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 434 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Sampuran 2019-CA-27The 11-year sentence imposed upon the appellant was within the permissible statutory range and therefore not contrary to law. The record establishes that the trial court properly considered and applied R.C. 2929.11, which governs the overriding purposes of felony sentencing, and R.C. 2929.12, which sets forth the seriousness and recidivism factors for the court to consider in imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed.DonovanClark 12/13/2019 12/13/2019 2019-Ohio-5139
State v. Thompson 28449The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling appellant’s multiple petitions for post-conviction relief. The claims raised in appellant’s petitions were either not supported by credible affidavits or any evidentiary documents that established substantive grounds for relief or they were otherwise barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion by overruling appellant’s motion for new trial, as the motion was untimely and appellant failed to establish that he was unavoidably prevented from timely filing the motion. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 12/13/2019 12/13/2019 2019-Ohio-5140
State v. Whitehead 28334Appellant’s conviction for menacing, loitering, and two counts of child enticement was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 12/13/2019 12/13/2019 2019-Ohio-5141
State v. Williams 28299Appellant did not establish that his defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file and pursue a motion to suppress. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 12/13/2019 12/13/2019 2019-Ohio-5142
State v. Ashley 28377On appeal from his conviction for having weapons while under disability, appellant argued that his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. The record refutes appellant’s claim that his understanding “may” have been impaired by his use of prescribed psychotropic medications at the time of his plea, as well as his contention that he did not fully comprehend the nature of the proceedings due to a “breakdown in communication” with his trial attorney. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 12/6/2019 12/6/2019 2019-Ohio-5007
State v. Bradley 28301; 28302The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling appellant’s presentence motion to withdraw his no contest pleas. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 12/6/2019 12/6/2019 2019-Ohio-5009
Carter v. Pristine Senior Living & Post-Acute Care, Inc. 28381The trial court abused its discretion by overruling appellants’ motion for an extension of time to respond to appellees’ motion for summary judgment and accordingly also erred by entering summary judgment for appellees. The time to respond to a motion for summary judgment imposed by the court was inexplicably only half the time established by local rule. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling appellants’ motion to amend their complaint. The amendments sought would likely have delayed the trial, and appellants failed to give a reason that would justify the delay. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded for further proceedings.HallMontgomery 12/6/2019 12/6/2019 2019-Ohio-5010
State v. Hewitt 28225In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), there is no potential merit to an argument that the trial court erred when it granted appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief in part and resentenced him to an agreed prison term of 18 months, but did not address other issues raised. An independent review of the record reveals no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 12/6/2019 12/6/2019 2019-Ohio-5011
In re M.W. 28440The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining Father’s motion for legal custody of his child. The record supports a finding that awarding legal custody to Father rather than Mother was in the child’s best interest. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 12/6/2019 12/6/2019 2019-Ohio-5012
State v. Irwin-Debraux 28309As the State concedes, the trial court erred by sentencing appellant to consecutive sentences on convictions for involuntary manslaughter and grand theft without making the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Otherwise, appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law and does it constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.TuckerMontgomery 12/6/2019 12/6/2019 2019-Ohio-5013