|
|
In re M.D.
| 2025-CA-64 | Appellant-mother lacks standing to claim that father was not properly served with notice of the permanent custody hearing where appellant fails to establish how she was prejudiced by the alleged service error. Appellant also lacks standing to challenge the trial court’s judgment denying her maternal aunt’s third-party motion for legal custody. The trial court’s judgment granting permanent custody of appellant’s children to a public children services agency is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Clark |
4/17/2026
|
4/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1394 |
|
K.S. v. J.C.
| 2025-CA-47 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it held that appellant’s objections to a magistrate’s issuance of a domestic violence civil protection order were moot due to the expiration of the protection order during the pendency of the objections before the trial court. Appellant failed to establish any collateral consequences related to the expired protection order. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
4/17/2026
|
4/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1395 |
|
State v. Sawyer
| 2025-CA-37 | Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of rape and other charges after being bound over from the juvenile court. Appellant’s guilty plea waived any challenge to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that appellant was not amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile court and transferred his case to the adult court. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
4/17/2026
|
4/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1398 |
|
State v. Hake
| 30643 | The trial court erred in dismissing as void for vagueness a misdemeanor charge against appellee for violating a rule prohibiting the illegal disposal of construction and demolition debris. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Tucker | Montgomery |
4/17/2026
|
4/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1393 |
|
Leary v. Leary
| 30471 | The trial court’s order awarding $3,000 in attorney’s fees to appellee was an abuse of discretion where the reason given by the trial court for awarding fees was not supported by the record. The trial court’s error in granting a divorce on the grounds of financial misconduct was harmless. Both parties requested a divorce, and sufficient evidence was presented to grant a divorce on the ground of incompatibility. The trial court’s finding that appellant committed financial misconduct is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. As the record clearly demonstrates that appellant engaged in significant financial misconduct, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rendering its distributive award to appellee. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in ordering an unequal separation of marital debt because it was equitable under the circumstances. Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part. | Lewis | Montgomery |
4/17/2026
|
4/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1396 |
|
State v. Reynolds
| 30512 | In this appeal from a conviction of misdemeanor domestic violence, appellant’s failure to object at his sentencing hearing to the trial court’s restitution order waived all but plain error review. The trial court did not err in awarding restitution for the victim’s medical expenses based on its review of appellant’s presentence investigation report, which contained the victim’s impact statement and medical bills. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
4/17/2026
|
4/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1397 |
|
State v. Warren
| 30539 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion on remand when it denied appellant’s application for postconviction DNA testing based on its finding that the evidence was not scientifically suitable for testing, as required by R.C. 2953.74(C)(2)(c). Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
4/17/2026
|
4/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1399 |
|
Coddington v. Zurawka
| 30687 | The trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s complaint for failure to comply with the presentment requirements of R.C. 2117.06 because appellant’s claims were based on the wrongful withholding of his property rather than claims to assets of the subject estate. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Lewis | Montgomery |
4/10/2026
|
4/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1301 |
|
Search v. Search
| 30694 | Appellant-father’s argument that the trial court erred in overruling his objections to the magistrate’s decision regarding his parenting time is moot because his daughter turned 18. Following her emancipation, there is no relief regarding parenting time that this court can provide. The dismissal without prejudice of appellant’s motion regarding medical expenses preserved his right to refile his claim for the expenses, so it was not a final, appealable over which this court has jurisdiction. To the extent appellant’s remaining assigned errors relate to parenting time, they are moot, and to the extent they relate to any medical expenses, they are beyond this court’s jurisdiction. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
4/10/2026
|
4/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1304 |
|
Xerion Advanced Battery Corp. v. Certa Vandalia, L.L.C.
| 30553 | The trial court did not err when it determined that the purchase and sale agreement between the parties was ambiguous and allowed for the consideration of extrinsic evidence. Based on the parties’ prior course of conduct with respect to late rent payments and enforcement of the cure payment provision for such late payments, appellant should have provided notice to appellees that they were required to make the cure payment within thirty days of that notice. Because appellant did not provide such notice, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to appellees on their declaratory judgment claim that they had not breached the parties’ agreement. Judgment affirmed. (Tucker, J., dissenting.) | Epley | Montgomery |
4/10/2026
|
4/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1307 |
|
State v. Myers
| 2024-CA-58 | In this death penalty case, the trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion for leave to file a motion for new trial. However, the court did abuse its discretion in granting a new trial to appellee. The court’s decision was based on unsound reasoning, and the court failed to apply correct legal standards. The trial court also failed to follow statutory requirements with respect to appellee’s petition for postconviction relief and lacked jurisdiction over it. Judgment granting leave to file motion for new trial affirmed. Judgments granting a new trial and granting relief on the postconviction petition reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgments overruling the motion for new trial and denying the petition for postconviction relief. | Hanseman | Greene |
4/10/2026
|
4/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1303 |
|
State v. Taylor
| 2025-CA-51 | Appellant’s 30-month prison sentence for third-degree felony theft from a person in a protected class is not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Greene |
4/10/2026
|
4/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1306 |
|
Surber v. Greenville Twp. Bd. of Trustees
| 2025-CA-11, 2025-CA-12 | In this administrative appeal, appellee’s improper designation of township board of zoning appeals as the appellee in the notice of appeal filed with the trial court did not divest the court of subject-matter jurisdiction over the administrative appeal, nor did it deprive appellants of standing to appeal to this court. The trial court abused its discretion by reversing the finding of the township board of zoning appeals that a building on appellee’s property was not properly permitted where the board’s decision was supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by affirming the board’s finding that two other buildings on appellee’s property were not properly permitted where a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence established that those buildings did not qualify for an agricultural exemption and did not have the required zoning permits. Appellee’s claim that the trial court should have applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel based on appellee’s reliance on a former zoning inspector’s representation that two of appellee’s buildings qualified for agricultural exemptions lacks merit because it is well established that equitable estoppel is inapplicable in relation to a political subdivision’s exercise of the government function of enforcing zoning regulations. Any alleged error in the trial court’s exclusion of an affidavit offered into evidence by appellee would have been harmless error because the court considered the affidavit anyway in its decision. Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part. | Hanseman | Darke |
4/10/2026
|
4/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1305 |
|
McGhee v. McGhee
| 2025-CA-40 | Appellant’s pro se brief did not comply with App.R. 16 in most respects. Most importantly, the brief did not include a coherent argument asserting how the trial court erred in adopting a magistrate’s decision that denied appellant’s motions related to child custody matters. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Miami |
4/10/2026
|
4/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1302 |
|
State v. Fowler
| 2025-CA-35 | In pleading guilty to two counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor or impaired person, appellant admitted the facts set forth in the indictment, and the record reflects that his pleas were entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Greene |
4/3/2026
|
4/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1212 |
|
State v. Sharpe
| 2025-CA-1 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to dismiss the charges against him on speedy trial grounds, failing to grant a mistrial following the State’s references to an indictment in another case, overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial, or failing to merge three firearm-related offenses as allied offenses of similar import. Appellant’s convictions are supported by legally sufficient evidence and are not against the weight of the evidence. The record also does not support appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
4/3/2026
|
4/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1215 |
|
State v. Coffey
| 30637 | Appellant’s domestic violence conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
4/3/2026
|
4/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1210 |
|
Community Gain v. Johnson
| 30465 | Appellee’s affidavit for service by publication was deficient under Civ.R. 4.4, so the trial court lacked jurisdiction over appellant to render its judgment granting default judgment to appellee, finding appellant’s property to be a public nuisance, and appointing appellee as receiver. Given the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction over appellant, her argument that the trial court should have granted relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) is moot. Judgment vacated and remanded. | Huffman | Montgomery |
4/3/2026
|
4/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1211 |
|
In re B.H.
| 30654 | The trial court’s award of permanent custody of appellant’s minor child to a public children services agency was not against the manifest weight of the evidence or based on legally insufficient evidence. The trial court had ample evidence before it to determine that the child was in the agency’s temporary custody for over 12 months during a consecutive 22-month period, notwithstanding appellant’s brief reunification with the child. Ample evidence in the record supported the trial court’s finding that permanent custody to the public children services agency was in the child’s best interests. Appellant’s compliance with her case plan did not outweigh the child’s need for permanency. The public children services agency made reasonable efforts to reunify the child with appellant before seeking permanent custody. Additionally, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call witnesses or present evidence during the permanent custody hearing because such decisions are within the realm of reasonable trial strategy. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
4/3/2026
|
4/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1213 |
|
In re K.M.H.
| 30680 | Mother appeals from a judgment granting legal custody of her two children to their maternal grandparents. The trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over grandparents’ motions for change of custody. The judgment on appeal is a final appealable order. The magistrate’s decision was adopted by the trial court, and no objections to the magistrate’s decision were filed. No plain error occurred. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
4/3/2026
|
4/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1214 |
|
State v. Farler
| 30494 | Appellant’s claim that his guilty pleas are invalid because the trial court failed to personally address him during the plea hearing and failed to ensure that he understood the effect of his pleas as required by Crim.R. 11(C) lacks merit because the record established that the trial court satisfied those requirements. Appellant’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for withdrawing certain arguments from his motion to suppress lacks merit because it is purely speculative as to whether the withdrawn arguments would have been successful, and because withdrawing the arguments was a strategic and tactical decision by counsel that cannot form the basis of an ineffective assistance claim. Appellant’s claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him to plead guilty as opposed to no contest also fails because the claim relies on evidence outside of the record and therefore cannot be raised on direct appeal. Appellant’s claim that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences lacks merit because the trial court made all the required consecutive-sentence findings at the sentencing hearing and in the sentencing entry, and those findings are not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Appellant’s claim that the trial court erred by failing to consider his present and future ability to pay financial sanctions lacks merit because no such consideration was required given that the trial court imposed only court costs, which are not financial sanctions. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
3/27/2026
|
3/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1070 |
|
State v. Ward
| 30526 | Appellant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial record indicated that appellant created the violent situation and that he was not acting out of a legitimate fear of imminent bodily harm when he attacked appellee. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/27/2026
|
3/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1074 |
|
State v. Seiker
| 2025-CA-59 | Appellant was sentenced to a prison term of 11 to 16.5 years in connection with her guilty plea to permitting child abuse, a first-degree felony. Her prison sentence was within the permissible statutory range, and the record established that the trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in sentencing her. Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
3/27/2026
|
3/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1073 |
|
State v. Windsor
| 2025-CA-31 | Any error as to the form of appellant’s indictment, to which there was no objection, did not constitute plain error. The verdict forms were neither erroneous nor incomplete. Appellant was correctly designated a violent offender. The trial court did not err in the admission of video tape evidence. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by not merging appellant’s convictions of attempted murder and discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
3/27/2026
|
3/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1075 |
|
State v. Fletcher
| 2025-CA-10 | Appellant’s conviction of involuntary manslaughter for the death of her diabetic, teenage son is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Darke |
3/27/2026
|
3/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1072 |
|
State v. Farwell
| 2025-CA-31 | Appellant argued that his 14-month sentence for strangulation, a felony of the fourth degree, is contrary to law. However, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not allow an appellate court to reweigh the statutory factors contained in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. In addition, appellant’s sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law because the trial court properly considered the purposes and principals of sentencing, considered the seriousness and recidivism factors, and concluded that granting appellant community control would demean the seriousness of his conduct. In addition, the trial court did not rely on incomplete or inaccurate information when imposing appellant’s prison sentence. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Miami |
3/27/2026
|
3/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1071 |
|
Legacy Real Estate Investing, L.L.C. v. Maldonado Constr., L.L.C.
| 2025-CA-34 | The trial court abused its discretion when it imposed sanctions against appellant for pursuing an oral motion for Spanish-language interpreter on the morning of trial. The record does not support a reasonable conclusion that the motion was brought for purposes of delay and had caused a delay. Judgment reversed. | Epley | Miami |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-953 |
|
State v. Allen
| 2025-CA-20 | Appellant’s arguments that the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) and 2929.15(B)(3) at his disposition hearings are barred by res judicata, and even if the merits could be considered, in the absence of a transcript of those proceedings, we presume regularity. Appellant’s violation of the relocation requirement of his community control sanctions was nontechnical, and he was subject to revocation and incarceration. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to continue his community control violation hearing. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-948 |
|
In re Adoption of J.T.S.
| 2025-CA-62 | The probate court erred in granting appellee-intervenor’s motion to intervene in an adoption proceeding and concluding that appellee was entitled to notice and to withhold his consent in the adoption. Appellee was not entitled to notice of the adoption petition under R.C. 3107.11, nor was his consent required under R.C. 3107.06(B) or 3107.06(A)(3). Appellee had not timely registered with the Ohio Putative Father Registry as required under R.C. 3107.07(B)(1). And although appellee filed a parentage action in the juvenile court nine days before the adoption petition was filed, prior to the petition’s filing, no judicial proceeding had determined that a parent-child relationship existed between appellee and the child. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Clark |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-951 |
|
State v. Martin
| 2025-CA-35 | The trial court erred in accepting appellant’s Alford plea to attempted murder. The trial court did not inquire into the State’s evidence supporting the charge. The trial court also did not inquire about defense counsel’s investigation into the strength of the State’s case or counsel’s recommendations to appellant. The trial court received merely a recitation of appellant’s indictment, which is not a sufficient factual basis for a defendant to enter an Alford plea. Absent a proper Alford plea hearing, appellant’s plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Appellant’s plea vacated, trial court judgment reversed, and matter remanded. | Hanseman | Clark |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-954 |
|
State v. Brown
| 30569 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s public records request pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(8). Appellant failed to identify a pending proceeding to which the records would be material and how the records would be material to any justiciable claim. Appellant’s right to due process was not violated where he received notice and an opportunity to be heard in both the trial court and on appeal. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-949 |
|
In re C.B.G.
| 30624 | Appellant, who was a 17-year-old juvenile, was charged in juvenile court with conduct that if committed by an adult would have constituted the offense of felonious assault (serious physical harm). Appellee filed a motion that requested transfer of the case to the common pleas court’s general division so that appellant could have been tried as an adult. Appellant, through a bill of information, was charged with felonious assault (serious physical harm) along with a serious youthful offender specification under R.C. 2152.13. The juvenile court imposed a juvenile adjudication and an adult sentence, which was stayed pending appellant’s successful completion of the juvenile adjudication. Because the case remained at all times in the juvenile court, the court erred by stating in its judgment entry that appellant pleaded guilty to felonious assault (serious physical harm), that the court accepted the guilty plea, and that appellant was convicted of felonious assault (serious physical harm). Judgment reversed and remanded. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-950 |
|
State v. Kiser
| 30647 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress methamphetamine found in his parked car. The community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution authorized a police officer to open appellant’s car door, exposing the drugs to plain view. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-952 |
|
State v. Shackleford
| 30621 | The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s motion to vacate postrelease control where the argument raised in the motion is barred by res judicata and otherwise lacks merit. Judgment affirmed and matter remanded to the trial court for the sole purpose of amending the sentencing entry nunc pro tunc to delete certain language that was mistakenly added to the entry when it was amended in 2011. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-955 |
|
State v. Hearns
| 30491 | The trial court abused its discretion by ordering appellant to pay $41,850 in restitution for property damage in connection with appellant’s hit-skip conviction where the property damage was not a direct and proximate result of the hit-skip offense. Under R.C. 4549.02(B)(4) and/or R.C. 4549.03(B), the trial court had authority to impose restitution in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for damage that was the direct and proximate result of appellant operating his vehicle before, during, or after he committed the hit-skip offense. The trial court erred by finding that the $5,000 statutory cap on restitution was superseded by Marsy’s Law and by failing to apply the statutory cap. Judgment reversed and matter remanded to the trial court for the purpose of reimposing restitution in accordance with the law. (Huffman, J., concurring.) | Hanseman | Montgomery |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-854 |
|
In re Estate of Troutman
| 30573 | The probate court erred in vacating a 2003 judgment determining heirship under its inherent authority where the judgment was potentially voidable, not void. Appellant-heir’s claim that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to determine the heirs of a non-resident decedent was not ripe for review. Heir’s claim that the probate court had improperly attempted to divest a deceased heir’s vested rights was moot. Judgment reversed. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-855 |
|
Mesenbrick v. Hartley
| 30459 | The trial court’s dismissal without prejudice under Civ.R. 41(B)(1) of appellant’s civil action was not a final appealable order. Although the trial court should not have dismissed due to appellant’s failure to obtain substitute counsel, any error in the court’s dismissal was rendered harmless by the parties’ ability to refile their claims. Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-856 |
|
North v. Eichler
| 30614 | Appellant failed to establish that he did not receive proper notice of the final divorce hearing. The trial court’s order providing notice of the hearing stated that a copy of it was sent to appellant’s last-known address by regular U.S. mail, as required by Civ.R. 75(L). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by dividing the parties’ property in half where the trial court relied on appellee’s proposed divorce decree and appellant failed to appear at the final hearing. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-857 |
|
State v. Wilhite
| 30590 | An administrative suspension of appellant’s driver’s license was beyond the scope of his aggravated drug possession case. Assuming that his driver’s license was suspended for failure to consent to a chemical test in connection with a traffic stop, the present case was not the proper forum for appellant to challenge the suspension. Even if appellant could challenge the license suspension in this case, his attorney’s failure to file a timely appeal of the suspension below did not constitute ineffective assistance. The record also does not indicate that the suspension was appealed orally at appellant’s initial appearance on the drug charge. Finally, the trial court’s failure to hold a hearing on the suspension within five days of appellant’s arrest did not deprive him of due process. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-859 |
|
State v. Williams
| 30649 | The trial court erred in sustaining in part appellee’s motion to suppress based on its conclusion that appellee was unlawfully detained beyond the scope of a traffic stop. Seconds after appellee was removed from his vehicle and patted down for officer safety, he fled the scene on foot, which terminated the stop before it was ever prolonged. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-860 |
|
State v. Halderman
| 2025-CA-5 | The trial court erred in designating appellant a sex offender where his misdemeanor conviction of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor did not qualify as a sexually oriented offense under R.C. 2950.01. Prior appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise the issue. This court’s prior judgment affirming the trial court’s judgment is vacated. The trial court’s judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the case is remanded for the vacation of appellant’s sex offender designation. | Tucker | Greene |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-853 |
|
State v. Rivers
| 2025-CA-33 | In this felony sentencing appeal, the trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in imposing sentence, and appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Miami |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-858 |
|
State v. Dominguez-Olivia
| 2025-CA-21 | Neither appellant’s statutory nor his constitutional speedy trial rights were violated. Appellant’s due process rights were not violated by the delay between his criminal activity and the indictment. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
3/6/2026
|
3/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-754 |
|
State v. Fogle
| 30521, 30522, 30523 | The trial court did not commit plain error by ordering appellant to pay restitution of $265.92 after her dog bit a neighbor and attacked the neighbor’s dog. Judgments affirmed in the three consolidated appeals. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/6/2026
|
3/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-755 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 30496 | Appellant has already served the jail sentence imposed by the judgment on appeal, so his appeal is moot. Appeal dismissed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/6/2026
|
3/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-756 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 30506 | In allowing the child victims to testify outside of appellant’s presence without making any of the factual findings regarding necessity required under the child victim testimony statute, the trial court violated appellant’s right to confrontation. The trial court’s error was not harmless because without the children’s testimony, insufficient evidence supported appellant’s convictions as to the children for aggravated menacing and domestic violence (threats). Insufficient evidence supported appellant’s conviction of aggravated menacing in relation to his ex-wife, so the trial court erred in overruling his motion for acquittal. Judgment reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for a new trial on the charges pertaining to the child victims. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/6/2026
|
3/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-757 |
|
State v. Norman
| 30623 | Conceded error. The trial court failed to provide the notifications required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) at sentencing. Judgment reversed and remanded for resentencing in accordance with the Reagan Tokes Act and affirmed in all other respects. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/6/2026
|
3/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-761 |
|
State v. Wilson
| 30594 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motions for public records. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the information he sought was necessary to support a justiciable claim, and his motions were barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/6/2026
|
3/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-763 |
|
Dayton Human Relations Council v. King
| 30497 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it extended the deadline for appellees to file a record of the proceedings before the magistrate in connection with their objections to the magistrate’s decision. There was good cause for the extension, which was authorized under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii). Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
2/27/2026
|
2/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-668 |
|
State v. Fletcher
| 30458 | Appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in taking her guilty plea without properly advising her about merger should have been raised on direct appeal from her original judgment of conviction, as opposed to after her resentencing upon the revocation of her community control sanctions. Res judicata applies. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
2/27/2026
|
2/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-669 |
|