|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Allen
| 2025-CA-20 | Appellant’s arguments that the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) and 2929.15(B)(3) at his disposition hearings are barred by res judicata, and even if the merits could be considered, in the absence of a transcript of those proceedings, we presume regularity. Appellant’s violation of the relocation requirement of his community control sanctions was nontechnical, and he was subject to revocation and incarceration. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to continue his community control violation hearing. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-948 |
|
In re Adoption of J.T.S.
| 2025-CA-62 | The probate court erred in granting appellee-intervenor’s motion to intervene in an adoption proceeding and concluding that appellee was entitled to notice and to withhold his consent in the adoption. Appellee was not entitled to notice of the adoption petition under R.C. 3107.11, nor was his consent required under R.C. 3107.06(B) or 3107.06(A)(3). Appellee had not timely registered with the Ohio Putative Father Registry as required under R.C. 3107.07(B)(1). And although appellee filed a parentage action in the juvenile court nine days before the adoption petition was filed, prior to the petition’s filing, no judicial proceeding had determined that a parent-child relationship existed between appellee and the child. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Clark |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-951 |
|
State v. Martin
| 2025-CA-35 | The trial court erred in accepting appellant’s Alford plea to attempted murder. The trial court did not inquire into the State’s evidence supporting the charge. The trial court also did not inquire about defense counsel’s investigation into the strength of the State’s case or counsel’s recommendations to appellant. The trial court received merely a recitation of appellant’s indictment, which is not a sufficient factual basis for a defendant to enter an Alford plea. Absent a proper Alford plea hearing, appellant’s plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Appellant’s plea vacated, trial court judgment reversed, and matter remanded. | Hanseman | Clark |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-954 |
|
Legacy Real Estate Investing, L.L.C. v. Maldonado Constr., L.L.C.
| 2025-CA-34 | The trial court abused its discretion when it imposed sanctions against appellant for pursuing an oral motion for Spanish-language interpreter on the morning of trial. The record does not support a reasonable conclusion that the motion was brought for purposes of delay and had caused a delay. Judgment reversed. | Epley | Miami |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-953 |
|
State v. Brown
| 30569 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s public records request pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(8). Appellant failed to identify a pending proceeding to which the records would be material and how the records would be material to any justiciable claim. Appellant’s right to due process was not violated where he received notice and an opportunity to be heard in both the trial court and on appeal. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-949 |
|
In re C.B.G.
| 30624 | Appellant, who was a 17-year-old juvenile, was charged in juvenile court with conduct that if committed by an adult would have constituted the offense of felonious assault (serious physical harm). Appellee filed a motion that requested transfer of the case to the common pleas court’s general division so that appellant could have been tried as an adult. Appellant, through a bill of information, was charged with felonious assault (serious physical harm) along with a serious youthful offender specification under R.C. 2152.13. The juvenile court imposed a juvenile adjudication and an adult sentence, which was stayed pending appellant’s successful completion of the juvenile adjudication. Because the case remained at all times in the juvenile court, the court erred by stating in its judgment entry that appellant pleaded guilty to felonious assault (serious physical harm), that the court accepted the guilty plea, and that appellant was convicted of felonious assault (serious physical harm). Judgment reversed and remanded. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-950 |
|
State v. Kiser
| 30647 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress methamphetamine found in his parked car. The community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution authorized a police officer to open appellant’s car door, exposing the drugs to plain view. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-952 |
|
State v. Shackleford
| 30621 | The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s motion to vacate postrelease control where the argument raised in the motion is barred by res judicata and otherwise lacks merit. Judgment affirmed and matter remanded to the trial court for the sole purpose of amending the sentencing entry nunc pro tunc to delete certain language that was mistakenly added to the entry when it was amended in 2011. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
3/20/2026
|
3/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-955 |
|
State v. Hearns
| 30491 | The trial court abused its discretion by ordering appellant to pay $41,850 in restitution for property damage in connection with appellant’s hit-skip conviction where the property damage was not a direct and proximate result of the hit-skip offense. Under R.C. 4549.02(B)(4) and/or R.C. 4549.03(B), the trial court had authority to impose restitution in an amount not exceeding $5,000 for damage that was the direct and proximate result of appellant operating his vehicle before, during, or after he committed the hit-skip offense. The trial court erred by finding that the $5,000 statutory cap on restitution was superseded by Marsy’s Law and by failing to apply the statutory cap. Judgment reversed and matter remanded to the trial court for the purpose of reimposing restitution in accordance with the law. (Huffman, J., concurring.) | Hanseman | Montgomery |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-854 |
|
In re Estate of Troutman
| 30573 | The probate court erred in vacating a 2003 judgment determining heirship under its inherent authority where the judgment was potentially voidable, not void. Appellant-heir’s claim that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to determine the heirs of a non-resident decedent was not ripe for review. Heir’s claim that the probate court had improperly attempted to divest a deceased heir’s vested rights was moot. Judgment reversed. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-855 |
|
Mesenbrick v. Hartley
| 30459 | The trial court’s dismissal without prejudice under Civ.R. 41(B)(1) of appellant’s civil action was not a final appealable order. Although the trial court should not have dismissed due to appellant’s failure to obtain substitute counsel, any error in the court’s dismissal was rendered harmless by the parties’ ability to refile their claims. Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-856 |
|
North v. Eichler
| 30614 | Appellant failed to establish that he did not receive proper notice of the final divorce hearing. The trial court’s order providing notice of the hearing stated that a copy of it was sent to appellant’s last-known address by regular U.S. mail, as required by Civ.R. 75(L). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by dividing the parties’ property in half where the trial court relied on appellee’s proposed divorce decree and appellant failed to appear at the final hearing. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-857 |
|
State v. Wilhite
| 30590 | An administrative suspension of appellant’s driver’s license was beyond the scope of his aggravated drug possession case. Assuming that his driver’s license was suspended for failure to consent to a chemical test in connection with a traffic stop, the present case was not the proper forum for appellant to challenge the suspension. Even if appellant could challenge the license suspension in this case, his attorney’s failure to file a timely appeal of the suspension below did not constitute ineffective assistance. The record also does not indicate that the suspension was appealed orally at appellant’s initial appearance on the drug charge. Finally, the trial court’s failure to hold a hearing on the suspension within five days of appellant’s arrest did not deprive him of due process. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-859 |
|
State v. Williams
| 30649 | The trial court erred in sustaining in part appellee’s motion to suppress based on its conclusion that appellee was unlawfully detained beyond the scope of a traffic stop. Seconds after appellee was removed from his vehicle and patted down for officer safety, he fled the scene on foot, which terminated the stop before it was ever prolonged. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-860 |
|
State v. Halderman
| 2025-CA-5 | The trial court erred in designating appellant a sex offender where his misdemeanor conviction of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor did not qualify as a sexually oriented offense under R.C. 2950.01. Prior appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise the issue. This court’s prior judgment affirming the trial court’s judgment is vacated. The trial court’s judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part, and the case is remanded for the vacation of appellant’s sex offender designation. | Tucker | Greene |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-853 |
|
State v. Rivers
| 2025-CA-33 | In this felony sentencing appeal, the trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in imposing sentence, and appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Miami |
3/13/2026
|
3/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-858 |
|
State v. Dominguez-Olivia
| 2025-CA-21 | Neither appellant’s statutory nor his constitutional speedy trial rights were violated. Appellant’s due process rights were not violated by the delay between his criminal activity and the indictment. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
3/6/2026
|
3/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-754 |
|
State v. Fogle
| 30521, 30522, 30523 | The trial court did not commit plain error by ordering appellant to pay restitution of $265.92 after her dog bit a neighbor and attacked the neighbor’s dog. Judgments affirmed in the three consolidated appeals. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/6/2026
|
3/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-755 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 30496 | Appellant has already served the jail sentence imposed by the judgment on appeal, so his appeal is moot. Appeal dismissed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/6/2026
|
3/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-756 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 30506 | In allowing the child victims to testify outside of appellant’s presence without making any of the factual findings regarding necessity required under the child victim testimony statute, the trial court violated appellant’s right to confrontation. The trial court’s error was not harmless because without the children’s testimony, insufficient evidence supported appellant’s convictions as to the children for aggravated menacing and domestic violence (threats). Insufficient evidence supported appellant’s conviction of aggravated menacing in relation to his ex-wife, so the trial court erred in overruling his motion for acquittal. Judgment reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for a new trial on the charges pertaining to the child victims. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/6/2026
|
3/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-757 |
|
State v. Norman
| 30623 | Conceded error. The trial court failed to provide the notifications required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) at sentencing. Judgment reversed and remanded for resentencing in accordance with the Reagan Tokes Act and affirmed in all other respects. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/6/2026
|
3/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-761 |
|
State v. Wilson
| 30594 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motions for public records. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the information he sought was necessary to support a justiciable claim, and his motions were barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/6/2026
|
3/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-763 |
|
Dayton Human Relations Council v. King
| 30497 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it extended the deadline for appellees to file a record of the proceedings before the magistrate in connection with their objections to the magistrate’s decision. There was good cause for the extension, which was authorized under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii). Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
2/27/2026
|
2/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-668 |
|
State v. Fletcher
| 30458 | Appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in taking her guilty plea without properly advising her about merger should have been raised on direct appeal from her original judgment of conviction, as opposed to after her resentencing upon the revocation of her community control sanctions. Res judicata applies. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
2/27/2026
|
2/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-669 |
|
In re E.H.
| 30592 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate mother’s due process rights when it held the permanent custody hearing concerning her child in her absence due to her incarceration. Nor did the court abuse its discretion or violate mother’s due process rights when it denied her motion to continue the permanent custody hearing. The trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate mother’s due process rights when it denied her motions for legal custody to a relative or a nonrelative because, among other reasons, neither proposed legal custodian signed a statement of understanding for legal custody that contained the statutorily required provisions of R.C. 2151.353(A)(3)(a) through (d). | Hanseman | Montgomery |
2/27/2026
|
2/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-670 |
|
McManus v. Foster
| 30591 | On appeal from default judgment on a tax foreclosure claim, appellant cannot raise issues and present evidence that he did not previously provide to the trial court. Trial court did not deny appellant adequate time and opportunity to respond to the complaint. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
2/27/2026
|
2/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-671 |
|
State v. Reid-Payne
| 30554 | The trial court did not err in dismissing the indictment against appellee that alleged one count of carrying a concealed weapon. R.C. 2923.12(A)(2) is unconstitutional as applied to appellee, a 20-year-old who did not have a concealed handgun license. State v. Matosky, 2025-Ohio-5658 (2d Dist.). Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
2/27/2026
|
2/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-672 |
|
U.S. Bank v. Ballard
| 30570 | The issue of appellee’s standing to bring its foreclosure action against appellants was previously determined to be moot, and therefore this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the issue. The trial court did not err in finding that the charges sought by appellee in its foreclosure action against appellants were not Fair Debt Collections Practice Act ("FDCPA") violations. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
2/27/2026
|
2/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-673 |
|
Weber v. Weber
| 30629 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s motion for relief from judgment, which was brought under Civ.R. 60(B)(4). The parties’ separation agreement did not provide for continuing jurisdiction over the case or modification of the agreement other than for matters involving the minor children, such as custody and parenting time. Although appellant asked the court to vacate the dissolution decree rather than modify it, she did not claim that the basis for the agreement was invalid due to grounds upon which relief could be granted, such as mutual mistake or fraud. Instead, appellant claimed relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(4), which was not allowed under prevailing authority. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
2/27/2026
|
2/27/2026
| 2026-Ohio-674 |
|
State v. Dorsey
| 30435 | The trial court did not err in dismissing a carrying concealed weapons charge. R.C. 2923.12(A)(2) is unconstitutional as applied to appellee, a 19-year-old who did not have a concealed handgun license. See State v. Matosky, 2025-Ohio-5658 (2d Dist.). Judgment affirmed, and the cause is remanded to proceed with the remaining counts in the indictment. | Huffman | Montgomery |
2/20/2026
|
2/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-581 |
|
In re K.R.H.
| 30587 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it modified father’s parenting time with his son to the Standard Order of Parenting Time. The standard order remedied the parties’ shared concern regarding the consistency of parenting time, and the trial court appropriately considered the statutory best interest factors of R.C. 3109.051(D). The trial court abused its discretion when it limited father’s parenting time with his daughter to therapy sessions only, with modifications within the therapist’s sole discretion. The record does not reflect that this would be in the child’s best interest. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. | Epley | Montgomery |
2/20/2026
|
2/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-583 |
|
R.S. v. Rindler
| 30543 | Because the civil stalking protection order expired while the appeal was pending, the appeal is moot. Appeal dismissed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
2/20/2026
|
2/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-584 |
|
State v. Trigg
| 30510 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s petition for postconviction relief and overruling his motion for leave to file a delayed new-trial motion without holding an evidentiary hearing on the petition or motion. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
2/20/2026
|
2/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-585 |
|
State v. Bankston
| 2025-CA-43 | The trial court erred in imposing a four-month term of incarceration for appellee’s fifth-degree felony conviction. The sentence is contrary to law because it falls outside the statutory range for the offense. The trial court possesses jurisdiction to impose a lawful sentence on remand despite appellee’s completion of his four-month sentence. Judgment partially reversed, sentence vacated, and case remanded for resentencing. | Tucker | Greene |
2/20/2026
|
2/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-580 |
|
In re J.H.
| 2025-CA-40, 2025-CA-41 | Appellant’s appeals from maximum sentences imposed for contempt findings are moot. The imposed sentences have been completed, and appellant failed to provide evidence from which an inference can be drawn that he will suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights from the judgments. Appeals dismissed. | Hanseman | Greene |
2/20/2026
|
2/20/2026
| 2026-Ohio-582 |
|
State v. Dominguez-Olivia
| 2025-CA-19 | Appellant’s convictions for failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer and assault were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The evidence at trial supported the conclusions that appellant’s operation of his vehicle caused a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property and that he kicked the trooper voluntarily. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
2/13/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-484 |
|
State v. Bailey
| 30429 | Appellant was convicted of assault based on punching the victim at a party. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to present an 11-second video of the assault as it was properly authenticated, was not precluded by the best evidence rule, was relevant, and was not unduly prejudicial. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the trial court should have permitted appellant to present evidence of specific prior interactions between the appellant and the victim as proof of the appellant’s state of mind for purposes of a self-defense claim, the trial court did not commit reversible error. The evidence demonstrated that appellant was the initial aggressor when the assault occurred. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
2/13/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-481 |
|
Discover Bank v. Hinders
| 30571 | The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee-creditor on its action to collect the credit card debt of appellant-debtor. Evidentiary documents submitted to support creditor’s motion for summary judgment were not properly authenticated, so genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment remained. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Montgomery |
2/13/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-483 |
|
State v. Fitchpatrick
| 30574, 30575, 30576 | The record does not clearly and convincingly fail to support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings. Judgments affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
2/13/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-485 |
|
State v. Harris
| 30426 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s untimely motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Appellant failed to seek leave to file his untimely motion and did not show that he was unavoidably prevented from filing a timely motion for a new trial or discovering the new evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
2/13/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-486 |
|
Oasis Home Buyers, L.L.C. v. Estate of Thomas
| 30524 | Appellant entered into a contract to purchase real estate, but before closing, the seller died. Upon the seller’s death, appellant was an estate creditor and was required to present its claim for specific performance of the purchase contract in accordance with the presentment requirements of R.C. 2117.06. Appellant did not properly present its claim against the estate in accordance with the statute, so the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to appellees. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
2/13/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-487 |
|
State v. Veal
| 30373 | The trial court abused its discretion by ordering appellant to pay restitution where the evidence did not establish that appellant’s act of driving without a license was a direct and proximate cause of any economic loss. Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part. | Lewis | Montgomery |
2/13/2026
|
2/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-488 |
|
State v. Adams
| 30520 & 30527 | Appellant’s convictions for failure to stop at a railroad grade crossing and endangering children are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court properly applied R.C. 4511.63 in convicting appellant of failure to stop at a railroad grade crossing. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
2/6/2026
|
2/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-372 |
|
In re C.C.
| 30542 | The trial court abused its discretion by denying the State’s motion for access to recorded phone calls at a juvenile detention center where the juvenile failed to raise any expectation of privacy in the recorded phone calls and the trial court found that it was in the interest of public safety to locate the stolen firearms. Judgment reversed to the extent that it overruled the State’s motion but affirmed in all other respects. | Lewis | Montgomery |
2/6/2026
|
2/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-374 |
|
State v. Skirvin
| 30462 | Appellant’s convictions for three counts of felonious assault on a peace officer and one count of aggravated possession of drugs were based on sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The jury reasonably concluded that appellant knowingly attempted to cause physical harm when he shot in the direction of officers parked along the highway median, that appellant was conscious and had acted voluntarily when he drove his pickup truck into an occupied police cruiser, and that he knowingly possessed the methamphetamine found in his truck. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to provide, sua sponte, a “blackout” jury instruction and in denying appellant’s request for an instruction on aggravated menacing as to the shooting. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
2/6/2026
|
2/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-376 |
|
State v. Slaughter
| 30589 | Appellant entered a valid guilty plea under Crim.R. 11, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling his motion to withdraw it. Appellant’s sentence is contrary to law, however, insofar as the trial court disapproved shock incarceration or placement in an intensive program prison without providing factual reasons for its disapproval. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and case remanded for resentencing. | Tucker | Montgomery |
2/6/2026
|
2/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-377 |
|
State v. Pigg
| 2025-CA-44 | The trial court erred in sentencing appellee to serve a four-month jail term for fifth-degree felony aggravated possession of drugs. Absent the imposition of community control sanctions, the sentence is below the prescribed statutory range for fifth-degree felonies, and by imposing a sentence contrary to law, the trial court committed plain error. Appellee’s completion of the four-month jail sentence did not render the appeal moot because the appeal was timely filed by the State, and the State has an effective remedy through the resentencing of appellee on remand. Judgment vacated as to appellee’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. (Huffman, J., concurring.) | Hanseman | Greene |
2/6/2026
|
2/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-375 |
|
State v. Humphreys
| 2025-CA-9 | Appellant’s statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial were not violated. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to remove two jurors for cause on grounds of bias, and appellant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the jurors in question. Appellant’s convictions for attempted rape, kidnapping, and strangulation were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court violated Evid.R. 404(B) by allowing the State to present other-acts evidence of appellant’s prior juvenile adjudication for attempted rape. That error was harmless as to appellant’s convictions for kidnapping and strangulation, but not as to appellant’s attempted rape conviction. Because the other-acts evidence error was reversible error as to appellant’s attempted rape conviction, the sexually violent predator specification attached to that conviction must be reversed. The issue of whether appellant was guilty of the sexual motivation specification attached to his kidnapping offense should have been determined by the jury as opposed to the trial court; however, that error was invited by appellant and did not amount to plain error. The sexually violent predator specification attached to appellant’s kidnapping offense was supported by sufficient evidence and was not based on inadmissible hearsay. Appellant’s claim that the trial court erred by failing to merge his attempted rape and kidnapping convictions at sentencing is moot by virtue of the attempted rape conviction being reversed. Appellant’s claim that he was denied a fair trial due to the cumulative error committed during his trial lacks merit. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. | Hanseman | Clark |
2/6/2026
|
2/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-373 |
|
State v. Smith
| 2025-CA-41 | Appellant contends that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because her attorney did not inform her that upon her guilty pleas, she forfeited her right to appeal the trial court’s motion to suppress decision. Because the appellate record does not include the discussions between appellant and counsel concerning the guilty plea and the record is otherwise silent on the issue, a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel is not possible. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
2/6/2026
|
2/6/2026
| 2026-Ohio-378 |
|
Bright v. Mao
| 2025-CA-32 | Res judicata precludes appellant from arguing that the judgment on her legal separation, parts of which were incorporated into the divorce judgment on appeal in this case, was void where she failed to prosecute her appeal in the separation action. The trial court’s alleged denial of appellant’s post-judgment motion requesting a transcript of the final divorce hearing at the State’s expense is not properly before this court. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Greene |
1/30/2026
|
1/30/2026
| 2026-Ohio-286 |
|