|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Castro
| 113285 | Firearm specification sentence; sentence contrary to law. The trial court erred when it ordered the appellee’s firearm specification sentence to run concurrently to other sentences from the same indictment, making the sentence contrary to law. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
6/27/2024
|
6/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2453 |
|
State v. McAlpine
| 113242, 113751 | Competency to stand trial; R.C. 2945.37(G); abuse of discretion; rape; R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b); general verdict; furthermore clause; bench trial; Crim.R. 23(C); R.C. 2907.02(B); “force or threat of force”; R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(c); R.C. 2901.01(A)(1); “force”; sufficiency; manifest weight. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found McAlpine was competent to stand trial. In addition, a general finding of guilt in a bench trial is all that is required under Crim.R. 23(C) and that finding encompasses the furthermore clause. We find that there was sufficient evidence of “force or threat of force” as it pertains to H.H. Finally, McAlpine’s convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
6/27/2024
|
6/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2455 |
|
Jay Realty v. J.P.S. Properties Diversified, Inc.
| 112554 | Nunc pro tunc; motion for summary judgment; deed; restrictive covenant; quiet title action; declaratory judgment; doctrine of merger by ownership; self-termination provision; plain and unambiguous language; additional authority; App.R. 21(I); new assignment of error on appeal. The trial court erroneously issued a nunc pro tunc entry to change its ruling on the parties’ motions for summary judgment. Further, the Use Restriction in dispute was not subject to the doctrine of merger by ownership and had not terminated pursuant to the self-termination provision. Therefore, the trial court erred when it granted plaintiff-appellee’s motion for summary judgment on the quiet title claim. Relying on the terms of the Use Restriction, which were plain and unambiguous, the trial court erroneously determined the restriction did not apply to the uses proposed by the plaintiff-appellee and thereby granted summary judgment on the declaratory judgment issue. At the court of appeals, the defendant-appellant was precluded from arguing a new assignment of error that was not raised in the appellate brief and from introducing new documents — not case law — that were erroneously referenced as additional authorities under App.R. 21(I). | Kilbane | Cuyahoga |
6/27/2024
|
6/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2458 |
|
Rennell v. Rennell
| 113256 | Motion to strike; final appealable order; motion to intervene; Civ.R. 24(A); Civ.R. 75(B). | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
6/27/2024
|
6/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2454 |
|
Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. v. Unknown Successor Trustee(s) of the Talmage
| 113081 | Foreclosure order; final order; confirmation order; Civ.R. 60(B) motion; authority to modify judgment; sua sponte. Trial court has no authority to sua sponte modify its final appealable order that is neither void nor subject to a Civ.R. 60(B) motion. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
6/27/2024
|
6/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2457 |
|
State v. Tinsley
| 113474 | GSI; sentence; contrary to law; R.C. 2929.11 factors. Judgment affirmed. Because the defendant’s sentence is within the statutory range and the trial court considered the statutory factors when imposing her sentence, we cannot say that the defendant’s sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
6/27/2024
|
6/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2450 |
|
State v. Hinzman
| 113291 | Evid.R. 103(C)(3); parole revocation; substantial evidence; due process. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing witnesses to testify about a surveillance video not entered into evidence as the rules of evidence do not apply to proceedings revoking probation in accordance with Evid.R. 103(C)(3). The trial court did not err in finding the appellant to be a parole violator as there is substantial evidence that the appellant violated his parole by smoking contraband. The trial court did not violate the appellant’s due process rights. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
6/27/2024
|
6/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2452 |
|
Great Lakes Petroleum Co., Inc. v. JBI Scrap Processors, Inc.
| 113410 | Civ.R. 12(B)(6); Civ.R. 10(C); personal guaranty. The trial court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant in his individual capacity is affirmed. The defendant satisfied the formality required to show that he intended to sign the guaranty as an agent of a company rather than be personally liable for its debts. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
6/27/2024
|
6/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2451 |
|
Alami v. Khalid
| 113140 | Settlement agreement; default judgment; Civ.R. 6(C)(1); may; permissive; mandatory; damages; reasonable certainty; manifest weight; harmless error. Trial court properly overruled oral motion for default judgment where defendants appeared in the action, defendants did not waive any defenses, and plaintiff failed to provide written notice of intent to seek default judgment. Trial court properly denied motion to enforcement settlement agreement even though it made a minor error of law in interpreting the contract because plaintiff failed to prove damages with reasonable certainty. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
6/27/2024
|
6/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2456 |
|
State ex rel. Z.N. v. Jones
| 113702 | Prohibition, Domestic Relations Court, R.C. 2301.03 - Jurisdiction of Domestic Relations Courts; R.C. 3109.051 – Order Granting Parenting Time, Companionship, or Visitation Rights. The principles governing prohibition are well established. Prohibition requires that the relator demonstrate (1) the respondent against whom it is sought is about to exercise judicial power, (2) the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law, and (3) there is no adequate remedy at law. Prohibition will not lie unless it clearly appears that the trial court has no jurisdiction of the cause that it is attempting to adjudicate, or the court is about to exceed its jurisdiction. Prohibition will not issue to prevent an erroneous judgment, to serve the purpose of appeal, or to correct mistakes of the lower court in deciding questions within its jurisdiction. Furthermore, it should be used with great caution and not issue in a doubtful case. Herein, the domestic relations judge unquestionably possesses subject-matter jurisdiction over the underling action for divorce pursuant to R.C. 2301.03. In Cuyahoga County, domestic relations judges have all the powers relating to all divorce, dissolution, alimony, and annulments cases. In addition, Ohio specifically recognizes the rights of nonparents to companionship or visitation with a minor child. Complaint for writ of prohibition is dismissed. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
6/24/2024
|
6/27/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2449 |
|
Long v KeltanBW, Inc.
| 112919 | R.C. 4112.02; summary judgment; material; transitory; minor; disabled; regarded as disabled; record of disability; impairments; major life activities; prima facia case; disability discrimination; pretext; workers’ compensation. Summary judgment was proper because appellant failed to demonstrate a prima facia case of disability discrimination. Prior to her workplace injury, appellant could not establish that she was a disabled individual under R.C. 4112.02. Appellant failed to offer evidence that she could safely and substantially perform the job’s essential functions after the workplace injury, with or without accommodations. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
6/20/2024
|
6/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2359 |
|
State v. Belton
| 112813 | Motion to suppress; warrantless search; investigative stop; Terry stop; “automobile exception” to a warrantless search; motion to strike juror for cause; peremptory challenge; fair and impartial juror; ineffective assistance of counsel; joinder of indictments; Crim.R. 8(A); waiver of appealable error; Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal; insufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; jury instructions; merger of allied offenses of similar import. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s motion to suppress where the collective facts support a finding that the officer’s had a reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop and the officers had probable cause to believe the appellant’s vehicle contained contraband. Where a juror’s comments did not demonstrate bias or impartiality, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s challenge to the juror for cause. Further, appellant’s counsel was not ineffective when he chose not to utilize a peremptory challenge on a juror who demonstrated his ability to act as a fair and impartial factfinder. The appellant waived his right to challenge a motion for relief from joinder when he entered a guilty plea on the indictment. The trial court did not err when it denied appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal where there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions. The jury’s verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where ample evidence was introduced to support the convictions. Where evidence was introduced that, if believed, could establish complicity and constructive possession, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it provided jury instructions on those issues. The trial court committed plain error when it failed to merge the convictions of allied offenses of similar import. | Kilbane | Cuyahoga |
6/20/2024
|
6/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2357 |
|
State v. Church
| 112224, 113042 | Hearsay; confrontation rights; sufficiency of the evidence; Reagan Tokes; indefinite sentencing; having weapons while under disability; carrying concealed weapons; attempted murder; felonious assault; merger; allied offenses; conceded error. This consolidated appeal raised challenges to multiple convictions across two criminal cases. The defendant’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument was disregarded where the argument only went to an offense that had been merged into another offense at sentencing. The admission of police testimony and body-camera recordings that included statements made by a nontestifying victim did not violate the Confrontation Clause or the evidence rules because the statements were nontestimonial; they were excited utterances made to secure police assistance to an ongoing emergency. The victim was flagging down police officers to report that the occupants of another car — which was still on the roadway near her — had been chasing her and shooting at her in another part of the city. The prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of a state witness during closing argument, but the comment was isolated and did not affect the fairness of the defendant’s trial. Another comment during closing argument was not prejudicial when viewed in context. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the latter comment. The defendant’s convictions for complicity in various offenses were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The state conceded that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to merge the offenses of felonious assault and attempted murder. Based on the state’s request, those convictions were vacated and the case remanded for a limited resentencing. The other case was remanded with instructions for the trial court to correct, nunc pro tunc, certain clerical errors in the sentencing journal entry. Constitutional arguments regarding indefinite sentencing and the Reagan Tokes Law were overruled pursuant to State v. Hacker, 2023-Ohio-2535. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
6/20/2024
|
6/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2356 |
|
State v. Sparks
| 113244 | R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); consecutive-sentence findings; clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. The record did not clearly and convincingly fail to support the trial court’s findings in support of the imposition of consecutive sentences. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
6/20/2024
|
6/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2362 |
|
State v. Lykes
| 113260 | R.C. 2945.37, competency hearing, sufficiency of evidence, evidence of motive, manifest weight of evidence, consecutive sentences, firearm specifications. Defendant was convicted of two counts of murder, two counts of felonious assault each with 3-year firearm specifications, and one count of having weapons while under disability. After merging offenses, the trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years to life on one count of murder and to a consecutive 36-month sentence for having weapons while under disability. The trial court then imposed sentence on 3 of the 4 firearm specifications that defendant was found guilty of for an aggregate sentence of 27 years to life. Before trial, defendant was examined and found competent to stand trial. At trial he interrupted the proceedings and testified. His interruptions and manner of testifying did not reveal indicia of incompetence, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not holding a hearing on competency. The evidence presented at trial was that defendant had a gun, was at the scene of the murder, called 911 to report a shooting after the murder, turned himself in to the police, handed over the firearm used to commit the murder, and told the police he had shot someone. The evidence, including circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to sustain the convictions despite no eyewitness to the shooting. Although there was no evidence of motive presented, proof of motive is not necessary for a conviction. The evidence at trial was not against the manifest weight. The trial court made the consecutive-sentence findings in imposing consecutive sentences for murder and having weapons while under disability, and upon review, the appellate court did not find that the record did not clearly and convincingly support consecutive sentences. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing three of the four firearm specifications defendant was found guilty of. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
6/20/2024
|
6/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2364 |
|
Peters v. Highland Hills
| 113372 | Age discrimination; promotion; summary judgment. Judgment affirmed. The three-step burden shifting analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) applies to an age-discrimination claim. Under the analysis, the employee must first establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. If the employee establishes a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the employer to state some legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its action. Finally, the burden shifts back to the employee to show that the employer’s stated reasons were a pretext for age discrimination. The plaintiff established a prima facie case. However, the employer provided legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its action. The employee failed to show that the employer’s reasons were pretext for age discrimination. Summary judgment in favor of the employer was properly granted. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
6/20/2024
|
6/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2366 |
|
State v. Jordan
| 113226 | Burglary; theft; day-of-trial plea; deviation; agreed, recommended sentence; reasonable expectation. - Appellant’s day-of-trial plea reversed because the trial court deviated from the agreed, recommended sentence without giving the appellant, who had a reasonable expectation of receiving the agreed, recommended sentence, an opportunity to withdraw his plea after the trial court determined to deviate. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
6/20/2024
|
6/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2361 |
|
State v. Grossman
| 113252 | Substitution of a party; App.R. 29(A); Crim.R. 11(C); knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered a plea; nature of the charges; mandatory sentence; prejudice. A review of the record demonstrated the trial court’s advisements complied with Crim.R. 11(C). Even assuming arguendo the trial court did not fully comply with the Crim.R. 11(C) advisements, the defendant failed to argue prejudice and, therefore, defendant entered his guilty pleas knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. | Kilbane | Cuyahoga |
6/20/2024
|
6/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2363 |
|
State v. Black
| 113312 | Sentencing; irrelevant, prejudicial, and untrue statements; consecutive sentences; no-contact order. Defendant presented nothing to demonstrate that the trial court relied on improper, prejudicial, and untrue statements when sentencing him; because no consecutive sentences were imposed in this case and the defendant did not appeal from the case in which the consecutive sentence was imposed, the propriety of the consecutive sentence imposed in the other case was not for the court to decide in this case; sentence modified to delete no-contact order because the trial court improperly imposed both a prison sentence and a no-contact order. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
6/20/2024
|
6/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2365 |
|
State v. Smith
| 112882, 112908, 112910 | Double jeopardy; mistrial; motion to dismiss; motion to quash subpoenas. The trial court did not err in denying the appellants’ motion to dismiss for double jeopardy because they have not demonstrated that the trial court intended to provoke a mistrial. The trial court did not err in granting the State’s motion to quash subpoenas because the record was clear as to the intentions of the trial court in engaging in ex parte communications with the State. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
6/20/2024
|
6/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2358 |
|
State v. Logan
| 112969 | Motion for leave to file a motion for new trial; evidentiary hearing; clear and convincing evidence; unavoidably prevented; Brady material; suppression of evidence; newly discovered evidence. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in denying defendant Logan’s motion for leave to file a motion for new trial because Logan did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that he was “unavoidably prevented” from discovering the information within the motion to leave for motion to file a motion for new trial, either by demonstrating previous unawareness of the existence of the new evidence or by demonstrating that the prosecution suppressed the evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). | Celebrezze | Cuyahoga |
6/20/2024
|
6/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2360 |
|
State v. Jackson
| 112944 | Motion for leave to file motion for new trial; Crim.R. 33; abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Jackson’s motion for leave to file an untimely motion for new trial without hearing because the motion on its face does not support Jackson’s claim that he was unavoidable prevented from discovering the evidence within the prescribed time. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2261 |
|
Hopkins v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth.
| 113088 | Political subdivision; immunity; final judgment; journalized entry; abuse of discretion; discovery; jurisdiction; due process; deadline; affirmative defense. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to consider appellant’s untimely immunity defense. Appellant’s motion for summary judgment, alleging the affirmative defense of political subdivision immunity, was filed without leave of court and provided the nonmoving party insufficient time to respond. The trial court has inherent authority to manage its docket, absent an abuse of discretion. Appellant did not request a continuance of the trial date and consideration of the motion would have prejudiced appellee. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2265 |
|
State v. Allie
| 112953 | Illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material; R.C. 2907.323; photographs; unknown females; unknown ages; lay witness testimony; Evid.R. 402, 403, 602, and 701; prosecutorial misconduct; closing argument. - Appellant’s convictions for illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, in violation of R.C. 2907.323, upheld where jury viewed the photographs of the unknown females and could determine whether they were minors. Detective’s opinion testimony that was based on his training and experience in analyzing, detecting, and deciphering child pornography was relevant and admissible under Evid.R. 402, 602, and 701. Prosecutor did not engage in misconduct during her rebuttal closing arguments when her comments refuted appellant’s closing argument and were based on the evidence presented. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2262 |
|
State v. Hughes
| 113382 | Res judicata; aggravated murder; guilty plea. Appellant’s attempt to address claimed errors in his initial case that were the subject of a direct appeal and multiple subsequent appeals must be barred by res judicata. With respect to errors in the sentencing entry, the claimed errors were readily apparent and available for challenge during the direct appeal of his convictions. With respect to his challenge to the conviction, appellant raised the issue on direct appeal and his objection was overruled. Appellant’s claims are therefore barred by res judicata and his conviction must be affirmed. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2269 |
|
Northern Frozen Foods, Inc. v. Saadey
| 113048 | Civ.R. 60(B); motion to vacate; Civ.R. 58; Civ.R. 5; service; abuse of discretion. While the delay between trial and judgment was extraordinary, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate judgment. | Kilbane | Cuyahoga |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2264 |
|
State v. Cawthorne
| 112795 | Aggravated murder; plea; firearm specification; Crim.R. 11(C)(2) and (3); maximum fine; harmless error; plea colloquy; prejudice. - Appellant’s mid-trial change of plea upheld. Crim.R. 11(C)(3) only applies to aggravated murder with a death specification. Trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2) in accepting appellant’s guilty plea to the firearm specification attendant to the aggravated murder offense. Trial court’s incorrect advisement regarding the maximum fine was harmless error because the court found appellant indigent and did not impose a fine. Trial court’s run-on advisement of appellant’s constitutional rights during the plea was not in error because the manner in which the court provided the statement was effective; appellant was not prejudiced. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2258 |
|
State v. Miklavcic
| 113263 | Attempted felonious assault; clearly and convincingly; maximum sentence; abuse of discretion; ability to pay fine. Judgment affirmed. The record clearly and convincingly supports defendant’s 36-month maximum sentence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing maximum fine because even though the trial court did not specifically inquire into defendant’s present and future ability to pay the fine, the record supports it. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2268 |
|
Malaj v. Abeid
| 112658 | Motion to vacate judgment; Civ.R. 60(B); default judgment; service by publication; reasonable efforts; concealment to avoid service. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment, where service by publication had been authorized and properly effected. The record reasonably supported a conclusion that the defendant left the state and concealed his whereabouts to avoid service and that the plaintiff used reasonable diligence to ascertain his residence before resorting to service by publication. The defendant’s argument based on the statute of limitations was also rejected, since that is an affirmative defense that cannot be raised where a defendant never appears and instead defaults. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2256 |
|
State v. Wilson
| 112690 | Double homicide; murder; R.C. 2903.02(A); R.C. 2903.02(B); felonious assault; R.C. 2903.11(A)(1)-(2); bench trial; manifest weight of the evidence, insufficient evidence; complicity theory; circumstantial evidence. Defendant-appellant was convicted at a bench trial of two homicides and various assaults that stem from two separate instances. We find on review that the state presented sufficient evidence in the first instance that the defendant was complicit in the first murder and related felonious assault charges. However, we find the state failed to present sufficient evidence for the second murder and related felonious assaults charges. Appellant’s convictions as to the first murder and related assault charges are sustained. Appellant’s convictions for the second murder and assault charges are vacated. All remaining convictions are affirmed. Case remanded to the trial court for resentencing. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2257 |
|
Steigerwald v. Berea
| 112933 | Summary judgment; genuine issues of material fact. The appellees’ summary judgment motion was improperly granted because there are genuine issues of material fact for trial. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2260 |
|
Caston v. Woodlands of Shaker Hts.
| 113262 | Motion to enforce arbitration; arbitration agreement; valid contract; apparent authority or apparent agency; burden of proof; equitable estoppel; moot; implied authority. The trial court erred when it granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration where the record did not establish that the nursing home resident cloaked her daughter with authority to execute a binding arbitration agreement. Absent the daughter’s apparent authority to execute the arbitration agreement on behalf of her mother, the resident was not bound by the arbitration agreement. | Kilbane | Cuyahoga |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2267 |
|
In re M.I.
| 113093 | In-court identification; gun; felony assault; firearm specification; sufficient evidence shooter; reasonable doubt; trial court erred; beyond reasonable doubt; manifest weight; adjudication; delinquency; assignment; weight of the evidence; testify; manifest weight of the evidence; discharge; no pretrial identification procedure; prohibition; premises; burden of production; trier of fact; conviction; circumstantial element of the offense; witness testimony. The trial court erred by admitting unreliable in-court identification of the juvenile defendant when no pretrial identification procedure was at issue. The error was harmless because the remaining evidence supported the delinquency adjudications of felonious assault, one- and three-year firearm specifications, and discharge of a firearm on or near a prohibited place. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2266 |
|
Cuyahoga Cty. Treasurer v. Henen
| 112983 | Material breach; essential terms; substantial performance; land-purchase contract; foreclosure; de novo; manifest weight; abuse of discretion. Trial court properly ordered foreclosure of the premises pursuant to the terms of the land contract, as a result of appellant’s breach. A de novo review of the undisputed facts found that appellant materially breached the land contract. The trial court did not abuse its discretion ordering the foreclosure pursuant to the terms of the contract. The trial court’s finding that appellant failed to prove his breach-of-contract, fraud, and partition claims was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2263 |
|
In re L.H.
| 113479 | Permanent custody; termination; parental rights; case plan; reasonable; diligent efforts; findings; manifest weight; visitation; substance abuse. The trial court’s award of permanent custody and termination of appellant’s parental rights is against the manifest weight of the evidence. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2271 |
|
State v. Hall
| 113423 | Reagan Tokes Law; indefinite sentences; constitutional challenges; due process; separation of powers; right to jury trial. Pursuant to State v. Hacker, 173 Ohio St.3d 219, 2023-Ohio-2535, 229 N.E.3d 38, appellant’s constitutional challenges to the indefinite sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law are overruled. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2270 |
|
Goldstein v. Saber Healthcare Group, L.L.C.
| 112907 | R.C. Chapter 2711, arbitration, reconsideration, jurisdiction. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider a final appealable order denying a motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2259 |
|
In re M.F.
| 113525 | Permanent custody; R.C. 2151.414; best interest; manifest weight of the evidence; hearsay; plain error. The juvenile court’s decision to grant the agency’s motion for permanent custody was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the court made appropriate findings pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 and those findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. The admission of testimony from the foster father and agency social worker regarding allegations of abuse against Father from his wife did not amount to plain error. | Kilbane | Cuyahoga |
6/13/2024
|
6/13/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2272 |
|
State v. Guffie
| 112642 | Murder; conspiracy; music video; ambush; inference stacking; self-defense; transferred intent self-defense; jury instructions; double hearsay; confrontation clause; excited utterance; hearsay; rap lyrics; ballistic; flight instruction; cumulative error. - Appellant’s convictions upheld where the state presented direct and circumstantial evidence that appellant conspired with individuals to set up and ambush the victims at an abandoned church during a music video. State did not engage in impermissible inference stacking because each inference was supported by the evidence. Jury properly rejected appellant’s self-defense claim because the evidence established that the appellant contributed to creating the situation giving rise to the affray, and appellant did not have a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek a jury instruction on transferred intent self-defense, nor did the trial court commit plain error in failing to instruct the jury on transferred intent self-defense because the jury rejected that appellant acted in self-defense. Moreover, trial counsel successfully sought a self-defense jury instruction that permitted the jury to consider appellant’s actions in light of the situation he perceived from all individuals present. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in (1) denying appellant’s attempt to introduce double hearsay, (2) permitting a detective to testify about non-testimonial, excited utterance statements made by a victim who did not testify, (3) admitting rap lyrics penned by appellant hours after the shooting, and (4) permitting a detective to testify about shell casings and a ballistic match from a prior murder. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
6/6/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2163 |
|
In re A.H.W.
| 113147 | Application to establish parenting plan, continuance, failure to proffer testimony, reopening of hearing, allocation of parental rights and responsibilities, abuse of discretion. Father filed an application to establish a shared parenting plan. Prior to hearing, Mother moved for continuance because witnesses would not be available. Magistrate denied the motion and held a hearing as to the only issue contested, the parenting schedule. Magistrate issued a decision adopting Father’s shared parenting plan that the juvenile court adopted over Mother’s objections. Mother filed objections to the magistrate’s decision. She argued that the magistrate should have granted her a continuance and asked the juvenile court to reopen the hearing and take new evidence in light of Father’s post-hearing messages to her. She also argued that the magistrate erred in adopting Father’s parenting schedule because it was not in the child’s best interest because it deviated from the court’s standard parenting time schedule and it gave parenting time to Father when he was at work. The juvenile court did not err in overruling Mother’s objections. The decision to grant a continuance or reopen a hearing is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Juvenile court found that Mother did not proffer the witness testimony or explain how the post-hearing messages would affect the outcome of the hearing; as such, Mother did not demonstrate the juvenile court abused its discretion. Further, by failing to proffer testimony, Mother forfeited the right to contest the denial of motion to continue the hearing. The juvenile court’s decision concerning the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Adoption of the Father’s parenting schedule was not an abuse of discretion where the court considered the relevant factors to determine the best of the child. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
6/6/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2168 |
|
McMahon v. Cooke
| 113190 | Attorney fees; fees pursuant to agreement or contract; probate; trusts; contract interpretation; New York law. Appellant appealed the probate court’s award of attorney fees to appellee pursuant to the terms of a royalty agreement that was to be interpreted under New York state law. Pursuant to the plain meaning of the agreement, the probate court erred in awarding all attorney fees except for $27,417.50, which were incurred from appellee’s efforts to enforce a judgment. | Celebrezze | Cuyahoga |
6/6/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2170 |
|
Mobley v. Klimas
| 113032 | Breach of contract; fraud; professional negligence; breach of fiduciary duty; judgment on the pleadings; Civ.R. 12(C); failure to disclose; statute of limitations. The court did not err by granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff’s claims concerning failure to disclose water issues at real property they purchased were barred by the statute of limitations. Allegations in the complaint showed that plaintiffs knew about the water issues prior to signing the purchase agreement. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
6/6/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2167 |
|
McMahon v. Cooke
| 113186 | Dismissed; moot; stay; exception to the mootness doctrine; satisfaction of judgment. - Appeal dismissed as moot where record demonstrates that appellant voluntarily satisfied the judgment rendered against her without seeking a stay prior to the execution and payment of the judgment. Appellant’s conduct did not display “a reservation of the right of appeal” for an exception to the general rule of the mootness doctrine to apply. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
6/6/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2169 |
|
State v. Martin
| 113250 | Murder; self-defense; manifest weight of the evidence. Affirmed. The defendant’s conviction for murder was not against the weight of the evidence where the state demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense when shooting the victim in the back from the roof of a house when it was relatively dark. | S. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
6/6/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2172 |
|
State v. Barnes
| 112712 | Restitution; Marsy’s Law; victim; sentenced to time served; direct appeal; res judicata; void; jurisdiction; double jeopardy; final appealable order; interlocutory appeal. Judgment vacated. Defendant’s interlocutory appeal from an order scheduling a restitution hearing is a final appealable order. The denial of defendant’s interlocutory appeal in this case would force him to “run the gauntlet” a second time before an appeal could be taken because if the defendant waits to file an appeal following the second restitution hearing, he will be precluded from meaningful review and will not be afforded appropriate relief in the future. Under Brasher II, we find the trial court was without jurisdiction to order a restitution hearing in May 2023 after the defendant was sentenced to time served in November 2018. While the victim did initially file a direct appeal, she subsequently dismissed the appeal, opting instead to pursue a writ action. According to Brasher II, the victim forfeited her right to challenge the sentencing order when she dismissed her direct appeal because the trial court’s initial judgment on the defendant’s sentence devoid of any order of restitution to the victims became final, and res judicata attached. Moreover, when the trial court sentenced the defendant to time served, the court lost any jurisdiction to modify the sentence. Therefore, the trial court’s April 27, 2023 journal entry is void and is hereby vacated. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
6/6/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2184 |
|
Garfield Hts. v. Smith
| 112688 | Aggravated menacing; R.C. 2903.21(A); sufficiency; manifest weight; admissibility; evidence; Evid.R. 401; Evid.R. 403(A); Evid.R. 701; victim impact; abuse of discretion; prejudice. Judgment affirmed. The court properly denied Smith’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal because his aggravated menacing conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. Furthermore, his conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the victim’s testimony about obtaining protection order, her son’s belief that Smith was going to shoot his mom, and her other son’s testimony that the incident impacted him and he wished it never happened. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
6/6/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2164 |
|
State v. Carter
| 113021 | Aggravated robbery, R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), circumstantial evidence, sufficiency of the evidence, manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence carry equal weight. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
6/6/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2166 |
|
State v. Mann
| 113616 | Conceded error; indefinite sentence; mandatory advisements. Appellant’s indefinite sentence imposed under the Reagan Tokes Law is contrary to law because the trial court failed to provide the mandatory advisements required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) when imposing an indefinite sentence. The case is remanded to the trial court for resentencing for the sole purpose of providing appellant with the requisite statutory advisements. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
6/6/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2175 |
|
State v. Scales
| 113229 | Murder; attempted murder; purposely; self-defense; jury instructions; inferior offenses. Appellant’s convictions for murder and attempted murder upheld where the evidence showed that he acted purposely when he shot into a crowd of people, killing one person, and severely injuring another. The jury properly rejected appellant’s claim of self-defense because the evidence showed that the defendant created the situation, escalated the affray, and acted with deadly force despite his perceived threat backing away with his empty hands raised. Trial court properly denied appellant’s request for a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault as inferior offenses because the instructions were inconsistent with appellant’s theory that he acted in self-defense; serious provocation was never alleged. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
6/6/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2171 |
|
State v. Green
| 113595 | Conceded error; Crim.R. 11; burglary; strangulation; assault; plea. Reversed and vacated. The trial court erred by inadvertently omitting an advisement on the privilege against self-incrimination at the change-of-plea colloquy. | S. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
6/6/2024
|
6/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2174 |
|