|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Brooks
| 2024-CA-36 | The trial court was not obligated to tell appellant that a guilty plea would waive his ability to challenge its suppression ruling. The record does not portray ineffective assistance of counsel based on appellant’s attorney advising him to plead guilty rather than no contest. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Champaign |
9/12/2025
|
9/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3292 |
|
State v. McMahon
| 2025-CA-7 | The trial court was not required to inform appellant that no one could comment on his silence if he chose to go forward with a trial and did not testify. The trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 by informing appellant of the constitutional rights he was waiving by entering his guilty pleas, including the right against self-incrimination. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
9/12/2025
|
9/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3295 |
|
State v. Scott
| 2025-CA-4 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s successive petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.23, as the matters raised in the petition had been previously litigated and were barred by res judicata. Although the trial court did not rule on appellant’s motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial, any error was harmless, as the claims raised in the motion were also barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Clark |
9/12/2025
|
9/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3296 |
|
In re J.P.
| 30437 | The trial court’s conclusion that appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily agreed to appellee obtaining legal custody of the parties’ minor child was supported by the record. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
9/12/2025
|
9/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3293 |
|
State v. Jones
| 30333 | Jury’s verdicts finding appellant guilty of murder, felonious assault, and related firearm specifications and consequent rejection of appellant’s self-defense claim were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to enter a nolle prosequi for a reckless homicide charge. Appellant was not denied a fair trial by the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. The trial court did not deny appellant his right to a public trial by excluding his father from the courtroom for a portion of one day. The trial court did not err in allowing the State to present a witness’s prior consistent statement during redirect examination. Absent any error by the trial court, cumulative error doctrine was inapplicable to appellant’s convictions. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
9/12/2025
|
9/12/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3294 |
|
State v. Cox
| 30356 | Appellant’s felonious assault convictions were supported by legally sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant admitted to shooting the victim in the face, the victim suffered extensive injuries, and the evidence revealed appellant did not have a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm at the time of the shooting. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
9/5/2025
|
9/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3163 |
|
In re Adoption of W.M.J.
| 30444 | The probate court properly exercised jurisdiction over the petition for adoption filed by appellee, the spouse of an active-duty military service member. In determining whether a petitioner for adoption “resides” in the probate court’s jurisdiction, as required by R.C. 3107.04, a probate court should consider domicile if the petitioner, or the petitioner’s spouse, is in active military service when the petition is filed. Sufficient evidence supported the probate court’s determination that appellee was domiciled in Montgomery County. Judgments affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
9/5/2025
|
9/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3166 |
|
State v. Nalls
| 30414 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s pro se amended petition for postconviction relief based on untimeliness. The trial court also did not err in overruling motions for voluntary recusal, to consolidate the present case with an unrelated 1989 rape case, for summary judgment on the untimely petition for postconviction relief, and for judicial notice related to the untimely petition. The trial court did err, however, in overruling without explanation appellant’s two motions to vacate court costs. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. | Tucker | Montgomery |
9/5/2025
|
9/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3168 |
|
State v. Fleming
| 2024-CA-38 | The trial court erred in concluding that, after a subpoenaed witness failed to appear at trial, a recorded statement that the witness made to a detective was admissible under the Evid.R. 804(B)(6) forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the hearsay rule. Therefore, appellant’s constitutional right to confront the witness was violated. The trial court did not err by allowing admission of appellant’s cell phone records under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Tucker | Clark |
9/5/2025
|
9/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3165 |
|
State v. Devore
| 2025-CA-7 | Appellant’s sentences were contrary to law because the trial court failed to provide a notification at sentencing that was required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)(iii). Judgments affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing in accordance with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c). | Lewis | Champaign |
9/5/2025
|
9/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3164 |
|
State v. Kidd
| 2025-CA-3 | Appellant’s aggregate sentence of ten years for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (“OVI”) with a repeat OVI offender specification was not contrary to law. The court properly considered the statutory guidelines and factors, and it did not err in considering information in the presentence investigation report that a petition for a protection order was pending against appellant. Appellant mischaracterizes the record in asserting that the court treated his alcoholism as “willful disobedience”; the trial court correctly noted appellant’s numerous failed efforts at rehabilitation and his ongoing inability to control his alcohol consumption. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Champaign |
9/5/2025
|
9/5/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3167 |
|
State v. Weaver
| 2025-CA-5 | The trial court’s failure to advise appellant of his rights at his initial appearance and plea hearing as required under Crim.R. 5(C) and 10(C) rendered his guilty plea less than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Lewis | Darke |
8/29/2025
|
8/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3094 |
|
Janson v. Janson
| 2025-CA-3 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found appellant in contempt for failing to maintain a life insurance policy with appellee, appellant’s ex-wife, as the beneficiary. The terms of the parties’ separation agreement, including appellee’s relinquishment of her right to appellant’s military survivor benefits, reveal no time limit to appellant’s obligation to maintain the policy until the death of one of the parties. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
8/29/2025
|
8/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3092 |
|
In re A.S.
| 30413 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s objections to the magistrate’s decision on the legal custody of her children. Appellant’s objections were untimely, and she had not requested an extension or provided any reason for the delay. Trial counsel’s performance was not ineffective because, although the failure to timely object to the magistrate’s decision was deficient, it was not reasonably probable that a proper objection would have altered the court’s custody decision. Judgments affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
8/29/2025
|
8/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3090 |
|
In re Bailey
| 30427 | The record does not contain a written transcript of a hearing before a magistrate related to appellant’s involuntary commitment. The limited record before us does not affirmatively demonstrate that the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s objections to the magistrate’s decision. Without a complete record, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
8/29/2025
|
8/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3091 |
|
Stargell v. FST Express Inc.
| 30417 | Appellant, proceeding pro se, did not file a proper brief in accordance with App.R. 16(A). Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
8/29/2025
|
8/29/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3093 |
|
Brazie v. State Bd. of Edn.
| 30439 | Civ.R. 60(B) is not applicable in an administrative appeal before a common pleas court. The trial court correctly overruled appellant’s “motion to re-open” the dismissal of his administrative appeal for failure to prosecute. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
8/22/2025
|
8/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3000 |
|
Easter v. Sobol
| 30351 | The trial court did not err in entering summary judgment against the appellants because their wrongful death claim was barred by collateral estoppel and their claim for negligent hiring, training, or supervision was barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
8/22/2025
|
8/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3004 |
|
In re Adoption of E.G.B.
| 30432 & 30433 | The probate court’s determination that appellant’s consent to the adoption of her two children was not required was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
8/22/2025
|
8/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3005 |
|
Sumner v. Roofing Co.
| 30441 | The trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s Consumer Sales Practices Act ("CSPA") claims against appellee, an officer and co-owner of a roofing company, for failure to state a claim. Appellant alleged that appellee had visited her property on behalf of the roofing company and had engaged in numerous acts, including an inspection, preparation of an estimate, responding to her complaints about the quality of the workmanship, and offering to remediate deficiencies at no cost, but eventually disappeared without providing the promised remediation. A corporate officer can be held individually liable for violations of the CSPA if he actively participated in or directed the actions that led to the violations, even if he did not actually participate in the construction work. Appellant’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim against appellee under the CSPA. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Montgomery |
8/22/2025
|
8/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3006 |
|
Trotwood v. Thomas
| 30428 | Appellant may not challenge on appeal the terms of an agreed order. Moreover, his brief does not identify an assignment of error for us to review. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
8/22/2025
|
8/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3007 |
|
Absolute Resolutions Invests., L.L.C. v. Moran
| 2025-CA-1 | In an action on account, appellee submitted proper documentary evidence to support its motion for summary judgment, and appellant did not respond with any Civ.R. 56(C) evidence from which the court could have found that appellant did not own the account or did not owe the amount due. The trial court did not err by denying appellant’s motion to compel arbitration where, before seeking arbitration, she had engaged in defending appellee’s claim for more than eight months and had invoked the jurisdiction of the trial court by asserting her own counterclaims, which were not subject to the arbitration provision. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Miami |
8/22/2025
|
8/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2999 |
|
C.K.R.M. v. K.O.H.
| 2025-CA-18 | The trial court did not err in rejecting appellant’s filing, which challenged the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s final civil stalking protection order ("CSPO"). If construed as a motion to terminate and vacate the CSPO, appellant did not provide a valid basis for the motion. If construed as objections and deemed timely due to lack of service, appellant failed to file a transcript to support his objections, and we would presume the regularity of the trial court’s proceedings. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
8/22/2025
|
8/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3001 |
|
State v. Crowley
| 2024-CA-66 & 2024-CA-76 | Appellant’s conviction for tampering with evidence was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the jury could have reasonably concluded that he concealed the murder weapon behind a safe in the trunk of his car to prevent its availability as evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering appellant to pay the minimum mandatory fine of $5,000 for his third-degree felony offense of trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound. Judgments affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
8/22/2025
|
8/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3002 |
|
State v. Duncan
| 2025-CA-5 & 2025-CA-6 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s post-conviction motions, which were based on the faulty premise that the sentences imposed by the trial court differed from the sentences contemplated by the plea agreement. Judgments affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
8/22/2025
|
8/22/2025
| 2025-Ohio-3003 |
|
State v. Cunningham
| 2024-CA-81 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled appellant’s request for new appointed counsel on the day of trial. Appellant’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The trial court did not err by imposing a maximum prison sentence. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
8/15/2025
|
8/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2894 |
|
State v. Rutter
| 2025-CA-7 | Appellant appealed from the imposition of a six-month jail sentence for violating his community control for nonsupport of dependents. Because he has completely served that jail sentence and his community control has been terminated, his appeal is moot. Appeal dismissed. | Epley | Miami |
8/15/2025
|
8/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2899 |
|
State v. Bowman
| 2025-CA-9 | The trial court properly denied appellant’s application for postconviction DNA testing, although its reasoning was flawed. Any exclusion results would not have been outcome determinative because ample non-DNA evidence indicated appellant had murdered his wife. The court followed the statute by giving a reason for denying the application. The fact that the trial court did not give the State a chance to respond to the application before entering its decision did not prejudice appellant. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Darke |
8/15/2025
|
8/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2893 |
|
Huber v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
| 30379 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in affirming an administrative decision that appellant had abandoned his state hearing on the denial of Medicaid benefits. Appellant did not appear for a hearing as scheduled and did not establish good cause for his failure. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
8/15/2025
|
8/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2895 |
|
In re N.R.
| 30348; 30354 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting legal custody of the child to Father. The court reviewed the applicable statutory factors and found that custody to Father was in the child’s best interest. The trial court’s denial of children services’ motion for permanent custody was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and was supported by sufficient evidence, as the agency failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that permanent custody with the agency was in the child’s best interest. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
8/15/2025
|
8/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2896 |
|
OTARMA v. Miami Twp.
| 30362 | Appellee was entitled to recover attorney fees and costs it incurred in defending appellants pursuant to court orders after no duty to defend existed. However, the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing on the necessity and reasonableness of the fees and costs. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a hearing on the necessity and reasonableness of attorney fees and costs. | Tucker | Montgomery |
8/15/2025
|
8/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2897 |
|
State v. Ross
| 30398 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s application for post-conviction DNA testing. Any potential exclusion results would not be outcome determinative due to reliable identification and previous DNA results linking appellant to the crime. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
8/15/2025
|
8/15/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2898 |
|
State v. Wildman
| 30322 | Appellant’s conviction for abduction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
8/8/2025
|
8/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2793 |
|
State v. Pizzo
| 2025-CA-11 | Appellant appeals from two misdemeanor convictions, claiming that the trial court erred in failing to notify him of his jail-time credit at sentencing. Because appellant has completely served his jail sentence in one case, his appeal from that case is dismissed as moot. No jail term was imposed in the second case. Because no other error has been assigned in the second case, that judgment is affirmed. | Epley | Miami |
8/8/2025
|
8/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2790 |
|
State v. Allen
| 2024-CA-73 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s petition for postconviction relief without a hearing. His claims were barred by res judicata or belied by the record. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
8/8/2025
|
8/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2789 |
|
State v. Scerba
| 2024-CA-79 | The trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. The police officer’s encounter with appellant was not consensual, the officer did not identify any suspected traffic infraction or proceed as if to issue a citation, and he lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion of other criminal activity when he detained appellant. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Clark |
8/8/2025
|
8/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2791 |
|
State v. Wells
| 2024-CA-82 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling appellant’s Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial, which was based on newly discovered evidence of appellant’s purported incompetence to stand trial. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Clark |
8/8/2025
|
8/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2792 |
|
State v. Youngblood
| 2024-CA-72 | The record does not affirmatively demonstrate that the trial court failed to consider the youth-mitigation factors in R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b) when sentencing appellant, who was 17 years old when he committed the offense. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
8/8/2025
|
8/8/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2794 |
|
State v. Harrison
| 2024-CA-77 | Appellant’s guilty plea to burglary rendered moot her motion to suppress. The trial court properly advised her of the effect of her plea, and her plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s presentence motion to withdraw her guilty plea, which it found was merely based upon a change of heart. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
8/1/2025
|
8/1/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2705 |
|
State v. Bansobeza
| 30294 | One of appellant’s kidnapping convictions was not supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit evidence of appellant’s law-abiding nature, and no cumulative error denied appellant the right to a fair trial. The State concedes error concerning the trial court’s failure to provide Reagan Tokes notifications. Judgment affirmed in part, vacated in part, and reversed and remanded for resentencing. (Huffman, J., concurring.) | Hanseman | Montgomery |
8/1/2025
|
8/1/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2704 |
|
In re Estate of Oburn
| 30325 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s application for a fiduciary fee for her work as administrator of decedent’s estate. Even if appellant was authorized by statute to receive a fiduciary fee based on a wrongful-death settlement, which was not part of decedent’s estate, she failed to identify any source of funds from which she could be compensated. Decedent’s estate had no assets to pay the fiduciary fee, and the wrongful-death statute did not entitle her to a portion of the settlement proceeds. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
8/1/2025
|
8/1/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2706 |
|
State v. Peaks
| 30238 | The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s motions for discretionary transfers of appellant’s cases to the general division of the common pleas court for trial as an adult. The juvenile court reasonably concluded that appellant, who was 15 years old, was not amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system and that the safety of the community required that appellant be subject to adult sanctions. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
8/1/2025
|
8/1/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2707 |
|
State v. Russell
| 30421 | Appellant was properly advised regarding post-release control at the sentencing hearing and in the judgment entry. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
7/25/2025
|
7/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2612 |
|
Tan v. Dir. of Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
| 30405 | The trial court did not err in affirming an administrative decision which found that appellant was discharged from her employment for just cause. The decision was lawful and reasonable and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. There was also no evidence of bias on the hearing officer’s part. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
7/25/2025
|
7/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2614 |
|
State v. Bowen
| 2024-CA-57 | Appellant’s six convictions for theft of drugs were based on insufficient evidence; her conviction for theft of currency was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The record does not reflect that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by allegedly failing to review or receive discovery, failing to disclose that he was subject to a stayed suspension of his law license, rejecting a plea offer without discussing it with appellant, or failing to seek dismissal on speedy trial grounds. The prosecutor did not engage in misconduct regarding the disclosure or presentation of evidence or during his closing argument. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial. Any error in the trial court’s imposition of a prison sentence rather than community control is moot. Convictions for theft of drugs vacated; conviction for theft affirmed. Remanded for the trial court to facilitate appellant’s release from prison. | Lewis | Clark |
7/25/2025
|
7/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2610 |
|
State v. Taylor
| 2024-CA-74 | Appellant’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise competency concerns, because no evidence presented a reasonable question as to whether he was incompetent. Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law, as it was within the statutory range and the court considered R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
7/25/2025
|
7/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2615 |
|
State v. Pratt
| 2025-CA-1 | The trial court erred in finding appellant guilty of a violation of R.C. 951.02 following a no contest plea; there was insufficient evidence in the statement of circumstances that appellant had acted recklessly. Judgment vacated. | Lewis | Champaign |
7/25/2025
|
7/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2611 |
|
State v. Armstrong
| 2024-CA-72 | The trial court did not err by denying appellant’s motion to dismiss his case or exclude video evidence where the State’s failure to collect and preserve certain video evidence did not violate Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) or Crim.R. 16. The trial court also did not err by granting two motions in limine filed by the State to exclude evidence that was inadmissible on relevancy grounds. In that appellant entered a no contest plea, the trial court’s ruling on a third motion in limine was not preserved for appellate review because it did not determine the admissibility of evidence with finality. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Greene |
7/25/2025
|
7/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2609 |
|
State v. Russell
| 2024-CA-67 | Appellant’s conviction for felonious assault was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court reasonably rejected his not guilty by reason of insanity defense. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Greene |
7/25/2025
|
7/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2613 |
|
State v. Jacks
| 2024-CA-39 | Appellant was not denied her constitutional or statutory right to a speedy trial, and her trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to raise those claims in the trial court. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to declare a mistrial after a key defense witness was allowed to testify remotely via Zoom because she was unable to appear in person. Judgment affirmed. (Huffman, J., concurring.) | Hanseman | Clark |
7/18/2025
|
7/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2541 |
|