|
|
State v. Polizzi
| 2024-0312 | Criminal law—Sentencing—R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)—Consecutive-sentencing findings—R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)—Appellate review of consecutive sentences—Proportionality review does not require courts to consider the total number of consecutive sentences and the resulting aggregate prison term when imposing or reviewing consecutive sentences—A trial court may consider the offender’s overall conduct and the harm caused by his or her crimes when imposing consecutive sentences—On appeal, appellate court examines only whether trial court’s findings supporting consecutive sentences are clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record and whether the sentence otherwise is contrary to law—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. | Shanahan, J. | Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-2588 |
7/10/2026
|
7/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2588 |
|
State ex rel. Mobley v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
| 2025-0608 | Mandamus—Public-records requests—R.C. 149.43—Public-records requester sought records from a public county office, which denied the request on basis that it was duplicative of an earlier request from requester that had already been fulfilled by another county office—Court of appeals granted county office’s motion to dismiss because requested record was provided after lawsuit was filed—In denying requester’s request for statutory damages, court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in concluding that based on existing case law, county office reasonably would have believed that its denial of public-records request was not a failure to comply with its obligation under R.C. 149.43(B)—Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing writ claim as moot and dismissing request for statutory damages affirmed. | DeWine, J. | Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-2589 |
7/10/2026
|
7/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2589 |
|
07/10/2026 Case Announcements
| | Merit decisions with opinions—Motion and procedural rulings—Appeals not accepted for review. | | |
7/10/2026
|
7/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2628 |
|
State v. Rodriguez
| 2025-0066 | Criminal law—In a case involving carbon-copy counts of the same offense, the State need only present evidence of discernible facts corresponding to each count in order to obtain convictions on those counts—Criminal defendant indicted on 11 carbon-copy counts of endangering children based on disciplinary acts she took against her minor stepson—The jury instructions, verdict forms, and trial-court judge’s answers to jury’s questions were legally sufficient, and the State presented sufficient evidence of discernible facts that allowed jury to differentiate between the counts, thus negating due-process and double-jeopardy concerns—Court of appeals’ judgment reversing convictions and barring retrial under double-jeopardy protections reversed and cause remanded to court of appeals for consideration of previously unaddressed assignment of error. | Kennedy, C.J. | Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-2573 |
7/9/2026
|
7/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2573 |
|
Cincinnati v. State
| 2024-1158 | Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of Doe v. Columbus. | | Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-2574 |
7/9/2026
|
7/9/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2574 |
|