montgomery |
5/24/2024
|
5/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2008 |
|
Edwards v. Galluzzo
| 2023-CA-21 | The trial court did not err in granting the county treasurer’s motion for summary judgment in a delinquent tax foreclosure case against a landowner who had failed to pay his property taxes. Appellant, a non-lawyer, could not defend the action on behalf of other parties who did not answer or otherwise respond to the county treasurer’s complaint. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Champaign |
5/24/2024
|
5/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2005 |
|
State v. Anderson
| 29990 | Appellant’s conviction for aggravated menacing was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, where the complaining witness testified that appellant had followed him and threatened to kill him during what appellant admitted was an episode of road rage. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/24/2024
|
5/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2003 |
|
State v. Brown
| 29810 | Appellant failed to establish that the trial court committed plain error when it imposed restitution. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/24/2024
|
5/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2004 |
|
FabMetals, Inc. v. Stratacache, Inc.
| 29666 | The trial court awarded more than $3 million in damages to appellee, a manufacturer and provider of digital menu boards, because of defective painting performed by appellant, a company that fabricates and paints metal parts. Portions of the trial court’s damages award were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court must conduct a new trial solely to determine the amount of damages that 1) were already incurred to replace defective menu boards, 2) will actually be incurred to replace defective menu boards during their ten-year design life, and 3) were already incurred to investigate the cause of the defective menu boards. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/24/2024
|
5/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2006 |
|
State v. Miller
| 2023-CA-22 | Appellant’s conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OVI) was supported by legally sufficient evidence. However, the trial court erred in relying on an uncertified printout of a Law Enforcement Automatic Data System driving record as sufficient evidence to prove that appellant had at least five prior OVI convictions within a 20-year period. Judgment affirmed as modified; remanded for resentencing. | Huffman | Darke |
5/24/2024
|
5/24/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2009 |
|
State v. Carter
| 29919 | The trial court did not err in its jury instructions regarding self-defense and defense of another. The instructions accurately stated the law and were unlikely to have confused the jury. Appellant’s felonious-assault convictions were not against the weight of the evidence. Based on the evidence presented, the jury reasonably concluded that the State had disproven self-defense and defense of another beyond a reasonable doubt. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
5/17/2024
|
5/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1908 |
|
State v. Van Voorhis
| 29844 | Appellant’s conviction for murder was not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence supported a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant did not act in self defense when he shot and killed the victim. The trial court did not err in denying a mistrial based on the State’s introduction of suppressed evidence; the State properly used the evidence when cross-examining appellant to impeach his trial testimony. The trial court properly denied appellant’s request for a voluntary-manslaughter instruction where the evidence did not support a finding that his shooting of the victim was attributable to sudden passion or a fit of rage. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
5/17/2024
|
5/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1898 |
|
State v. Conard
| 2024-CA-1 | Appellant did not validly waive his right to counsel before pleading guilty to one count of theft, a petty offense. The remedy for the invalid waiver is to vacate appellant’s term of incarceration. Judgment affirmed as modified. | Epley | Miami |
5/17/2024
|
5/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1906 |
|
State v. Flint
| 2023-CA-16 | The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion or when it found him guilty of failure to provide notice of change of address. Appellant registered an invalid address twice, and when he became homeless, he failed to provide written notice that gave a detailed description of the place or places at which he intended to stay. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Darke |
5/17/2024
|
5/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1904 |
|
State v. Guy
| 29920 | The trial court did not completely fail to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a), and appellant has not established that he suffered prejudice from the trial court’s failure to fully cover nonconstitutional aspects of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) during the plea colloquy. Thus, appellant is not entitled to have his pleas vacated. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/17/2024
|
5/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1902 |
|
Regeneration Schools of Ohio v. Mangen1, L.L.C.
| 29870 | The trial court erred in striking appellant’s amended third-party complaint as untimely when it was filed within 28 days of appellee’s motion to dismiss the original third-party complaint. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/17/2024
|
5/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1899 |
|
State v. Cobbins
| 29963 | Appellant’s convictions for assault and disorderly conduct were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Additionally, the trial court properly rejected appellant’s self-defense claim. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
5/17/2024
|
5/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1907 |
|
McCloskey v. McCloskey
| 29940 | The domestic relations court erred in failing to clarify an ambiguous term in the divorce decree. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to hold a third-party defendant (the administrator of the husband’s estate) in contempt of court. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/17/2024
|
5/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1900 |
|
In re Adoption of F.F.L.
| 2023-CA-61 | The probate court did not err in finding that petitioners-appellants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the putative father’s consent to an adoption was not required. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Greene |
5/16/2024
|
5/17/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1901 |
|
Etter v. Etter
| 2024-CA-2 | The trial court did not err in adopting the magistrate’s decision finding that service of process was perfected when appellee received the service packet for appellant from a commercial carrier at the parties’ shared address and credibly testified that she provided the packet to appellant, who waited more than 20 months to seek relief from judgment for improper service. Additionally, the trial court did not err in giving deference to the magistrate’s credibility determinations while also independently considering the evidence before it. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Miami |
5/10/2024
|
5/10/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1805 |
|