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

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Search Truncation Warning:
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-    What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 174 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Skirvin 2017-CA-26The trial court erred when it ordered appellant to pay court-appointed counsel fees without making an explicit finding on the record regarding appellant’s present and future ability to pay those fees. The trial court also erred in failing to specify the amount of court-appointed counsel fees that appellant could reasonably be expected to repay. The trial court did not err, however, by ordering the Clerk of Court to provide the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction with a certified copy of the judgment showing the total amount of financial obligations appellant owed for purposes of garnishing appellant’s prison account under Ohio Adm.Code 5120-5-03 and R.C. 5120.133. The judgment is reversed insofar as it ordered appellant to pay court-appointed counsel fees, and the matter is remanded for resentencing. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. (Donovan, J., concurring in judgment only.)WelbaumChampaign 5/24/2019 5/24/2019 2019-Ohio-2040
State v. Bonaparte 2018-CA-61Appellant was convicted following a jury trial and, after the merger of two counts, he was sentenced on two counts of murder, with firearm specifications, and one count of tampering with evidence, with a firearm specification. The convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, and they were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by failing to merge the murder counts, because each count involved a separate victim, or by failing to merge the tampering with evidence count with the murder counts. The record does not establish that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by not filing a motion to suppress the photographic identifications made by two witnesses, by not pursuing the defense of self-defense, or by not requesting a jury instruction on the inferior offense of voluntary manslaughter. Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 5/24/2019 5/24/2019 2019-Ohio-2030
Hornbeck v. Hornbeck 2018-CA-75The trial court erred as a matter of law by refusing to consider a date prior to the parties’ ceremonial marriage for purposes of making an equitable division of property. Under R.C. 3105.171(A)(2)(b), trial courts have discretion to apply an earlier date to make an equitable distribution of property. The trial court also erred in failing to equitably divide the equity in the real estate that accrued during marriage and in failing to award expert fees to appellant. The court shall reconsider its decisions refusing to require that the parties amend their tax returns to file jointly, to award spousal support, and to make a distributive award, in light of this decision. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering discovery issues, in finding that appellant was voluntarily underemployed, in finding that appellee was not voluntarily underemployed, in failing to make specific findings on waste and financial misconduct, in failing to specifically rule on a contempt motion, in assessing credibility, or in rejecting appellant’s claim that she was prevented from working due to her health. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. (Froelich, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.)WelbaumClark 5/24/2019 5/24/2019 2019-Ohio-2035
State v. Keeton 2018-CA-89The appellant’s domestic-violence conviction was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The record supports a finding that the victim was a “family or household member” because the appellant is the biological parent of one of her children. Judgment affirmed.HallClark 5/24/2019 5/24/2019 2019-Ohio-2039
State v. Hemmelgarn 2018-CA-7The appellant’s convictions for gross sexual imposition and disseminating matter harmful to juveniles were supported by legally sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err in admitting into evidence testimony about the appellant’s drug use and excerpts of his recorded interview at the police department. The objection to playing the recorded excerpts was that the recording took the appellant’s statements out of context, but the trial court authorized defense counsel to play any additional portions of the interview deemed necessary. The trial court did not err in allowing a police officer to provide lay-witness testimony about the extraction of data from the appellant’s cell phone. No cumulative error deprived the appellant of a fair trial. Judgment affirmed.HallDarke 5/24/2019 5/24/2019 2019-Ohio-2034
State v. Dotson 2018-CA-25Appellate court’s examination of the record following appellate counsel’s filing of Anders brief disclosed no non-frivolous issues for review. Although specific elements necessary to prove defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense to which he was entering a plea were not enumerated on the record during the plea hearing, the record demonstrates that defendant, in consultation with counsel, was aware of the nature of the charge and the consequences of his plea, and his guilty plea therefore was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Judgment affirmed. (Welbaum, P.J., concurring in judgment only.)FroelichMiami 5/24/2019 5/24/2019 2019-Ohio-2032
Calicoat v. Calicoat 28134The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate a child support order filed several years earlier. The motion was untimely, and the record did not support his claim that he had been unaware of the order. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 5/24/2019 5/24/2019 2019-Ohio-2031
State v. Graham 28019The trial court did not commit reversible error when it barred appellant from referencing an entrapment defense prior to presenting some evidence of entrapment, and appellant did not present sufficient entrapment evidence at trial to submit the defense to the jury. Appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to proffer entrapment evidence is without merit insofar as there is no basis to conclude that there was evidence of entrapment to present or proffer. Judgment affirmed. (Donovan, J., dissenting.)HallMontgomery 5/24/2019 5/24/2019 2019-Ohio-2033
In re A.C. 28275Father appeals from the termination of his parental rights and the grant of permanent custody of his three children to the county children services agency. The trial court’s determination that awarding permanent custody to the agency was in the best interest of the children was supported by clear and convincing evidence. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 5/24/2019 5/24/2019 2019-Ohio-2036
In re I.R. 28160The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant-grandmother failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that appellee-father was unsuitable to parent his child. Therefore, the trial court did not err in awarding the appellee legal custody. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 5/24/2019 5/24/2019 2019-Ohio-2037
12345678910...>>