|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Harris
| 112269 | Aggravated murder, murder, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, felonious assault, and having a weapon while under disability; sufficiency; manifest weight; mistrial; unadmitted evidence to jury; expert testimony; Evid.R. 702; Crim.R. 16; harmless error; authentication; Evid.R. 901; missing evidence; prosecutor opening statement; misstatement. Judgment affirmed. Court’s exhibit No. 5 was included with the trial exhibits in error, but no harm came to the defendant by way of the momentary possession of the court’s exhibit by the jury. Certain portions of testimony by forensic video analyst Ciula in this case consisted of expert testimony as set forth in Evid.R. 702. However, the harmless error analysis applies to those portions of Ciula’s testimony that were expert opinion testimony, and the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt in this case means that the outcome of trial would not have been different. Crim.R. 16 was complied with because the trial court exercised its discretion and found that the expert’s report was not new discovery, and even if it was, it could have been discussed when it was received, which was four days before the jury was sworn in. The state’s exhibits defendant challenges were properly authenticated by the state and admissible. Furthermore, defendant fails to demonstrate how the missing crime-scene log would have been material to the case and cannot demonstrate that the failure to preserve the crime-scene log was in bad faith. There is sufficient evidence to sustain defendant’s convictions and his convictions are not against the weight of the evidence based on the testimony of the four eyewitnesses combined with the defendant’s own admission, the ankle monitor GPS data and the surveillance video identifying defendant and the shooter and placing at the scene of the crime. Lastly, the prosecutor’s isolated misstatement did not prejudicially affect the outcome of his case because defense counsel immediately brought the misstatement to the jury’s attention and the prosecutor also admitted to the jury through a witness’s testimony that he made a mistake. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
4/25/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1579 |
|
Nationstar Mtge., Inc. v. Scarville
| 112270 & 113139 | Dormancy; motion to intervene; Civ.R. 24(A); Civ.R. 24(B); untimely. Trial court properly overruled motion to intervene filed by successors-in-interest to the debtor in foreclosure action because they failed to timely file the motion. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/25/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1580 |
|
Trainer v. Trainer
| 112384 | Divorce; spousal support; modification; change in circumstances; indefinite support; long term marriage; imputed income; retirement; magistrate’s decision; abuse of discretion; R.C. 3105.18. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it modified Husband’s spousal support obligation to $2,500 per month. Husband voluntarily retired at the age of 69 years old, with a change in his employer’s administration leadership and declining health. This constitutes a substantial change in circumstances that makes the existing award of $12,000 per month unreasonable, given his estimated post-retirement income reduced to $109,300 from $643,197. The court considered all the R.C. 3105.18 factors and made findings for each, ultimately explaining how they impacted the decision to modify Husband’s spousal support obligation. The court did not abuse its discretion when it imputed to Wife a $25,000 annual income because the court considered and weighed the spouses’ relative earning abilities along with other factors to arrive at a reasonable spousal support amount and term. Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding indefinite spousal support because marriage was of long duration (28 years) and statutory findings were supported by competent credible evidence. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
4/25/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1581 |
|
State v. Kirby
| 112518 | Attempted rape; abduction; Rape Shield Statute; R.C. 2907.02(D); exclusion of evidence; balancing test; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; conflicting testimony; credibility determination. Defendant was convicted after trial of attempted rape and abduction. Defendant asserted on appeal the trial court erred by excluding evidence pursuant to R.C. 2907.02(D). The trial court excluded evidence that was specific to the victim’s past sexual activity and, by allowing general testimony that conversations between defendant and complainant were of a sexual nature, the trial court balanced defendant’s due process rights against the state’s interest in precluding evidence under the Rape Shield Statute. The convictions were based on sufficient evidence where the complainant’s testimony went to all elements of the crimes charged. Further, the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim’s testimony was not inherently incredible, the testimony was bolstered by defendant’s apologies, and where the determination of credibility and resolving conflicts in testimony and evidence rests solely with the finder of fact. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
4/25/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1582 |
|
Euclid v. Amiott
| 112675 | Right to speedy trial; R.C. 2945.71; extension of time; tolling; R.C. 2945.72; reasonable continuance; motion to dismiss; expiration; prima facie case for dismissal; state’s burden of production; statutory time limit; first-degree misdemeanor; 90 days after arrest or service of summons; recusal of trial judge; visiting judge assigned; no time waiver executed; sua sponte continuance; journal entry containing reasons for continuance. The trial court erred in proceeding to trial after the speedy-trial time had elapsed where appellant had not waived his right to a speedy trial. | Celebrezze | Cuyahoga |
4/25/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1583 |
|
Cleveland v. White
| 112720 | Telecommunications harassment; CCO 621.10; text messages; emails; sufficiency of the evidence; jury instruction; plain error; prejudice; admission of testimony; Evid.R. 1002; harmless error; manifest weight of the evidence; criminal complaint; defect in indictment; Crim.R. 12(C)(2); R.C. 2941.29; ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court did not err in misstating the date of the offense, treating the criminal complaint as charging two offenses, or admitting testimony from the victim regarding the content of text messages. Appellant’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Finally, appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. | Celebrezze | Cuyahoga |
4/25/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1584 |
|
A.E. v. J.E.
| 112847 | Financial misconduct; spousal support; child support; marital property; marital home; temporary spousal support; attorney fees; marital debt; loan; life insurance; proposed shared parenting; parenting time; restraining orders. Trial court erred in finding that husband committed financial misconduct by dissipating marital funds when he liquidated restricted stock units when the court restrained his income and he had no other means of paying his tax liabilities. The trial court erred by ordering husband to pay wife more than half of his income as temporary spousal support. The trial court erred in substituting its own valuation for the marital home based on the court’s review of comparable home values instead of the valuation of husband’s appraiser, who appraised the property one month before trial. Trial court erred in ordering husband to pay wife’s attorney fees when there was no evidence that he was in a superior financial position or that he caused wife to incur an increase in attorney fees. Trial court erred in requiring husband to pay off a loan wife received from her parents when the loan was used to pay college tuitions for the parties’ adult children and to pay real estate taxes on the parties’ marital home, which was wife’s responsibility. Trial court erred in designating wife the beneficiary of a lapsed insurance policy. Trial court erred in not adopting the husband’s shared parenting plan and in finding that a reduction in father’s parenting time was in the child’s best interest. The trial court failed to account for funding missing from wife’s lawyer’s IOLTA account. Trial court erred in leaving all restraining orders in place without specifically identifying the restraining orders and identifying the restrained parties. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/25/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1585 |
|
State v. Kennedy
| 112879 | Evid.R. 404(B), ineffective assistance of counsel, sufficiency, and manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court’s admission of evidence during appellant’s bench trial did not violate Evid.R. 404(B). The evidence was provided to the defense prior to trial, was presented for a legitimate purpose, and the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The admission did not overcome the presumption of regularity afforded the trial court to know and follow the law. Counsel did not fail to address the issue of secondary DNA transfer and thus was not ineffective. The evidence was not insufficient as a matter of law nor were the convictions against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
4/25/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1586 |
|
State v. Hale
| 113078 | Aggravated murder; murder; felonious assault; attempted felonious assault; menacing by stalking; Evid.R. 404(B); other-acts evidence; severance; joinder; inferior offenses; jury instructions; aggravated assault; voluntary manslaughter; mitigating evidence; sudden passion or fit of rage; autopsy photos; sufficiency and manifest weight. The trial court did not err when it denied Hale’s motion to sever the menacing by stalking charge from the other charges because the evidence was simple and direct, and the state would have been able to present evidence of the other crimes at separate trials had it tried them separately. The other-acts evidence was relevant to a permissible purpose under Evid.R. 404(B)(2) and not unfairly prejudicial under Evid.R. 403(A). The trial court did not improperly allow the state to amend the indictment through its notice of intent to use other-acts evidence; the state was permitted to present evidence of past events to establish a pattern of conduct and mental distress for menacing by stalking. Nor did the trial court err when it denied Hale’s request for jury instructions on aggravated assault and voluntary manslaughter, inferior offenses of felonious assault, murder, and aggravated murder because (1) Hale’s provocation was not caused by the victim, and (2) even if it was, Hale did not act with a sudden passion or fit of rage. The trial court also did not err when it admitted ten autopsy photos. Finally, the defendant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
4/25/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1587 |
|
State v. Jones
| 113082 | Motion to dismiss; preindictment delay; actual prejudice; deceased witness; rape; R.C. 2907.02(A)(2); kidnapping; R.C. 2905.01(A)(4); sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss due to preindictment delay where defendant did not show that he sustained actual prejudice as a result of the preindictment delay. Considering each item of allegedly “lost” or “unavailable” evidence, including lost recording of 911 call, lost clothing, lost photographs and lost medical records, in light of other evidence available at the time of the indictment and the relevance of the allegedly unavailable evidence to the defense, defendant failed to show that the items, if available, would have meaningfully impacted his case. Speculation that deceased or missing witness could have had information favorable to defense likewise did not meet defendant’s burden of showing actual prejudice. Defendant’s convictions for rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) and kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(4) were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where victim testified that sex was not consensual, witnesses testified regarding the victim’s injuries following the incident and the state presented DNA evidence from the victim’s sexual-assault examination kits that linked defendant to the rape. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/25/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1588 |
|
State v. Woods
| 113100 | Guilty plea; voluntary; pro se motion to continue; Crim.R. 11(C). The trial court did not err when it accepted Woods’s guilty plea after it addressed the defendant personally at the plea hearing, engaged in the required colloquy with him, and fully complied with Crim.R. 11(C). The trial court did not have a duty to address a pro se motion for continuance that the defendant filed the day before pleading guilty. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
4/25/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1589 |
|
State v. Fontanez
| 113105 | Guilty plea; motion to withdraw; change of heart. Denial of presentence motion to withdraw guilty plea affirmed where trial court failed to expressly state that a guilty plea constitutes a complete admission of guilt where the fact of the admission was obvious and the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice. Denial of presentence motion to withdraw guilty plea was not an abuse of discretion where trial court considered all factors necessary for evaluating a plea withdrawal request under Crim.R. 32.1. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/25/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1590 |
|
State v. Keith
| 113131 | R.C. 2929.14(C); R.C. 2907.05; gross sexual imposition; R.C. 2907.03; disseminating matter harmful to juveniles; maximum sentence. Appellant’s maximum consecutive sentence totaling 30 months in prison for gross sexual imposition and disseminating matter harmful to juveniles was not contrary to law and appellant could not show that the record did not clearly and convincingly support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings. There was no evidence of judicial bias or favoritism. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
4/25/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1591 |
|
Water Street Condominium Owners' Assn., Inc. v. Ferguson
| 113183 | Motion to dismiss; condominium board election; quo warranto. The core issue raised in the instant complaint is the validity of the election of Plaintiff Board and, as such, is to be determined in a quo warranto action. Because the complaint fails to raise a cause of action cognizable by the forum, we affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing the complaint for a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/25/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1592 |
|
Biotricity, Inc. v. DeJohn
| 113216 | Federal Arbitration Act; arbitration agreement; motion for protective order; motion to stay discovery; motion to compel arbitration. - Trial court’s denial of appellants’ motions to stay discovery and for a protective order while appellants’ motion to compel arbitration remained pending was immediately appealable under the Federal Arbitration Act, which applied to the arbitration agreements at issue, because the orders effectively denied appellants’ motion to compel arbitration. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
4/25/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1593 |
|
Thrasher, Dinsmore & Colan, LPA v. Ross
| 113298 | Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56(C); unjust enrichment; unpaid attorney fees. - Trial court properly granted summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C) on plaintiff’s unjust-enrichment claim for unpaid attorney fees regarding services plaintiff law firm rendered to defendants where there was no genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff provided legal services, defendants knew the plaintiff was providing legal services on its behalf, and it would be unjust for defendants to retain the benefit of those services without paying for them. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
4/25/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1594 |
|
State ex rel. Henderson v. Gallagher
| 113694 | Procedendo; motion to vacate; and mootness. The court dismissed a procedendo action to compel a ruling on a motion to vacate, because the respondent judge had issued a ruling on the subject motion. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
4/24/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1596 |
|
Garg v. Scott
| 113583 | Mandamus; prohibition; community-control sanctions; corporate formalities; abuse of discretion; personal jurisdiction; mootness; and ripeness. The relators who are the owner of a property on community control and other corporate entities who are owned by the owner commenced this mandamus and prohibition action because the municipal housing court threatened to require the owner to disclose all of his other corporate entities and their properties and to hold any housing violation by them as a community control violation against the original company. The relators alleged that the housing court did not have jurisdiction to hold the defendant company liable for any violations by the owner or his other companies. This court denied the applications for writs of mandamus and prohibition. The defendant company’s appeal was an adequate remedy at law to protect the owner and his other companies. Moreover mandamus does not lie to control judicial discretion, but appeal can remedy abuses of discretion. Prohibition very rarely lies for lack of personal jurisdiction. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/19/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1595 |
|
Cleveland v. Neal
| 112630 | Domestic violence; sufficiency; manifest weight; body-camera footage; Confrontation Clause. The city presented evidence that, if believed, demonstrated that appellant caused physical harm to her mother during a fight at her mother’s house. Therefore, appellant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant’s conviction is also not against the sufficiency of the evidence because the trier of fact was in the best position to consider the inconsistencies between appellant’s and her mother’s testimony regarding the fight. Finally, the court’s decision to admit into evidence the body-camera footage of a responding police officer did not violate appellant’s confrontation-clause rights because the body-camera footage depicted her mother’s encounter with police as the victim and she testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1467 |
|
State v. Montanez
| 112679 | Pro se litigants; motion for resentencing; failure to file transcript; presume regularity. Trial court’s denial of motion for resentencing is affirmed. Pro se defendant failed to file a transcript of the resentencing hearing, and we must presume regularity of the proceedings below. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1468 |
|
State v. James
| 112741 | Abuse of discretion; evidentiary rulings; sufficiency of evidence; weight of evidence; speedy trial; ineffective assistance of counsel; jury instruction; consecutive sentences. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting certain evidence. The state immediately alerted the defense to newly discovered evidence as soon as it became known to the state. It was established that the state’s failure to provide it earlier was not a willful violation of Crim.R. 16. The source of the newly discovered evidence was not a surprise to appellant; the person who provided the evidence was named in discovery and the evidence was statements made by appellant. Appellant has failed to demonstrate how the evidence was prejudicial to him. Other evidence admitted by the trial court was relevant to demonstrate appellant’s self-interest in the case and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudice. The testimony of the sole eyewitness to the shooting was sufficient to support the murder conviction. The testimony was sufficient to support the aggravated robbery convictions; the fact that nothing was taken from the victims was not dispositive because the governing statute provides that an attempt to commit a theft offense is sufficient. The convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The jury’s credibility determination was not incredible. The video evidence was properly authenticated, and the witness testimony established a proper chain of custody. Appellant’s speedy trial rights were not violated. The delay in this case was overwhelmingly attributed to appellant’s constant change of counsel, requests for continuances, and numerous motions. Appellant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. The testimony appellant complains that his counsel failed to object to was not hearsay. The evidence for which appellant contends there was no authentication or chain of custody was properly authenticated and a chain of custody was established. The record supports the imposition of consecutive sentences. The robberies and fatal shooting, on which consecutive terms were imposed, were separate and distinct acts, separated by a period of time. We are not able to say that the records clearly and convincingly do not support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1469 |
|
Crenshaw v. Mooningham
| 112835 | Motion for summary judgment; de novo review; defamation; evidence; affidavit; conclusory assertions; genuine issue of material fact; intentional infliction of emotional distress; severe, debilitating emotional injury; spoliation of evidence; disruption of plaintiff’s case; vexatious litigator; R.C. 2323.52; vexatious conduct. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on appellant’s claims where appellant did not present evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact remained as to any of her claims. | Celebrezze | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1470 |
|
Heigel v. MetroHealth Sys.
| 112900 | Civ.R. 56; summary judgment; App.R. 16; App.R. 12; at will employment; wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; clarity element. Appellant fails to separately argue her assignments of error, but in the interest of judicial fairness, we address the assigned errors. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees when appellant was unable to show that there were genuine issues of material fact. Although there is a clear public policy favoring workplace safety, appellant was unable to identify a public policy exception to the at will employment doctrine that is applicable to her claims. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1471 |
|
State v. Francis
| 113012 | Consecutive; maximum sentence; involuntary manslaughter. Judgment affirmed. The trial court made the statutorily required findings for the imposition of consecutive sentences. We are unable to say that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the court’s findings. The trial court was not required to make any findings in imposing maximum sentences. The trial court considered the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and sentenced the defendant within the statutory range. We do not find that the defendant’s maximum sentences were clearly and convincingly unsupported by the evidence. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1472 |
|
State v. Smith
| 113035 | Search warrant; sufficiency; possession of controlled substances; criminal tools; medical marijuana; fruit of the search; manifest weight; possession; immediately within reach; marijuana dispensary; direct physical control; constructive possession; knowingly exercises dominion. Judgment reversed and convictions vacated. The appellant’s convictions for drug possession and criminal tools were not supported by sufficient evidence. The state failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant had constructive possession of drugs or criminal tools where the state offered no evidence that the appellant had dominion or control over the area of the home where the illegal quantity of marijuana was found in the home she shared with her spouse, who held a medical marijuana license. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1473 |
|
State v. Hempstead
| 113051 | Sentence; jail-time credit; specification; firearm; mandatory; contrary to law; prison term; resentencing. The sentence imposed on defendant for involuntary manslaughter with a firearm specification was contrary to law because the trial court had improperly applied jail-time credit to defendant’s mandatory firearm-specification sentence. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1474 |
|
Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Cleveland
| 113116 | Political-subdivision immunity; negligence; res ipsa loquitur; defense; R.C. Chapter 2744; R.C. 2744.03(A)(5). Plaintiff established prima facie case of negligence through doctrine of res ipsa loquitur where defendant was the last contractor to have access at the site where the damage occurred. Decisions by city employees about where to excavate an area to repair a water line is not the kind of decision to which political-subdivision immunity attaches. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1475 |
|
State v. Green
| 113152 | Res judicata; Crim.R. 32.1; ineffective assistance of counsel. - Res judicata bars appellant’s Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea premised on ineffective assistance of counsel because he could have brought his claims in a direct appeal or in his delayed appeal. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1476 |
|
Cleveland v. Oliver
| 113330 | Driving under the influence; C.C.O. 433.01(a); administrative license suspension; initial appearance; R.C. 4511.191(D)(2); R.C. 4511.196(A). Trial court did not err in denying motion to dismiss underlying criminal charges when defendant’s initial appearance was not held within five-day time frame specified in R.C. 4511.191(D)(2) and 4511.196(A). The purpose for requiring initial appearance to be held within five days was to provide defendant with the opportunity to appeal the administrative license suspension, and trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss as it related to the administrative license suspension. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1477 |
|
State ex rel. Crenshaw v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections
| 113588 | Mandamus; Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss; R.C. 733.49; Cleveland City Charter Sections 70 and 77; declaratory judgment; prohibitory injunction; election vs. appointment of Cleveland law director; Loc.App.R. 45(C) – filing fee or poverty affidavit. The requisites for mandamus are well established: (1) the relator possesses a clear legal right to the requested relief; (2) the respondent possesses a clear legal duty to perform the requested relief; and (3) there exists no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Herein, we find that the relator has failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that a conflict actually exists between R.C. 733.49 and Sections 70 and 77 of the Cleveland City Charter with regard to the appointment versus the election of the Cleveland law director. Of greater significance is the fact that the relator seeks a declaratory judgment that R.C. 733.49 supersedes the Cleveland City Charter, which requires the election of the Cleveland law director and prevents the appointment of the Cleveland law director. A complaint couched in the form of mandamus does not state a cause of action in mandamus when the clear substance of the allegations demonstrates an action for declaratory judgment and prohibitory injunction. A declaratory judgment action that is cloaked in mandamus is subject to dismissal, because the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear declaratory judgment actions. Finally, the relator has failed to pay the filing fee to initiate this action or file an affidavit of indigence as required by Loc.App.R. 45(C). Failure to pay the filing fee or provide an affidavit of indigence constitutes grounds for dismissal. | Per Curiam | Cuyahoga |
4/12/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1478 |
|
State ex rel. Rance v. Corrigan
| 113680 | Writ of procedendo; proceed to judgment; summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; moot; R.C. 2969.25(C). A request for writ of procedendo was rendered moot when during the pendency of the complaint, the respondent entered judgment in the underlying action. Therefore, the respondent’s motion for summary judgment was granted. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
4/12/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1479 |
|
State v. Dudas
| 111875 | Denial of timely filed petition for postconviction relief; R.C. 2953.21(A); findings of fact and conclusions of law; R.C. 2953.21(D); R.C. 2953.21(H). Trial court erred in denying appellant’s timely petition for postconviction relief without making findings of fact and conclusions of law; judgment reversed and case remanded for the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by R.C. 2953.21. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1358 |
|
State v. Smith
| 112214 | Crim.R. 33; motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial; hearing; newly discovered evidence; recanting witness; abuse of discretion; unavoidably prevented from timely discovering new evidence; findings of fact and conclusions of law. Trial court abused its discretion in denying appellants’ motions for leave to file a motion for a new trial without a hearing as it related to witness’ recantation of his trial testimony. Appellants submitted documents that, on their face, together with other evidence in the record, could support their claims that they were unavoidably prevented from discovering witness’ recantation within the required time frame. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant leave to file a motion for a new trial without a hearing based on new information allegedly contained within transcripts from other appellant’s trial. Appellant did not submit documents with his motion that, on their face, supported his claim that he was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering any such new evidence. Crim.R. 33 does not require trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1360 |
|
State v. Thomas
| 112624 | Motion to suppress; R.C. 306.35(Y); plain meaning; RTA officers; authority; jurisdiction; within transit facilities; Fourth Amendment; Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution unreasonable searches and seizures. Affirmed. R.C. 306.35(Y) is unambiguous. Applying the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute, GCRTA officers are granted with the authority to act as peace officers within transit facilities owned, operated, or leased by the GCRTA. The plain language of R.C. 306.35(Y) does not support the interpretation proposed by the state. Furthermore, under Brown, 143 Ohio St.3d 444, 2015-Ohio-2438, 39 N.E.3d 496, ¶ 26, the GCRTA officers’ attempted traffic stop on a public road for an allegedly minor misdemeanor and Thomas’s subsequent arrest at her home nearly one month later was outside the GCRTA officers’ statutory authority and violated the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures established by Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution. Therefore, the trial court properly suppressed any evidence obtained by the GCRTA police officers. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1361 |
|
State v. Counts
| 112715 & 112775 | Speedy trial; R.C. 2945.72; Marsy’s Law. The appellee’s speedy trial rights were not violated by the victims’ filing an appeal, because the time tolled in accordance with R.C. 2945.72(E) and (H). | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1362 |
|
State v. Reed
| 112737 | Manifest weight of the evidence; conflicting testimony; credibility determination. Defendant was convicted after trial of abduction and assault. Defendant asserted on appeal his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence because of contradictions in the victim’s testimony and her actions as well as contradictions with other testimony. The determination of credibility and resolving conflicts in testimony and evidence rest solely with the finder of fact, and an appellate court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the finder of fact. After review of the record, the finder of fact did not clearly lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice necessitating reversal of defendant’s convictions. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1363 |
|
State v. Hamrick
| 112826 | Menacing by stalking; R.C. 2903.211; protective order; sufficiency; manifest weight; admissibility; authentication; Evid.R. 901(A); mistrial; abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed. The court properly denied Hamrick’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal because his menacing by stalking conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. Furthermore, his convictions of menacing by stalking and violation of protection order were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Duo messages at issue were admissible because they were properly authenticated by H.C. under Evid.R. 901. Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hamrick’s motion for a mistrial because the state did not willfully fail to turn over evidence in discovery. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1364 |
|
State v. Bethel
| 112921 | Crim.R. 29; motion for acquittal; sufficiency of the evidence; circumstantial evidence; probative value; knowingly; manifest weight of the evidence; inconsistent testimony; direct identification unnecessary. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal, and appellant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Celebrezze | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1365 |
|
State v. Costlow
| 113013 | R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(a); third-degree felony; sentencing; impact statements; R.C. 2929.19; sentencing review; App.R. 16(A)(7). Affirmed. The trial court properly sentenced the defendant to five years in prison on his guilty plea to a third-degree felony, gross sexual imposition offense under R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(a), and the offender has not demonstrated error with citations to relevant authority regarding the court’s decision to consider impact statements from friends and family of the victim or to impose the particular sentence entered. | S. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1366 |
|
State v. Garrett
| 113058 | Petition for postconviction relief; evidentiary hearing; res judicata; ineffective assistance of counsel. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in denying defendant-appellant Jerome Garrett’s untimely amended petition for postconviction relief when all the evidence submitted in support of his petition had already been considered and rejected by this court during his direct appeal, barring Garrett’s claims by res judicata. Because Garrett did not demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence prompting the postconviction petition, the trial court also did not err in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. | Celebrezze | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1367 |
|
Amin, Turocy & Watson, L.L.P. v. Just Funky, L.L.C.
| 113076 | Summary judgment; unpaid legal services; expert report; self-serving affidavit; Civ.R. 54(C). Judgment affirmed. The trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff law firm on its claim for unpaid legal services. The law firm’s motion for summary judgment was supported by an affidavit and specific, corroborating evidence. The trial court properly found the defendant’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the law firm’s motion was self-serving. Although the affiant claimed that the law firm overcharged it, the supporting documentation was deficient in lending support to that claim. The amount of the judgment in favor of the plaintiff law firm was proper under Civ.R. 54(C). Although it is a different amount than prayed for in the complaint, the plaintiff’s documentation supports the amount. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1368 |
|
State v. Artagos
| 113107 | Improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle; under the influence; sufficiency; manifest weight; child support; community control. Appellant’s improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where competent, credible evidence established that appellant was intoxicated and there was evidence of alcohol and marijuana in his car. Condition of community control that required appellant to establish a child-support order was an abuse of discretion where the community-control condition was not related to the offense. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1369 |
|
State v. Duncan
| 113165 & 113169 | Nunc pro tunc; plea and sentence. The trial court’s journal entries reflecting appellant’s plea and sentence incorrectly stated the crime that appellant pleaded guilty to. Case remanded for issuance of nunc pro tunc journal entries. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1370 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 113196 | Final appealable order; nunc pro tunc; finality of judgment for appeal. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in entering a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry renumbering the counts to the proper counts utilized at trial because this action was not inconsistent with this court’s jurisdiction. Further, the nunc pro tunc entry did not extend defendant’s time to file an appeal nor did service of the nunc pro tunc entry affect the finality of the judgment. | Celebrezze | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1371 |
|
In re T.H.
| 113277 | Permanent custody; manifest weight of the evidence; clear and convincing evidence; R.C. 2151.414(E); R.C. 2151.414(B) and (D). The trial court’s decision to grant permanent custody of appellant’s children was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and there was clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the court’s decision. While appellant engaged in mental health, domestic violence, and anger management classes he was unable to show that he benefitted from services. Appellant did not establish sobriety and was continually angry and aggressive towards agency staff. Although the agency and the court gave appellant numerous chances, visitation had to be stopped due to appellant’s volatile behavior. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1372 |
|
Cuyahoga Supply & Tool, Inc. v. BECDIR Constr. Co.
| 113096 | Motion to compel arbitration and/or stay proceedings; abuse of discretion; contractual interpretation; de novo review; R.C. 2711.02; written arbitration agreement; agreement not signed; intent to be bound; meeting of the minds; performance of contract containing arbitration clause. Appellee’s performance under the purchase order constituted its acceptance of the terms contained therein, including the arbitration clause. Thus, the dispute between the parties, which arose out of the purchase order, was required to be arbitrated. The trial court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. | Celebrezze | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1375 |
|
State ex rel. Parker v. Russo
| 113774 | Prohibition; mandamus; sua sponte dismissal; R.C. 2969.25(C); affidavit of indigency; affidavit of waiver; statement of inmate account. A complaint for writs of prohibition and mandamus was sua sponte dismissed because the incarcerated relator failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) by filing the necessary affidavits that this statute requires when initiating an action against a governmental agency or employee. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
4/10/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1373 |
|
Parma v. Perotti
| 112089 | App.R. 26(B) application for reopening; consecutive sentences; allied offenses; bifurcation; joinder of offenses. The appellant’s App.R. 26(B) application for reopening is denied because appellate counsel was not ineffective on appeal. Proposed assignments of error that dealt with the imposition of consecutive sentences, allied offenses, and joinder of offenses for trial are without merit. The appellant was not prejudiced by the failure of appellate counsel to raise the three proposed assignment of error on appeal. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/9/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1359 |
|
State ex rel. Sowell v. Matia
| 113781 | Mandamus; repeat violent offender specification; final, appealable order; R.C. 2969.25(C); and certified prison cashier's statement. The court denied an application for a writ of mandamus because the relator failed to file a prison cashier's statement pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(C). | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/5/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1374 |
|
State v. Wadlington
| 112286 | Self-defense; aggravated assault; involuntary manslaughter; abuse of discretion; specific instances of conduct; character evidence; victim’s prior conduct; Evid.R. 404(A); Evid.R. 405; provocation; rage; fear; jury instructions; inferior offense; lesser included offense. Judgment is affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it limited evidence of victim’s prior conduct to specific instances known to the appellant that tended to show appellant’s state of mind. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not instruct on the inferior offense of aggravated assault or the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter because the appellant testified that she shot the victim because she was in fear. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1268 |
|