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 233 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Fields 2018-CA-35After conducting an independent review of the record as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), this court finds no issues with arguable merit for appeal. The record indicates that the trial court’s imposition of a no contact order as a special condition of community control was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumChampaign 7/12/2019 7/12/2019 2019-Ohio-2834
State v. Kendall 2019-CA-5Anders appeal. Defendant pled guilty to domestic violence, a third degree felony, and was sentenced to 36 months in prison and ordered to pay court costs and legal fees and expenses. No non-frivolous issues found. Judgment affirmed.FroelichChampaign 7/12/2019 7/12/2019 2019-Ohio-2836
State v. Lambert 2018-CA-28After pleading guilty to aggravated vehicular assault and aggravated vehicular homicide, defendant was sentenced to maximum and consecutive sentences totaling 120 months in prison. The trial court properly considered applicable sentencing factors and did not err in imposing maximum sentences for the individual offenses; further, the court made the relevant findings supporting consecutive sentences, and such findings are not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgment affirmed.FroelichChampaign 7/12/2019 7/12/2019 2019-Ohio-2837
Harrison v. Harrison 2018-CA-105The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering termination of the parties’ shared parenting decree and designating Father as legal custodian and residential parent of the parties’ minor child. Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 7/12/2019 7/12/2019 2019-Ohio-2835
State v. McConnell 2018-CA-97The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s motion to suppress. Because the police had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of appellant’s vehicle for contraband, the subsequent discovery of a handgun under the driver’s seat did not violate appellant's Fourth Amendment rights. The multiple reasons provided by the State for its peremptory challenge of a minority juror were sufficiently race-neutral to overcome a Batson challenge. The record establishes that the trial court made all of the requisite findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before it imposed consecutive sentences upon the appellant. Appellant’s conviction for aggravated robbery was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers was not violated when the State declined to call the store clerk to testify at trial. Judgment affirmed.DonovanClark 7/12/2019 7/12/2019 2019-Ohio-2838
Stanek v. Stanek 2018-CA-39The trial court did not err in rejecting appellants’ attempt to challenge the validity of a will and a transfer on death beneficiary designation due to lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The court’s judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumGreene 7/12/2019 7/12/2019 2019-Ohio-2841
Calicoat v. Calicoat 28231The trial court did not err by finding appellant in contempt for failing to pay a child support arrearage as ordered. Appellant’s argument that he was not in arrears but had actually overpaid on his support account was the same argument that we rejected in his two prior appeals. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 7/12/2019 7/12/2019 2019-Ohio-2833
Smith v. Ramey 28164Absent a transcript of the trial court’s full hearing on the appellee’s petition for a civil stalking protection order, the appellant cannot demonstrate error in the issuance of a protection order. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 7/12/2019 7/12/2019 2019-Ohio-2839
State v. Snowden 27948The trial court erred in filing amended judgment entries when those entries did not correct clerical errors in the original judgment. Based on the record before us, the trial court erred in awarding 94 days of jail time credit. The trial court’s two amended judgment entries will be vacated, and the trial court’s award of 94 days of jail time credit in its original judgment entry will be reversed. The matter will be remanded for the trial court to determine the appropriate amount of jail-time credit and to remove language indicating that the charges are to be served concurrently with the sentences in another case. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 7/12/2019 7/12/2019 2019-Ohio-2840
State v. Starks 28158The trial court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop. The appellant’s marked-lane violation provided a lawful basis for the stop. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), to challenge a search-warrant affidavit for a motel room he was renting. The trial court also did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress evidence found in the motel room. Assuming, arguendo, that the trial court erred in denying a longer continuance after appellant retained new counsel, he subsequently entered into a negotiated plea agreement, and nothing in the record suggests that the trial court’s resolution of the continuance issue caused appellant to plead no contest. That being so, appellant cannot establish any prejudice resulting from the trial court’s ruling. The record does not portray ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s handling of the motion to suppress related to the traffic stop or the motion for a Franks hearing. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 7/12/2019 7/12/2019 2019-Ohio-2842