SCOH Lapel Pin Opinions and Announcements

Reporter of Decisions - Opinions & Announcements

Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-    What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 26 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Maki v. Scherzer L-25-00110Per Mayle, J., trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were not court’s judgment, so appellant filed motion for new trial more than 28 days after court issued its judgment, making new trial motion untimely, which did not toll time for filing notice of appeal under App.R. 4(B). Because notice of appeal was untimely as to trial judgment, appeals court lacks jurisdiction to review trial judgment. Trial court properly denied motion for new trial as untimely.MayleLucas 2/6/2026 2/6/2026 2026-Ohio-385
State v. Biehler S-25-008Judge Zmuda, writing for the majority, affirms the judgment, finding the trial court did not impose nonmandatory costs, either at the sentencing hearing or in the judgment entry, with “costs of this action” referring only to the mandatory costs permitted under R.C. 2929.18(A)(4); despite the state conceding error, in the absence of the trial court specifying additional, nonmandatory costs in the entry or at hearing, “costs of this action” imposes only mandatory costs.ZmudaSandusky 2/6/2026 2/6/2026 2026-Ohio-383
Hall v. Hall WD-25-012Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, affirms the trial court’s denial of appellant’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion seeking relief from order modifying spousal support.ZmudaWood 2/6/2026 2/6/2026 2026-Ohio-384
State v. Kodger H-24-036Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, affirms the judgment, finding proper colloquy pursuant to Crim.R. 11 with no support for argument of an unknowing plea based on failure to mention written stipulation that merger did not apply during the plea hearing considering the acknowledged facts precluded merger, and any error in failing to reference the plea stipulation or to provide information regarding right of appeal was harmless based the facts and on timely appeal.ZmudaHuron 2/3/2026 2/3/2026 2026-Ohio-327
State v. Pitts L-25-00069; L-25-00070Sulek. In a civil forfeiture proceeding, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the State. Admissions deemed admitted; judicial bias.SulekLucas 1/30/2026 1/30/2026 2026-Ohio-292
State v. Richardson L-25-00107Per Mayle, J., trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying petition for postconviction relief without a hearing. Even if counsel failed to discuss defense with petitioner before allowing him to enter plea of guilty, petitioner offered no evidence showing that defense was applicable.MayleLucas 1/29/2026 1/29/2026 2026-Ohio-280
State v. Sutton L-24-1255In this successive post-conviction petition, the appellant failed to establish that the common pleas court had jurisdiction to consider his petition because he failed to establish the requirements set forth in both prongs of R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a) and (b). Per Osowik, J., trial court judgment is affirmed.OsowikLucas 1/29/2026 1/29/2026 2026-Ohio-281
In re A.S. L-25-00202, L-25-00203Per Mayle, J., trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying father’s request for a cognitive assessment. Father’s counsel was not ineffective by failing to request a continuance for father to undergo a cognitive assessment. Trial court was not required to make R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) finding on the record; finding in its judgment entry was sufficient. Trial court’s findings under R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.MayleLucas 1/28/2026 1/28/2026 2026-Ohio-244
Straley v. Morris L-25-00007Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded $9,000 in compensatory damages for noneconomic loss and no punitive damages where plaintiffs did not present compelling evidence of the extent of their injuries caused by the defendant’s conduct in shooting the plaintiff in the leg following a heated and racially charged confrontation over following Covid protocols.SulekLucas 1/23/2026 1/23/2026 2026-Ohio-213
Armstrong v. Nettles L-25-00114Appellant failed to appear at the small claims hearing despite notice. Appellant has no basis to contest that the trial court's decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court judgment is affirmed.OsowikLucas 1/23/2026 1/23/2026 2026-Ohio-214
State v. Wilson L-23-1154, L-23-1155Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, find that trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request for continuance to hire new counsel or excluding appellant’s alibi testimony. The record does not support appellant’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The state presented sufficient evidence for each of appellant’s convictions and they were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court erred when it failed to give appellant an indefinite sentence on his second-degree felony offense.ZmudaLucas 1/23/2026 1/23/2026 2026-Ohio-216
State v. Robinson L-25-00023, L-25-00024Sulek, J. Trial court errs when it declines to review merits of motion to dismiss criminal indictment that asserts the criminal statutes are unconstitutional as applied to the defendant. This court will not usurp the role of the trial court and decide the issue for the first time on appeal.SulekLucas 1/23/2026 1/23/2026 2026-Ohio-217
State v. Gumm E-24-046No trial court error calculating jail-time credit. Judgment affirmed. Osowik.OsowikErie 1/23/2026 1/23/2026 2026-Ohio-211
In re J.F. H-25-003, H-25-004, H-25-005No juvenile court error adjudicating minor children dependent and neglected and granting temporary custody to a maternal relative. Judgments affirmed. Osowik.OsowikHuron 1/23/2026 1/23/2026 2026-Ohio-212
State v. DeJesus S-25-005Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, affirms the trial court’s denial of petition for post-conviction relief as untimely.ZmudaSandusky 1/23/2026 1/23/2026 2026-Ohio-215
State v. Cornelious L-24-1057Per Mayle, J., State presented sufficient evidence of complicity in shooting-related offenses and gang participation. Convictions were not against manifest weight of evidence. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to gang and cell phone experts’ testimony, social-media evidence, and competency of ten-year-old witness. Trial court committed plain error in sentences imposed for certain specifications but not in admitting supposed other-acts evidence.MayleLucas 1/16/2026 1/16/2026 2026-Ohio-151
Simmons v. Pierce L-24-1243The trial court had jurisdiction to enforce contempt sanctions it imposed against a nonparty prior to the dismissal of the underlying action. The court did not abuse its discretion by imposing additional sanctions in the dismissal order that related to the original contempt.SulekLucas 1/16/2026 1/16/2026 2026-Ohio-152
In re D.M. E-25-013, E-25-014, E-25-015Zmuda, writing for the majority affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court which determined termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the children based on facts that included Mother’s criminal conviction for child endangering involving her children and Mother’s prison term that extended beyond the reasonable time contemplated for reunification.ZmudaErie 1/14/2026 1/14/2026 2026-Ohio-105
State v. Fenderson E-24-051Per Mayle, J., despite defendant’s claims to the contrary, under a manifest-weight review, we must extend deference to the fact-finder’s credibility determinations and assign an interpretation of the evidence that is most consistent with the verdict. Applying this standard, we conclude that defendant’s convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.MayleErie 1/13/2026 1/13/2026 2026-Ohio-94
State v. Moore L-24-1180, L-24-1181Per Mayle, J., State presented sufficient evidence of “trespass” and “purpose to commit a theft offense” elements of breaking and entering, and convictions were not against manifest weight of evidence. As to first count, defendant was apprehended in victim’s locked parking lot with various items that people commonly keep in vehicles. As to second count, electronic monitoring placed defendant in locked lot and video showed person matching his description rifling through vehicles.MayleLucas 1/13/2026 1/13/2026 2026-Ohio-96
State v. Grover OT-25-016Zmuda, J., writing for the majority consecutive sentences not contrary to law as cruel and unusual punishment, with the record demonstrating the imposition of consecutive sentences is not without support, pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).ZmudaOttawa 1/13/2026 1/13/2026 2026-Ohio-95
State v. Prichard WD-25-028Per Mayle, J., Trial court erred in admitting document produced in discovery by defendant and offered by State because it was not properly authenticated. Implied authentication not appropriate under circumstances of this criminal case where rules of evidence apply. Even excising improper evidence, error was harmless because remaining evidence established defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim relating to same evidence fails second element of Strickland.MayleWood 1/9/2026 1/9/2026 2026-Ohio-56
State v. Rahe WD-25-023The trial court’s judgment is affirmed where an appellate court, as a matter of law, is prohibited from reviewing the court’s compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 at sentencing. State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729.SulekWood 1/9/2026 1/9/2026 2026-Ohio-59
Charlie's CDJR, L.L.C. v. Charlie's Toledo, Inc. L-24-1120Trial court properly granted summary judgments to appellees because appellees are entitled to judgments as a matter of law where there are no genuine issues of material fact. Judgments affirmed. Osowik.OsowikLucas 1/6/2026 1/6/2026 2026-Ohio-18
State v. Haskins L-24-1248Officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain appellant because he did not match vague description of suspect. Court did not err by denying motion to suppress because evidence would have been inevitably discovered during search incident to lawful arrest. Officers’ testimony authenticated videos because they viewed videos on surveillance system at store. Court erred by sentencing appellant to three mandatory firearm specifications when statute requires only two mandatory sentences. DuhartDuhartLucas 1/6/2026 1/6/2026 2026-Ohio-19
State v. Thomas L-25-00049Per Mayle, J., trial court did not err by admitting 911 calls. Statements in the calls were made to get help during an ongoing emergency, so they were nontestimonial and their admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Appellant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court’s inclusion of all possible terms of postrelease control in sentencing entry did not reflect notice that it gave at sentencing hearing, which can be corrected with nunc pro tunc entry.MayleLucas 1/6/2026 1/6/2026 2026-Ohio-20
Home | Contact Us | Search |