Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-    What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 72 rows. Rows per page: 
12
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Reyes 2023-CA-39Appellant’s guilty plea following the trial court’s denial of bail rendered moot his argument that the trial court should not have denied him bail, and the matter is not one of great public or general interest such that we may consider it despite its mootness. Moreover, appellant’s argument that the trial court should not have denied bail is without merit under any of the standards of review applied by other appellate courts. He was indicted for a qualifying offense, and there was strong evidence that he committed the offense, that he posed a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or to the community, and that no release conditions would reasonably assure the safety of that person or the community. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanChampaign 3/15/2024 3/15/2024 2024-Ohio-977
State v. Isa 2023-CA-28The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s application for DNA testing, motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial, and request to obtain the discovery in appellant’s trial court case under the Ohio Public Records Act. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumChampaign 3/15/2024 3/15/2024 2024-Ohio-980
State v. Bevard 2023-CA-15The trial court’s statement during a plea hearing about appellant’s two offenses not merging as allied offenses did not invalidate his guilty plea. The trial court’s tentative assessment of the issue repeated what defense counsel already had told appellant and was supported by case law. Judgment affirmed.TuckerChampaign 3/15/2024 3/15/2024 2024-Ohio-982
State v. Harrell 2022-CA-50The trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from his illegal detention. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s untimely motion to suppress pretrial identification evidence. Because the State presented sufficient evidence to support each of appellant’s convictions, double jeopardy does not preclude the State from retrying appellant. Other issues and assignments of error are rendered moot by our determination of the suppression issue related to appellant’s illegal detention, which necessitates the reversal of his convictions. Judgment reversed and remanded.LewisClark 3/15/2024 3/15/2024 2024-Ohio-981
State v. Leach 2023-CA-34State’s appeal. The trial court erred in granting appellee jail-time credit for days he served in prison for an unrelated case while the current case was pending. Further, the sentences in the current case were imposed consecutively to those in the unrelated case, and jail-time credit is not available in such situations. Judgment reversed only as to jail-time credit and remanded for issuance of a new judgment entry omitting jail-time credit.WelbaumGreene 3/15/2024 3/15/2024 2024-Ohio-978
State v. Abney 2023-CA-49Appellant’s 18-month concurrent sentences for domestic violence and vandalism are not contrary to law. Appellant’s argument that the trial court should have sentenced her to community control, rather than prison, is precluded by State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. Judgment affirmed.EpleyGreene 3/15/2024 3/15/2024 2024-Ohio-983
Kelley v. Dayton Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn. 29904The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee on appellant’s race discrimination and sex discrimination claims. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 3/15/2024 3/15/2024 2024-Ohio-979
Westerling v. Westerling 2023-CA-38The trial court’s judgment granting custody of the parties’ two minor children to the appellee did not constitute an abuse of discretion and was not against the weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 3/8/2024 3/8/2024 2024-Ohio-859
State v. Hudson 2023-CA-25The trial court did not err in its imposition of consecutive sentences. The consecutive sentencing findings were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgments affirmed.EpleyChampaign 3/8/2024 3/8/2024 2024-Ohio-866
State v. Snyder 29933The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief without a hearing where the petition failed to state a substantive ground for relief. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 3/8/2024 3/8/2024 2024-Ohio-861
Rehmert v. Rehmert 29860The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the de facto date of the termination of the parties’ marriage, in dividing marital and nonmarital property, or in rejecting appellant’s claims of financial misconduct. Ineffective assistance of counsel is not properly raised on appeal from a divorce proceeding. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 3/8/2024 3/8/2024 2024-Ohio-862
State v. Moody 29885Appellant’s successive petition for postconviction relief was untimely and barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 3/8/2024 3/8/2024 2024-Ohio-864
State v. Beall 29866In considering appellant’s pro se petition for post-conviction relief, the trial court properly determined that its subject-matter jurisdiction was not at issue. The petition was successive and untimely, and appellant did not establish that his untimely filing was justified under either of the exceptions set forth in R.C. 2953.23(A). As such, appellant was not entitled to a hearing on his petition. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 3/1/2024 3/1/2024 2024-Ohio-750
State v. Crawl 29859Appellant’s conviction for menacing by stalking was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 3/1/2024 3/1/2024 2024-Ohio-752
FIG 20, L.L.C. FBO SEC PTY v. He 29910The trial court properly granted summary judgment to tax certificate holder on its foreclosure action. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 3/1/2024 3/1/2024 2024-Ohio-754
In re R.S.H.-F. 29949The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding Mother was not in contempt for missed parenting time, missed FaceTime calls, or a lack of communication. The trial court also did not err when it found no change in circumstances that justified a reallocation of parental rights and responsibilities. Because the trial court found no change in circumstances, it did not err by failing to do a best interest of the child analysis, which is only necessary after finding a change in circumstances. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it calculated child support. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 3/1/2024 3/1/2024 2024-Ohio-755
Williams v. Williams 29892The probate court erred in entering a default judgment against appellant in a concealment action. R.C. 2109.50 et seq. set forth a special proceeding which requires the probate court to investigate and make a finding of guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented when someone is accused of concealment or embezzlement of assets of a guardianship. Because the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, the court is required to compel the accused’s appearance to be examined, which can be accomplished by committing the person to jail, if necessary. The trial court failed to comply with these statutory provisions when appellant failed to appear at a hearing. The court also erred in entering a default judgment, which is not contemplated by the statutes in question. Judgment reversed and remanded.LewisMontgomery 3/1/2024 3/1/2024 2024-Ohio-758
State v. Deer 2023-CA-35The trial court did not err in imposing maximum and consecutive sentences. Judgment affirmed.LewisGreene 3/1/2024 3/1/2024 2024-Ohio-753
State v. Clark 2023-CA-22Conceded error. The trial court erred by not informing appellant at the sentencing hearing of the jail time credit, if any, to which he was entitled and by not including the jail time credit calculation in the judgment entry. Judgment reversed and remanded.TuckerClark 3/1/2024 3/1/2024 2024-Ohio-751
State v. Lewis 2023-CA-24The judgment of the trial court was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanChampaign 3/1/2024 3/1/2024 2024-Ohio-756
State v. O'Mara 2023-CA-12Appellant served her prison term, was released from prison, and is not on post-release control or other supervision. Because appellant has challenged only the trial court’s decision to impose a prison term rather than community control sanctions, there is no relief that can be provided. Appeal dismissed as moot.WelbaumChampaign 3/1/2024 3/1/2024 2024-Ohio-757
Baker v. Baker 29915Appellant failed to appear at the final divorce hearing and thus did not produce evidence at trial relevant to the property division or spousal support. As such, appellant waived any error in the trial court’s property division and spousal support determinations. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 2/23/2024 2/23/2024 2024-Ohio-678
State v. Hamlett 29923The trial court did not commit plain error by making comments and taking a recess during appellant’s bench trial, and its conduct did not deprive appellant of the effective assistance of counsel. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 2/23/2024 2/23/2024 2024-Ohio-679
In re J.B. 29921The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding sole legal custody of two children to their material grandmother. Although the trial court found a change of circumstances (the divorce of the grandparents, who had legal custody of the children prior to the divorce), it reasonably concluded that it was in the best interest of the children for maternal grandmother, rather than Mother, to have legal custody. Judgments affirmed.LewisMontgomery 2/23/2024 2/23/2024 2024-Ohio-680
In re S.W. 29874The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in awarding temporary custody of appellant’s children to a children’s services agency. The court’s decision was supported by competent, credible evidence. Appellant’s trial counsel also did not act ineffectively by failing to call appellant’s therapist as a witness. This choice was a matter of trial strategy, and appellant’s unsubstantiated statement at trial that his therapist would have testified as to his completion of his case plan was irrelevant. Judgments affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 2/23/2024 2/23/2024 2024-Ohio-681
In re Adoption of U.I. 29908The probate court erred by dismissing appellant’s adoption petitions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where appellant was a lawful permanent resident who was attempting to adopt her two grandchildren, who also were lawful permanent residents. The probate court abused its discretion by dismissing the adoption petitions for failure to prosecute solely due to appellant’s failure to advance court costs after the court found appellant was indigent. Judgments reversed and remanded.LewisMontgomery 2/23/2024 2/23/2024 2024-Ohio-682
State v. Jones 29784The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), to challenge the veracity of allegations in two search-warrant affidavits. Appellant failed to make a substantial threshold showing of false statements or material omissions in the affidavits. The record does not portray ineffective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s handling of the Franks issue. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 2/23/2024 2/23/2024 2024-Ohio-683
State v. Turner 29785The trial court did not err by denying appellant’s motion to sever the 18 charges for which he was indicted. Joinder of all the charges was appropriate given that the evidence supporting each charge was simple and direct. The trial court also correctly determined that appellant’s various rape, kidnapping, abduction, and assault offenses were not allied offenses of similar import that merged. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 2/23/2024 2/23/2024 2024-Ohio-684
State v. Whitfield 29442No speedy-trial violation occurred where the trial court postponed appellant’s trial date due to appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and the appointment of new counsel. Speedy-trial time was tolled during the delay at issue pursuant to R.C. 2945.72(E), which tolls speedy-trial time for any period of delay “necessitated” by a defendant’s motion. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 2/23/2024 2/23/2024 2024-Ohio-685
State v. Akins 29619A trial court’s failure to inform appellant that a jury verdict must be unanimous to convict him did not render appellant’s guilty plea less than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 2/16/2024 2/16/2024 2024-Ohio-598
State v. Jennings 29895The traffic stop of the vehicle in which appellant was a passenger was not prolonged to allow for a canine air sniff, and the dog’s alert to the presence of drugs provided probable cause for the vehicle to be searched. The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. The record establishes that appellant’s no contest plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Because appellant was sentenced to a term of community control sanctions, the trial court did not err by not including a jail-time credit calculation in the judgment entry. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 2/16/2024 2/16/2024 2024-Ohio-602
State v. Pitts 29649The trial court did not err by ordering appellant to register as an arson offender. The registry does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 2/16/2024 2/16/2024 2024-Ohio-603
State v. Dunn 2023-CA-24When the complaining witness failed to appear for trial, the trial court found that the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception to the hearsay rule applied to the use of her prior statements at trial, because appellant had sent a threatening letter to her from jail and had had repeated contact with her by phone notwithstanding a no-contact order. Appellant waived any argument that the trial court erred in finding forfeiture by wrongdoing by subsequently entering a guilty plea to intimidation. Ineffective assistance of counsel is not demonstrated in defense counsel’s alleged failure to advise appellant to plead no contest, and the record reflects that the trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 in accepting appellant’s guilty plea. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanClark 2/16/2024 2/16/2024 2024-Ohio-600
State v. Dehart 2023-CA-8In response to a knock on the driver’s side window of his parked car, appellant opened his door and conversed with a sheriff’s deputy who requested and received consent to search the vehicle. Given that appellant authorized the deputy to search the car during a consensual encounter, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumDarke 2/16/2024 2/16/2024 2024-Ohio-599
In re A.A.R. 2023-CA-39 & 2023-CA-40The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding legal custody of three children to their uncle in Arizona. Mother and Father failed to complete their case plan objectives, which included addressing mental health, drug use, and parenting issues, and granting legal custody to the uncle was in the best interest of the children. Judgments affirmed.HuffmanGreene 2/16/2024 2/16/2024 2024-Ohio-601
In re D.P. 2023-CA-33, 2023-CA-36, 2023-CA-37, 2023-CA-38, 2023-CA-41The juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody to Children Services was supported by sufficient evidence and the weight of the evidence. Judgments affirmed.EpleyGreene 2/9/2024 2/9/2024 2024-Ohio-480
Haught v. Kettering 29864The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment against appellant, who sought injunctive relief against a municipality. Appellant did not appeal from notices and orders concerning property violations and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before resorting to the common pleas court. As a result, appellant’s claim was precluded. For the same reasons, appellant failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 2/9/2024 2/9/2024 2024-Ohio-479
State v. Lauderdale 29753Appellant’s conviction for gross sexual imposition was supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to give a curative jury instruction after appellant’s mother engaged in disruptive behavior in the gallery and after the victim had an emotional outburst while testifying. Appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to move for a mistrial or, alternatively, a curative jury instruction after the jury observed the disruptive behavior of appellants’ mother and the victim’s emotional outburst. The State did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct by referring to the victim’s emotional outburst during its closing argument. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling appellant’s post-verdict motion for new trial without holding a hearing or reviewing the medical records that were at issue in the motion. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 2/9/2024 2/9/2024 2024-Ohio-481
McGinnis v. Conley 29871Even assuming that appellees failed to give timely written notice of their exercise of a real-estate purchase option, that failure did not terminate the parties’ option-to-purchase agreement. Appellants breached the agreement by declaring the option terminated and by refusing to sell the property to appellees at the agreed price. Although appellees often paid their rent during a five-day grace period and twice paid after the grace period, appellants never declared the lease void and did not purport to terminate the option-to-purchase agreement on the basis of delinquent payments. Appellants waived any argument about the option-to-purchase agreement lacking consideration by failing to raise the issue at trial. Finally, a defective or missing acknowledgement does not affect the validity of a real-estate transaction in the absence of fraud. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 2/9/2024 2/9/2024 2024-Ohio-482
Rajkumari v. Damke 29812The trial court’s denial of appellant’s petition for a civil stalking order was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 2/9/2024 2/9/2024 2024-Ohio-483
State v. Walker 29729The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress where the search warrant at issue was supported by probable cause. Appellant’s convictions for having weapons while under disability were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to present a separate closing argument for the bench trial portion of the case after giving a closing argument during the jury trial portion of the case. Trial counsel also was not ineffective in declining to present additional mitigating evidence at sentencing. Finally, the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 2/9/2024 2/9/2024 2024-Ohio-484
Fabian v. Kettering 29848The trial court erred in granting appellees’ Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings on all counts; after consideration of res judicata and immunity, there remained one viable claim. However, because appellant did not respond to the motion for judgment on the pleadings and did not raise any issues for the trial court to consider, he waived any potential errors that could have been brought to the trial court’s attention. We decline to find plain error on the trial court’s part for dismissing the case for want of prosecution. Judgment affirmed. (Welbaum, J., dissenting.)EpleyMontgomery 2/2/2024 2/2/2024 2024-Ohio-360
State v. Greene 29836 & 29837The trial court was not required to make consecutive sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when it revoked appellant’s community control sanctions and imposed consecutive prison sentences. Appellant had previously agreed to consecutive sentences in the event of revocation and was bound by his agreement. Appellants’ sentences, therefore, are not subject to review on appeal under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). Judgments affirmed. (Epley, P.J., concurring in judgment only.)WelbaumMontgomery 2/2/2024 2/2/2024 2024-Ohio-363
Townsend v. Kettering 29853The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant’s case for lack of prosecution. The litigation’s history indicates that appellant was dilatory in conducting discovery, failed to comply with court deadlines, and had received a number of continuances. Appellant’s last-minute attempts to delay trial, including filing a frivolous appeal, also displayed disregard for the court system. In addition, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to continue the trial date. Under established factors governing evaluation of continuances, no factors weighed in appellant’s favor. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 2/2/2024 2/2/2024 2024-Ohio-365
Warman v. Select Auto 29839The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant-car dealership’s motion to set aside the default judgment on liability and to file its answer out of time. In calculating the amount of appellee-car buyer’s damages, the trial court reasonably used a subsequent appraisal value, as offered by appellee, as the actual value at the time of the sale. However, the trial court erred in its calculation of actual damages by using the total cost of the vehicle, including finance charges and other costs, as the vehicle’s represented value. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for recalculation of actual and treble/punitive damages.LewisMontgomery 2/2/2024 2/2/2024 2024-Ohio-366
State v. Young 2023-CA-45The trial court did not err in finding that the offense of attempted aggravated assault is an offense of violence, thus permitting the court to impose a prison sentence. The trial court properly considered the purposes and principles of sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors in sentencing appellant to a prison term. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanGreene 2/2/2024 2/2/2024 2024-Ohio-367
State v. Fowler 2022-CA-28The trial court did not err by failing to suppress appellant’s statements to detectives where appellant validly waived his Miranda rights and where appellant’s statements were not the product of impermissible, coercive police conduct. In addition, the trial court properly admitted certain records from Google at trial as self-authenticating documents under Evid.R. 902(11). Because the Google records were not testimonial in nature, their admission did not violate appellant’s right of confrontation. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMiami 2/2/2024 2/2/2024 2024-Ohio-361
State v. Rumbaugh 2023-CA-8Appellant’s convictions for failure to stop after an accident and failure to maintain an assured clear distance ahead were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where an eyewitness identified appellant as the driver of the vehicle that crashed into the back of a stationary car on an exit ramp of an interstate and left the scene of the accident. Judgment affirmed.LewisMiami 2/2/2024 2/2/2024 2024-Ohio-364
Capital One, N.A. v. Howard 2023-CA-25The trial court did not err when it granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Appellee met its burden under Civ.R. 56 to demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact existed to warrant a trial. Appellant did not respond to the motion, and hence did not meet his burden. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMiami 1/29/2024 1/31/2024 2024-Ohio-275
U.S. Bank N.A. v. Clarke 2023-CA-29The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to appellee-mortgagee in a foreclosure action where mortgagee failed to establish that it had sent a notice of default to appellant-mortgagor. The record does not establish that the trial court erred by overruling mortgagor’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement where mortgagor was unable to make the payment required by the settlement agreement, the trial court rescinded the settlement agreement, the trial court reactivated the case on the active trial docket, and the case was then voluntarily dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Civ.R. 41. The record does not establish that the mortgagee failed to file its foreclosure action within the applicable statute of limitations. Judgment reversed and remanded.LewisGreene 1/26/2024 1/26/2024 2024-Ohio-278
12