| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Clutter
| 2025-CA-14 | The trial court did not err in imposing a 12-month prison sentence upon revoking community control because appellant’s violations were not “technical violations,” as provided by R.C. 2929.15(E). The trial court was not required to abide by the parties’ joint sentencing recommendation in sentencing appellant. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Champaign |
1/16/2026
|
1/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-139 |
|
State v. Murphy
| 2024-CA-20 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress the drugs found in her vehicle following an alert by a drug-detecting dog. The testimony of the K-9 handler established that the dog was trained and certified in the detection of methamphetamine prior to the traffic stop. Appellant’s conviction for aggravated possession of drugs (methamphetamine) was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Darke |
1/16/2026
|
1/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-143 |
|
State v. Wa Tenza
| 2025-CA-7 | Appellant’s conviction for assault, a first-degree misdemeanor, was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Although appellant produced evidence that he acted in self-defense, the jury reasonably credited the State’s evidence disproving the self-defense claim. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Greene |
1/16/2026
|
1/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-145 |
|
Discover Bank v. Hanson
| 30515 | The records submitted in support of appellee bank’s motion for summary judgment were properly authenticated as business records and appropriately considered by the trial court. The records established appellee’s entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the balance appellant owed on a delinquent credit card account. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
1/16/2026
|
1/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-140 |
|
State v. Edwards
| 30448 | Appellant’s conviction for violating a protection order was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The evidence supported the conclusions that appellant was informed of the protection order and that he was served with it before the alleged violation. The trial court appropriately acted within its discretion to credit the complainant’s testimony that appellant was the helmeted motorcyclist who followed and gestured toward the complainant. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
1/16/2026
|
1/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-141 |
|
In re M.A.
| 30586 | The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Mother’s objections to a magistrate’s decision that found her infant son to be an abused child. The court did not err in admitting a drug screen record. Counsel for Mother stipulated to the authenticity of the record, and it was authenticated pursuant to R.C. 2317.422(A). Mother’s child was a per se abused child given that at birth, a drug screen of the child revealed the presence of cocaine. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
1/16/2026
|
1/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-142 |
|
State v. Smith
| 30538 | On remand, the trial court correctly advised appellant of his presumed duty to enroll in the violent offender database and his right to file a motion to rebut the presumption. The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s motion to rebut the presumed duty to enroll in the violent offender database. Because appellant’s convictions were affirmed on his first appeal, the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider appellant’s motions requesting vacation of his guilty plea. Appellant’s cumulative error argument is without merit. Finally, the trial court did not resentence appellant. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
1/16/2026
|
1/16/2026
| 2026-Ohio-144 |
|
State v. Davis
| 2025-CA-23 | Appellant has not shown ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial attorney’s stipulation to the admissibility of a competency examination report and failure to request a second opinion. Appellant’s sentence of 30 years to life in prison is not subject to vacation or modification under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Miami |
1/9/2026
|
1/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-52 |
|
State v. Hanson
| 2025-CA-17 | Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law because it was within the statutory range, and the trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.12. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Champaign |
1/9/2026
|
1/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-53 |
|
State v. Brandon
| 2025-CA-38 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
1/9/2026
|
1/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-48 |
|
State v. Sweeney
| 2023-CA-58 | In this reopened appeal, the trial court committed plain error by admitting the laboratory report identifying the controlled substance allegedly possessed by appellant because the procedural requirements of R.C. 2925.51 to admit the report had not been satisfied. Appellant’s claim regarding the sufficiency of the evidence lacks merit because all evidence admitted at trial, including improperly admitted evidence, must be considered in reviewing such a claim. Based on the resolution of appellant’s claim regarding the lab report, his claim regarding the ineffective assistance of trial counsel is moot. The inadmissible lab report was essential to appellant’s aggravated possession of drugs conviction, so prior appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to challenge the report on appellant’s direct appeal. Prior appellate judgment vacated. Trial court judgment reversed and remanded. (Huffman, J., dissenting.) | Hanseman | Clark |
1/9/2026
|
1/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-57 |
|
State v. Harrell
| 2024-CA-62 | Appellant’s conviction for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity is supported by sufficient evidence. Appellant was not prejudiced by the State’s amendment to the indictment. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
1/9/2026
|
1/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-54 |
|
State v. Uchyn
| 2025-CA-4 | By failing to renew his Crim.R. 29 motion at the close of evidence, appellant waived his argument that his conviction for murder of the female victim is not supported by sufficient evidence. Even considering the merits, sufficient evidence supports appellant’s murder conviction. Appellant’s conviction for murder of the male victim is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Darke |
1/9/2026
|
1/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-58 |
|
State v. Latham
| 2025-CA-9 | The trial court did not err in failing to impose the sentence the parties jointly recommended in their plea agreement. The court informed appellant that it was not bound by the agreement and informed appellant of the possible range of sentences he could receive. In addition, the sentence is not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Champaign |
1/2/2026
|
1/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-6 |
|
State v. Holden
| 2025-CA-27 | Appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law because it is within the statutory range, and the trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.12. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Miami |
1/2/2026
|
1/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3 |
|
Capital One, N.A. v. Campbell
| 30577 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee and in dismissing appellant’s counterclaim. Appellee provided appropriate and authenticated information to substantiate its claim for recovery on appellant’s unpaid credit card account. Appellant failed to respond to appellee’s summary judgment motion and failed to submit any proper Civ.R. 56 materials. Under a plain error analysis, no error or plain error occurred. Appellant’s asserted defenses to the complaint and his counterclaim were also purely frivolous. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
1/2/2026
|
1/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1 |
|
State v. Eichenlaub
| 30455 | The trial court properly overruled the appellant’s motion to suppress statements that were not the product of a custodial interrogation. The trial court did not err in refusing to order separate trials where the evidence supporting two separate indictments was simple and distinct. The appellant’s convictions are supported by legally sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
1/2/2026
|
1/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2 |
|
In re J.H.
| 30528, 30529, 30530, 30531, 30532 | Juvenile court did not abuse its discretion or violate mother’s right to due process by denying her oral motion for a continuance to allow her to attend the permanent custody hearing virtually from prison. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
1/2/2026
|
1/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4 |
|
Jones v. Jones
| 30508 | On remand, the trial court correctly decided that appellee owed appellant interest on $1,770.46, with this amount being the difference between the marital assets awarded appellant and appellee. This result was equitable and compliant with R.C. 1343.03(A). Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
1/2/2026
|
1/2/2026
| 2026-Ohio-5 |