Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

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?
Search Truncation Warning:
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 205 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Reed 2019-CA-29The record does not clearly and convincingly fail to support the appellant’s 12-month prison sentence for vandalism. The sentence was supported by the appellant’s extensive criminal record, prior terms of imprisonment, commission of the present offense while on probation, and prior opportunities for drug treatment. Judgment affirmed.HallChampaign 7/31/2020 7/31/2020 2020-Ohio-3900
State v. Smith 2019-CA-76The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s motion to journalize a decision on his presentence motion to withdraw his no contest pleas pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1. Appellant’s motion to withdraw his pleas was implicitly overruled when the trial court proceeded to find him guilty and sentence him on those pleas. Therefore, a final appealable order existed regarding appellant’s motion to withdraw his no contest pleas when his direct appeal was filed in 2009. Appellant failed to raise any issues in his direct appeal with respect to his presentence motion to withdraw his no contest pleas, which would have been the proper time to do so. Accordingly, appellant’s claims in his post-conviction petition that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to conduct a hearing pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 were barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed.DonovanGreene 7/31/2020 7/31/2020 2020-Ohio-3902
State v. Dehart 28356Appellant’s statement to the trial court at the plea hearing indicating that he did not hurt his mother did not contradict his guilty plea to domestic violence and did not render his guilty plea less than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 7/31/2020 7/31/2020 2020-Ohio-3897
State v. Marr 28604The manifest weight of the evidence supported the appellant’s conviction for aggravated possession of drugs, having a weapon while under disability, and possession of heroin. The evidence supported a finding that the appellant knowingly and constructively possessed this contraband, which police found concealed under a cup holder in a truck the appellant owned and was driving at the time of a traffic stop. No prosecutorial misconduct deprived the appellant of his right to a fair trial. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 7/31/2020 7/31/2020 2020-Ohio-3898
State v. Moody 28390The trial court reasonably concluded that methamphetamine was discovered in appellant’s vehicle during an appropriately-conducted inventory search and that the evidence should not be suppressed. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 7/31/2020 7/31/2020 2020-Ohio-3899
State v. Smith 28339In light of his guilty pleas to rape and felonious assault, appellant waived his right to appeal the denial of his motions to inspect the grand jury testimony and to obtain the victim’s medical records. The trial court was not required to advise appellant that his guilty pleas waived his right to appeal any pretrial rulings. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 7/31/2020 7/31/2020 2020-Ohio-3901
State v. Williams 28550Appellant’s consent to the search of her residence was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring in judgment only.)WelbaumMontgomery 7/31/2020 7/31/2020 2020-Ohio-3903
State v. Christian 27236On remand for resentencing, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences on two counts that the appellant had previously been ordered to serve concurrently. With an admission by the trial court that there were no new facts to support its decision to impose the sentences consecutively under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the court's consecutive sentence findings were unsupported by the record. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion at appellant’s resentencing hearing by imposing the sentence for Count II (insurance fraud) consecutively to the sentence for Count V (engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity). Judgment reversed and remanded. (Tucker, P.J., dissenting.)DonovanMontgomery 7/24/2020 7/24/2020 2020-Ohio-3816
State v. Hayden 28611The trial court did not err in entering summary judgment against the appellant on his pro se “Motion to Void Judgment and Set Aside Conviction.” The appellant’s filing constituted an untimely, successive petition for post-conviction relief. Moreover, the filing failed on its merits as it did not establish that a prosecution witness presented “false” testimony during the appellant’s 1990 rape trial. In any event, res judicata precluded the appellant from raising this issue. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 7/24/2020 7/24/2020 2020-Ohio-3818
State v. Howard 28314Appellant, who was convicted after a jury trial of charges including murder and felonious assault, was not denied his constitutional right to confront witnesses against him when the surviving shooting victim testified at trial via two-way closed-circuit television. The State demonstrated medical necessity for the witness to testify remotely, the witness was sworn and subjected to live cross-examination, and appellant never indicated (nor does the record suggest) that he had difficulty seeing or hearing the witness’s testimony. The evidence presented was sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict, and the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Multiple witnesses testified that immediately prior to the shootings, appellant and his brother had a verbal altercation with the man who later was killed, and that appellant left in a distinctive car to follow the vehicle in which both shooting victims had departed. The surviving victim testified that bullets that struck him and the decedent were fired from the distinctive car tied to appellant. Another witness identified appellant as the driver of the distinctive car that fired upon the victims, and appellant’s older brother, appearing as the sole defense witness, admitted on cross-examination that he previously said appellant was in that car at the time of the shootings. Appellant presented no other evidence. It was within the jury’s province to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Appellant also did not demonstrate that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The examples of alleged deficiencies cited by appellant fell within the range of reasonable representation, implicated matters of trial strategy, and/or would not have altered the outcome. The cumulative effect of counsel’s challenged conduct also did not deny appellant a fair trial. Finally, regarding the State’s cross-appeal, the trial court erred by merging all three-year firearm specifications for purposes of sentencing. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and matter remanded for re-sentencing.FroelichMontgomery 7/24/2020 7/24/2020 2020-Ohio-3819