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 155 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Hair 2019-CA-73The trial court erred when it overruled appellant’s second application to seal the record of his dismissed charge of operating a vehicle while under the influence (OVI), in which it relied solely upon the law of the case doctrine; successive petitions are not always barred. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court for a review of appellant’s second application to seal the record and for the trial court to determine if appellant can establish a change of circumstances; in other words, a determination should be made on the merits. The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s motion to terminate his administrative license suspension, because R.C. 4511.197(D) explicitly requires a finding of “not guilty” before a suspension imposed pursuant to R.C. 4511.191(C) may be terminated. Since appellant’s OVI was dismissed, no finding of “not guilty” was ever made. Therefore, R.C. 4511.197(D) did not provide a basis to terminate appellant’s administrative license suspension. Judgment reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.DonovanGreene 5/29/2020 5/29/2020 2020-Ohio-3128
Pendry v. Troy Police Dept. 28531The trial court did not err in entering summary judgment against the appellant on her personal injury and wrongful death complaint against several law-enforcement officers and political subdivisions following a high-speed police pursuit where the fleeing driver was involved in a collision with a vehicle operated by appellant's decedent. The record reveals no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the appellees acted wantonly or recklessly for purposes of negating their statutory immunity. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring in judgment only.)HallMontgomery 5/29/2020 5/29/2020 2020-Ohio-3129
State v. Brown 28473Appellant fails to show that he did not make his guilty pleas knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The record shows that he knew before he entered his pleas that he faced a mandatory driver’s license suspension. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering appellant to pay restitution, and the court reasonably found that appellant had a future ability to pay. The court did not err by ordering restitution to the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, which was a victim entitled to restitution because appellant’s criminal conduct resulted in damage to its property. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 5/22/2020 5/22/2020 2020-Ohio-3052
State v. Hill 28509The trial court did not err in finding appellant guilty of violating R.C. 4503.21(A)(3) by failing to display a temporary license placard in plain view. Due to tinted plastic, the police officer was unable to see the numbers on the temporary plate until after appellant’s vehicle had been stopped. In addition, the court did not err in finding appellant guilty of having violated R.C. 4503.11 by driving with an expired temporary tag. This crime is a strict liability offense, and appellant’s reasons for driving with an expired tag were irrelevant. Furthermore, even if recklessness were required, the State provided sufficient evidence that appellant was reckless. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 5/22/2020 5/22/2020 2020-Ohio-3057
State v. Johnson 28482The trial court lacked jurisdiction over appellant’s pro se request to modify his sentence. Johnson had completed his sentence, and he was incarcerated for a parole violation in an earlier case. Johnson was properly advised regarding post-release control. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 5/22/2020 5/22/2020 2020-Ohio-3058
State v. Carnell 2019-CA-63Appellant pled guilty to aggravated drug possession, a fifth-degree felony. He indicated he did not want to be screened for drug treatment and asked to be sent to prison. Under the relevant statutory provisions, he was ineligible for a prison sentence. The trial court placed him on community control with the sole sanction being a 253-day local jail sentence, which he challenges in this appeal. While the appeal was pending, the trial court entered a judgment indicating successful termination of community control, and appellant was released. Appellant’s argument on appeal, which only challenges the jail sentence, is therefore moot. Appeal dismissed.HallGreene 5/22/2020 5/22/2020 2020-Ohio-3053
State v. Cochran 2019-CA-41The trial court did not err when it instructed the jury on felonious assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court did not err when it excluded statements allegedly made by the victim during a Children’s Services investigation for the purpose of cross-examination. The trial court did not err in admitting numerous photographs into evidence, as the danger of unfair prejudice was minimal and the evidence was clearly probative of the nature and extent of the injuries the victim suffered at the hands of the appellant. Judgment affirmed.DonovanGreene 5/22/2020 5/22/2020 2020-Ohio-3054
State v. Harris 2019-CA-57The trial court abused its discretion by denying appellant’s motion to waive or stay court costs because the trial court failed to consider appellant’s present and future ability to pay and failed to explain its reasons for denying appellant’s motion. The trial court, however, did not abuse its discretion in failing to find that appellant’s court costs were uncollectable for purposes of granting a waiver of the costs under R.C. 2303.23. Judgment reversed and remanded.WelbaumGreene 5/22/2020 5/22/2020 2020-Ohio-3056
State v. Grant 2019-CA-13Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of domestic violence. Appellant’s trial strategy was a denial that he struck or otherwise attempted to cause the victim physical harm. Given this, the trial court did not commit plain error by not giving a self-defense/castle doctrine instruction, and trial counsel was not ineffective because he did not request such an instruction. Also, trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance regarding jury selection or by his failure to object to certain questions. Finally, appellant’s conviction was based upon sufficient evidence, and it was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.TuckerDarke 5/22/2020 5/22/2020 2020-Ohio-3055
State v. Wilson 2018-CA-2Appellant was convicted of felonious assault with a repeat violent offender specification, domestic violence with a specification that the victim was pregnant, and abduction. Appellant timely moved to dismiss on speedy trial grounds in the trial court, and that issue was not waived for appeal. The trial court did not err in concluding that no speedy trial violation occurred. Appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his constitutional right to counsel. The trial court did not err in limiting the role of standby counsel at trial. The trial court did not err in allowing the State to present the victim’s hearsay statements at trial, pursuant to Evid.R. 804(B)(6). Because the victim ultimately testified at trial on behalf of the appellant, the use of the victim’s hearsay statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Appellant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court committed plain error when it failed to merge the felonious assault and domestic violence offenses as allied offenses of similar import. Because the cost bill is not part of the record, we cannot review on direct appeal whether the bill complies with statutory requirements. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing on the merged domestic violence and felonious assault charges. (Hall, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.)FroelichClark 5/15/2020 5/15/2020 2020-Ohio-2962