|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Gooch
| 23AP-424 & 23AP-439 | Appellant does not establish plain error requiring reversal based on the trial court’s jury instructions on the charged offenses of operating a vehicle while under the influence (“OVI”). R.C. 4511/19(A)(1)(i)—the OVI per se offense—is not an alternative-means offense, and the trial court correctly instructed the jury of the elements it was required to find beyond a reasonable doubt to return a guilty verdict for OVI per se. The jury instructions on the OVI impaired offense under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) were erroneous to the extent they implied to the jury that it could find appellant guilty based on his operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs of abuse, when the state presented no evidence that appellant was under the influence of drugs of abuse, but reversal is not required to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. The guilty verdict on the OVI impaired offense did not affect appellant’s sentence, because the trial court sentenced Gooch only for OVI per se. Appellant does not establish plain error requiring reversal based on the trial court’s failure to define “under the influence of alcohol” in the jury instructions on the OVI impaired offense. Reversal of the jury’s finding of guilt on the OVI impaired offense is not required to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice, as the jury also found appellant guilty of the OVI per se offense, and it was the OVI per se offense for which the trial court convicted and sentenced him. Appellant’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Boggs | Franklin |
10/2/2025
|
10/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4595 |
|
State ex rel. Holderman v. Indus. Comm.
| 23AP-237 | Death benefits; prospective dependency; partial dependency; dependency in fact; incapacitated from earning. On objections to the magistrate’s decision recommending a limited writ of mandamus ordering respondent, the Industrial Commission, to partially vacate its order and issue a new order determining whether relator, the adult daughter of a deceased employee, was partly dependent-in-fact under R.C.4123.59(D)(2) using the proper legal standards. Objections overruled, and writ of mandamus granted in part and denied in part. Respondent had the discretion to determine that relator was not incapacitated from earning based on evidence of relator’s actual sustained employment. Respondent must determine whether petitioner was partially dependent in fact based on the relevant facts of the case rather than the standard for establishing a legal presumption of whole dependency. | Dingus | Franklin |
9/30/2025
|
9/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4553 |
|
State v. A.W.
| 23AP-421 | On defendant’s appeal of bench verdict of guilty and total aggregate sentence of fifteen years to lifetime incarceration for three counts of rape and one count of gross sexual imposition. Defendant’s three assignments of error assert improper admission of hearsay evidence and evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause, as well as the trial court’s alleged failure to safeguard defendant’s rights to due process in a bench trial. Reviewing courts presume that the court considered only relevant and competent evidence when a case is tried to the bench, and it is the defendant’s burden on appeal to affirmatively show otherwise and to establish prejudice. Here, the defendant has not pointed to any specific inadmissible or unfairly prejudicial statements in the record, and even assuming that some evidence was inadmissible, the record does not contain any indication that the trial court relied upon that evidence in determining its verdict. For this reason, all three of defendant’s assignments of error are overruled and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
9/30/2025
|
9/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4554 |
|
State v. Phillips
| 23AP-582 | Appellant did not establish that the trial court committed plain error in warning him about the dangers of testifying, so as to deny his constitutional right to testify. The trial court informed appellant of his constitutional right to testify and repeatedly reminded him that the decision was his to make. Appellant acknowledged that the judge was not telling him which decision to make. Further, the record contains no express invocation by appellant of the right to testify. This case does not present the exceptional circumstance in which reversal is required to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice or to protect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a limited number of photos from the victim’s autopsy, crime-scene photos, or an investigator’s statement about the gruesomeness of the crime scene. The trial court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses of unlawful restraint and involuntary manslaughter with a predicate of unlawful restraint. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by giving a neutral jury instruction on consciousness of guilt, because the record contained evidence supporting an inference that appellant took active measures to avoid being found. The trial court did not err by overruling defense counsel’s objections to allegedly improper lay opinion testimony by a detective about what he observed on a surveillance video. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Boggs | Franklin |
9/30/2025
|
9/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4555 |
|
State v. Smith
| 23AP-599 | Trial court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury how to apply its finding on Smith’s defense-of-another affirmative defense. The remaining assignments of error and the state’s sole cross-assignment of error are rendered moot. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial. | Leland | Franklin |
9/30/2025
|
9/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4556 |
|
State ex rel. Phillips v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys.
| 23AP-606 | Objections to Magistrate’s Decision overruled; OPERS did not abuse its discretion in denying relator’s application for disability benefits. | Leland | Franklin |
9/30/2025
|
9/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4557 |
|
Copp v. Roush Honda
| 24AP-598 | The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant when a genuine issue of material fact remained regarding whether the spot of water that caused plaintiff to slip and fall constituted an open and obvious hazard. | Mentel | Franklin |
9/30/2025
|
9/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4558 |
|
Westerville City Schools Bd. of Edn v. Harris
| 24AP-768 | The Ohio Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) did not err in affirming the Tax Commissioner of Ohio’s final determination, ordering remission to appellee, The HTH Partners, LLC (“HTH”), of taxes, interest, and penalties for tax years 2016 and 2017 with respect to property owned by HTH. Although appellant argued that the Tax Commissioner lacked authority to grant remission from prior years unless it first found that the property was subject to exemption for the year in which the application was filed, nothing in R.C. 5715.25, 5713.08, or 5713.081 requires an applicant to prevail on the request for exemption in the tax year during which the application was filed to activate the Tax Commissioner’s discretionary authority to consider the request for remission for the previous three years. The BTA applied the plain and unambiguous language of the relevant statutes, giving effect to the provisions of each. The BOE did not demonstrate error based on the BTA’s consideration of evidence regarding tax year 2019 . | Boggs | Franklin |
9/30/2025
|
9/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4559 |
|
Wolfe v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 25AP-330 | No error in the trial court’s decision granting the summary judgment motion of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. The court complied with both Civ.R. 56(C) and (F). Judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
9/30/2025
|
9/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4560 |
|
State v. Hodge
| 23AP-463 & 23AP-464 | Appellant’s convictions for kidnapping and aggravated riot were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence; matter remanded for re-sentencing, however, as sentence imposed by trial court’s sentencing entry was not the sentence verbally announced at sentencing hearing. | Leland | Franklin |
9/23/2025
|
9/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4434 |
|
In re A.M.
| 23AP-540 | The evidence upon which the trial court relied does not clearly and convincingly show that A.M. is a child “[w]hose condition or environment is such as to warrant the state, in the interests of the child, in assuming the child's guardianship,” as required to make a finding of dependency under R.C. 2151.04(C). Nor does the evidence show that Father abandoned his child pursuant to R.C. 5151.414(B)(1). Thus, insufficient evidence supported the adjudication of dependence, and the trial court’s judgments adjudicating A.M. as a neglected and/or dependent child and granting permanent custody of A.M. to Franklin County Children Services ("FCCS") must be reversed. Judgments reversed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
9/23/2025
|
9/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4435 |
|
State v. Brefford
| 23AP-644 | MOTION TO SUPPRESS — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL — AGGRAVATED ROBBERY — ASSAULT — CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPON — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT — SENTENCING — MULTIPLE FIREARM SPECIFICATIONS — R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g): The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence discovered during an investigatory stop where evidence established that officers had reasonable suspicion for extending the consensual encounter with defendant in order to investigate whether criminal activity was afoot based on the overwhelming odor of raw marijuana emanating from defendant's person and defendant's presence in front of a known drug house in a high crime area operated by a known gang, use of multiple bags and a bicycle (consistent with persons selling narcotics), nervous behavior when questioned about the marijuana odor, and multiple denials of marijuana possession before attempting to flee. Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial counsel’s failure to move for discharge based on statutory speedy trial grounds and failure to object to the trial court's answers to jury's question about the carrying a concealed weapon jury instruction where defendant failed to establish he was prejudiced by trial counsel's purported failures. Defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery, assault with firearm specification, and carrying a concealed weapon were supported by sufficient evidence and are not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where defendant admitted to carrying a partially concealed firearm in his waistband and the officers' testimony and body-worn camera footage showed defendant's physical altercation with officers during which a firearm fell from defendant's person onto the ground and a prolonged struggle over the firearm ensued. At sentencing, trial court did not err in exercising its discretion to impose mandatory prison sentences for each of the three firearm specifications under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) and State v. Bollar, 2022-Ohio-4370. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
9/23/2025
|
9/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4436 |
|
Anand v. Jones
| 24AP-728 | The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas did not err in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Appellant failed to comply with the contractual time limitations, and his reliance of general policy provisions is foreclosed by the contract’s plain language. Judgment affirmed. | Jamison | Franklin |
9/23/2025
|
9/23/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4437 |
|
Tassone v. Tassone
| 25AP-95 | The trial court plainly erred in imposing a seek work order on Appellant without notice or an opportunity to be heard. Appellant's remaining assignments of error are rendered moot. | Jamison | Franklin |
9/18/2025
|
9/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4389 |
|
State v. Groce
| 24AP-334 | Because the seizure of a digital video recorder ("DVR") did not exceed the scope of the authorizing search warrant, defendant’s trial counsel had no grounds on which to move to suppress the video evidence contained on the DVR. Defendant, therefore, did not raise any issue in his postconviction petition as to whether his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the video evidence. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s postconviction petition without a hearing. | Leland | Franklin |
9/16/2025
|
9/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4345 |
|
State v. Walker
| 24AP-335 | Because the seizure of a digital video recorder ("DVR") did not exceed the scope of the authorizing search warrant, defendant’s trial counsel had no grounds on which to move to suppress the video evidence contained on the DVR. Defendant, therefore, did not raise any issue in his postconviction petition as to whether his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the video evidence. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s postconviction petition without a hearing. | Dorrian | Franklin |
9/16/2025
|
9/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4346 |
|
Collins v. State
| 24AP-388 | Judgment affirmed. The trial court properly granted the state’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint for lack of standing. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint asked the trial court to issue a declaratory judgment finding certain provisions of 2023 H.B. 33 unconstitutional. The challenged provisions of H.B. 33 took the authority to oversee education governance in Ohio away from the constitutionally mandated state board of education and provided it to the newly created position of director of education and workforce, a position appointed by the Governor. Plaintiffs, who were parents of public-school children and the board of education for a public school district, alleged H.B. 33 harmed them by causing them to lose the following: advocates who were once their best chance of affecting education policy in the state, representatives who could answer their questions, and access to public meetings of the body setting educational standards in the state. However, plaintiffs’ allegations of harm presented only generalized grievances and/or hypothetical injuries. The trial court’s additional statements finding plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief in Count 3 of their amended complaint were dicta. | Mentel | Franklin |
9/16/2025
|
9/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-4347 |
|
Sharonville v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm.
| 24AP-255 | On appeal of trial court judgment reversing decision of Ohio Liquor Control Commission to renew liquor permit. Judgment affirmed. Where the trial court is required to employ a hybrid review that permits limited factfinding and credibility analysis, where the Commission failed to engage in any factfinding itself and offered no reasoning for its decision, where extensive evidence in record supported the trial court's conclusion that renewal of the permit would cause substantial interference with public decency, sobriety, peace, or good order in the permitholder's neighborhood, trial court's decision to reverse Commission's renewal of permit was not an abuse of discretion. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
9/11/2025
|
9/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3289 |
|
Dehen v. Ohio State Univ.
| 24AP-671 | Appellant did not move to set aside magistrate orders regarding discovery motions in the trial court and, therefore, waived a challenge to those orders on appeal. Additionally, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of appellee and dismissed appellant’s claims because the claims challenged appellee’s scholarship criteria which were subject to discretionary immunity as a policy characterized by the exercise of a high degree of official judgment or discretion. Because the claims fell within the scope of appellee’s discretionary immunity, the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction. | Dorrian | Franklin |
9/9/2025
|
9/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3240 |
|
State v. Nichols
| 24AP-721 | The trial court erred in finding appellant validly waived his right to a jury trial as to the having weapons while under disability charge. The waiver was invalid because it was not made in open court. Additionally, because the evidence was sufficient to convict appellant of having weapons while under disability, this matter must be remanded for a new trial on that charge. Judgment reversed; cause remanded. | Dingus | Franklin |
9/9/2025
|
9/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3241 |
|
State ex rel. Wright v. Clerk of Mun. Court
| 24AP-746 | Magistrate’s decision is adopted, motion to dismiss granted, and cause dismissed. Relator has failed to show that the Respondent has any clear legal duty to provide Relator’s requested relief. | Boggs | Franklin |
9/9/2025
|
9/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3242 |
|
Clark v. Grange Ins.
| 24AP-765 | Trial court did not err in dismissing appellant’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
9/9/2025
|
9/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3243 |
|
State v. Barbee
| 25AP-182 | Where defendant conceded both on the record and in the court of appeals that his guilty plea was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, the trial court did not err in denying his post-trial motion to withdraw his plea based on the argument that he had only pleaded guilty because he had “lost faith” in his trial counsel, and where he presented no evidence at motion hearing that his plea resulted in a manifest injustice. Judgment denying motion to withdraw plea affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
9/9/2025
|
9/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3244 |
|
Arndts v. State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio
| 25AP-312 | The Court of Claims of Ohio did not err in dismissing appellant’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1). Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
9/9/2025
|
9/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3245 |
|
Giron v. Mouneimne
| 25AP-364 | Because the trial court did not grant a Civ.R. 41(B)(1) motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, we overrule the only assignment of error argued in Mouneimne’s brief. To the extent he raised other assignments of error, his brief failed to support them with any arguments and failed to include any citations to the record. We accordingly disregard such other assignments of error. Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
9/9/2025
|
9/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3246 |
|
Mitchell v. Atha, Dir. of Pub. Utilities
| 25AP-297 | The trial court did not err in sustaining the defendant’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss and dismissing complaint, where complaint did not allege that plaintiff had presented payment of his outstanding electric debt to the defendants, that the defendants rejected that payment, or that he suffered any damage because of that supposed rejection, but instead asserted that an altered bill wrongly claimed to be a negotiable instrument should have been accepted as payment. The trial court correctly held that the plaintiff was wholly unable prove the elements of wrongful rejection of tender, breach of contract, or breach of fiduciary duty. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
9/9/2025
|
9/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3247 |
|
Geauga Park Dist. v. Geauga Cty. Budget Comm.
| 24AP-672 | Based on the record below, the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA") properly conducted a de novo review of the matter before it. The BTA's decision to reverse and remand appellant's budget determination was reasonable and lawful. Furthermore, its decision was supported by reliable and probative evidence. | Jamison | Franklin |
9/4/2025
|
9/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3159 |
|
State ex rel. Garrison v. Hawkins
| 24AP-764 | Petitioner has not shown he is entitled to a writ of prohibition. Accordingly, we adopt the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and the conclusions of law therein, and grant respondents’ motion to dismiss and dismiss petitioner’s action in its entirety. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
9/4/2025
|
9/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3160 |
|
Conner v. Thompson
| 25AP-284 | Father’s five assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations and Juvenile Branch, modifying a shared parenting plan, is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. | Leland | Franklin |
9/4/2025
|
9/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3161 |
|
In re T.A.
| 23AP-381 | The trial court erred in finding appellant to be a delinquent minor for committing the offense of voluntary manslaughter based on his admission to the offense. Appellant’s admission was invalid because the trial court did not inform him of his right to have the prosecution prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and because the trial court did not explain to him the minimum or maximum terms of commitment that may result from the acceptance of an admission. Judgment reversed; cause remanded. | Dingus | Franklin |
8/28/2025
|
8/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3079 |
|
Villagran v. McMullen
| 24AP-601 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request to continue the trial. The record shows the trial court considered the factors identified in Unger and thoroughly explained its reasons for denying the continuance. Judgment affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
8/28/2025
|
8/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3080 |
|
A.A. v. S.P.
| 24AP-639 | Appeal from a trial court’s order adopting a magistrate’s decision that granted a civil stalking protection order in favor of appellee. Appellant failed to comply with Civ.R. 65.1(G), which requires a party to file objections to the trial court’s order prior to filing an appeal. Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dingus | Franklin |
8/28/2025
|
8/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3081 |
|
Stewart v. Ohio Disciplinary Counsel
| 25AP-88 | Court of Claims did not err when it determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over appellant’s claims. | Per Curiam | Franklin |
8/28/2025
|
8/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3082 |
|
In re T.H.
| 25AP-96 | With all parties in agreement, we reverse the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch and order a resentencing that complies with the six-month minimum term required by R.C. 2152.16(A)(1)(e). | Leland | Franklin |
8/28/2025
|
8/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3083 |
|
State v. Taylor-Hollingsworth
| 25AP-156 | The trial court correctly denied appellant's post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Because he could have raised his claims on direct appeal, they are now barred by res judicata. Even if his claims were not barred by res judicata, appellant failed to demonstrate that withdrawing his plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. Despite the trial court misspeaking at one point during its colloquy, the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his guilty plea. Judgment affirmed with separate concurring opinion. | Jamison | Franklin |
8/28/2025
|
8/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3084 |
|
State v. Blacker
| 25AP-244 | On appeal of decision denying delayed petition for postconviction relief without a hearing. Judgment affirmed. Petitioner’s challenges to the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over his criminal case rested upon so-called “sovereign citizen” claims that wholly lacked factual and legal basis, and trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting them outright. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
8/28/2025
|
8/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3085 |
|
Williams v. French
| 25AP-302 | On appeal from the Franklin County Court Common Pleas Court granting defendant's motion to dismiss for failure of service of process as required by Civ.R. 3(A). Pursuant to Gliozzo v. Univ. Urologists of Cleveland, Inc., 2007-Ohio-3762, a defendant's active participation in a lawsuit does not forfeit the affirmative defense of insufficient service of the complaint where a defendant has properly raised and preserved the defense by raising it in a responsive pleading. Accordingly, appellant's assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed. | Beatty Blunt | Franklin |
8/28/2025
|
8/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3086 |
|
State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Parole Bd.
| 25AP-162 | The magistrate did not err in finding that relator’s noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) warrants dismissal of this action. Motion to dismiss granted; action dismissed. | Mentel | Franklin |
8/26/2025
|
8/26/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3043 |
|
Lyon v. Riverside Methodist Hosp.
| 23AP-379 | The trial court did not err by finding that the noneconomic damages cap under R.C. 2323.43(A)(3) was unconstitutional, as applied, on due process and equal protection grounds. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
8/21/2025
|
8/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2991 |
|
State v. Frazier
| 24AP-49 | Appellant's convictions for felonious assault and having weapons while under disability were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
8/21/2025
|
8/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2992 |
|
In re A.M.
| 24AP-657 | The trial court’s decision that granting permanent custody was in the child’s best interest was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because although the mother substantially complied with portions of her case plan, there was also evidence that the mother did not comply with other aspects of her case plan and did not remedy the conditions that caused the child to be removed from her custody. Further, other statutory factors weighed in favor of permanent custody being in the child’s best interest, including the fact that the four-year-old child was significantly bonded with his foster parents and essentially viewed the mother as a stranger after the mother ceased contact with the child for 18 months. | Dingus | Franklin |
8/21/2025
|
8/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2993 |
|
State v. Gordon
| 24AP-736 | The trial court’s judgment denying appellant’s petition for postconviction relief is affirmed. The petition was untimely and successive and barred by res judicata. | Dorrian | Franklin |
8/21/2025
|
8/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2994 |
|
T.C. v. M.C.
| 25AP-83 | The trial court erred as a matter of law by conflating the statutory criterion for the issuance of a domestic violence civil protection order under R.C. 3113.31(A)(1)(a)(i) and (ii). Trial court’s determination that the petitioner failed to satisfy the mandates of R.C. 3113.31(A)(1)(a) for the issuance of a domestic violence protection order was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment reversed and cause remanded with instructions. | Mentel | Franklin |
8/21/2025
|
8/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2995 |
|
State ex rel. Lower v. Mackey
| 25AP-212 | The relator’s objections are overruled and the respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted. The magistrate did not err by concluding that the relator’s writ of procedendo and/or mandamus was moot as the respondent has ruled on all of the outstanding motions at issue. Therefore, neither procedendo nor mandamus will lie under these circumstances. | Mentel | Franklin |
8/19/2025
|
8/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2955 |
|
State v. Rhodes
| 25AP-267 | Having found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion requesting the trial court comply with a remand order, we overrule the sole assignment of error. | Leland | Franklin |
8/19/2025
|
8/19/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2956 |
|
State ex rel. Hudson v. Cleveland
| 24AP-207 | Claimant is not entitled to an additional award for a violation of a specific safety requirement because the specific safety requirement claimant contends the City of Cleveland violated was not applicable to the facts of the present case. Sole objection overruled and requested writ of mandamus denied. | Leland | Franklin |
8/14/2025
|
8/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2871 |
|
State v. Roberts
| 24AP-264 | Judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. There was sufficient evidence for a factfinder to determine that appellant was conscious of the firearm and had the ability to exercise dominion and control over it to support appellant’s weapon while under disability conviction. Appellant’s conviction was also not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Boggs | Franklin |
8/14/2025
|
8/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2872 |
|
In re D.R.-S.
| 24AP-414 | Trial court did not err by proceeding with permanent custody hearing without mother present because mother’s counsel had been notified of the hearing date as required by the procedural rules and there was no evidence that notice of the hearing date sent to mother by regular mail had been returned to the court. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing children services agency to recall caseworker to give additional direct testimony after her testimony ended the prior day because the testimony given on recall was limited in scope to identifying orders related to prior custody actions and relevant criminal proceedings, and appellant’s counsel was provided the opportunity to cross-examine the caseworker. Trial court’s decision that a grant of permanent custody was in the child’s best interest was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because although there was some evidence tending to establish mother complied with portions of her case plan, there was also evidence that mother failed to fulfill other portions of her case plan and did not remedy the conditions that caused the agency to seek custody of the child. | Dorrian | Franklin |
8/14/2025
|
8/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2873 |
|
State v. Pace
| 24AP-560 & 24AP-561 | Appellant's convictions for kidnapping and domestic violence are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Leland | Franklin |
8/14/2025
|
8/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2874 |
|
State v. Ross
| 24AP-613 | Sufficient evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence support appellant’s convictions of murder, attempted murder, felonious assault, and improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle, as well as the accompanying firearm specifications. The surveillance footage and appellant's own testimony establish the elements of the offenses, and the jury did not clearly lose its way in disbelieving appellant's claim of self-defense. Judgment affirmed. | Edelstein | Franklin |
8/14/2025
|
8/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2875 |
|