|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
Cleveland v. Neal
| 112630 | Domestic violence; sufficiency; manifest weight; body-camera footage; Confrontation Clause. The city presented evidence that, if believed, demonstrated that appellant caused physical harm to her mother during a fight at her mother’s house. Therefore, appellant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant’s conviction is also not against the sufficiency of the evidence because the trier of fact was in the best position to consider the inconsistencies between appellant’s and her mother’s testimony regarding the fight. Finally, the court’s decision to admit into evidence the body-camera footage of a responding police officer did not violate appellant’s confrontation-clause rights because the body-camera footage depicted her mother’s encounter with police as the victim and she testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1467 |
|
State v. Montanez
| 112679 | Pro se litigants; motion for resentencing; failure to file transcript; presume regularity. Trial court’s denial of motion for resentencing is affirmed. Pro se defendant failed to file a transcript of the resentencing hearing, and we must presume regularity of the proceedings below. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1468 |
|
State v. James
| 112741 | Abuse of discretion; evidentiary rulings; sufficiency of evidence; weight of evidence; speedy trial; ineffective assistance of counsel; jury instruction; consecutive sentences. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting certain evidence. The state immediately alerted the defense to newly discovered evidence as soon as it became known to the state. It was established that the state’s failure to provide it earlier was not a willful violation of Crim.R. 16. The source of the newly discovered evidence was not a surprise to appellant; the person who provided the evidence was named in discovery and the evidence was statements made by appellant. Appellant has failed to demonstrate how the evidence was prejudicial to him. Other evidence admitted by the trial court was relevant to demonstrate appellant’s self-interest in the case and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudice. The testimony of the sole eyewitness to the shooting was sufficient to support the murder conviction. The testimony was sufficient to support the aggravated robbery convictions; the fact that nothing was taken from the victims was not dispositive because the governing statute provides that an attempt to commit a theft offense is sufficient. The convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The jury’s credibility determination was not incredible. The video evidence was properly authenticated, and the witness testimony established a proper chain of custody. Appellant’s speedy trial rights were not violated. The delay in this case was overwhelmingly attributed to appellant’s constant change of counsel, requests for continuances, and numerous motions. Appellant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. The testimony appellant complains that his counsel failed to object to was not hearsay. The evidence for which appellant contends there was no authentication or chain of custody was properly authenticated and a chain of custody was established. The record supports the imposition of consecutive sentences. The robberies and fatal shooting, on which consecutive terms were imposed, were separate and distinct acts, separated by a period of time. We are not able to say that the records clearly and convincingly do not support the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1469 |
|
Crenshaw v. Mooningham
| 112835 | Motion for summary judgment; de novo review; defamation; evidence; affidavit; conclusory assertions; genuine issue of material fact; intentional infliction of emotional distress; severe, debilitating emotional injury; spoliation of evidence; disruption of plaintiff’s case; vexatious litigator; R.C. 2323.52; vexatious conduct. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on appellant’s claims where appellant did not present evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact remained as to any of her claims. | Celebrezze | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1470 |
|
Heigel v. MetroHealth Sys.
| 112900 | Civ.R. 56; summary judgment; App.R. 16; App.R. 12; at will employment; wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; clarity element. Appellant fails to separately argue her assignments of error, but in the interest of judicial fairness, we address the assigned errors. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees when appellant was unable to show that there were genuine issues of material fact. Although there is a clear public policy favoring workplace safety, appellant was unable to identify a public policy exception to the at will employment doctrine that is applicable to her claims. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1471 |
|
State v. Francis
| 113012 | Consecutive; maximum sentence; involuntary manslaughter. Judgment affirmed. The trial court made the statutorily required findings for the imposition of consecutive sentences. We are unable to say that the record clearly and convincingly does not support the court’s findings. The trial court was not required to make any findings in imposing maximum sentences. The trial court considered the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 and sentenced the defendant within the statutory range. We do not find that the defendant’s maximum sentences were clearly and convincingly unsupported by the evidence. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1472 |
|
State v. Smith
| 113035 | Search warrant; sufficiency; possession of controlled substances; criminal tools; medical marijuana; fruit of the search; manifest weight; possession; immediately within reach; marijuana dispensary; direct physical control; constructive possession; knowingly exercises dominion. Judgment reversed and convictions vacated. The appellant’s convictions for drug possession and criminal tools were not supported by sufficient evidence. The state failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant had constructive possession of drugs or criminal tools where the state offered no evidence that the appellant had dominion or control over the area of the home where the illegal quantity of marijuana was found in the home she shared with her spouse, who held a medical marijuana license. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1473 |
|
State v. Hempstead
| 113051 | Sentence; jail-time credit; specification; firearm; mandatory; contrary to law; prison term; resentencing. The sentence imposed on defendant for involuntary manslaughter with a firearm specification was contrary to law because the trial court had improperly applied jail-time credit to defendant’s mandatory firearm-specification sentence. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1474 |
|
Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Cleveland
| 113116 | Political-subdivision immunity; negligence; res ipsa loquitur; defense; R.C. Chapter 2744; R.C. 2744.03(A)(5). Plaintiff established prima facie case of negligence through doctrine of res ipsa loquitur where defendant was the last contractor to have access at the site where the damage occurred. Decisions by city employees about where to excavate an area to repair a water line is not the kind of decision to which political-subdivision immunity attaches. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1475 |
|
State v. Green
| 113152 | Res judicata; Crim.R. 32.1; ineffective assistance of counsel. - Res judicata bars appellant’s Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea premised on ineffective assistance of counsel because he could have brought his claims in a direct appeal or in his delayed appeal. | Keough | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1476 |
|
Cleveland v. Oliver
| 113330 | Driving under the influence; C.C.O. 433.01(a); administrative license suspension; initial appearance; R.C. 4511.191(D)(2); R.C. 4511.196(A). Trial court did not err in denying motion to dismiss underlying criminal charges when defendant’s initial appearance was not held within five-day time frame specified in R.C. 4511.191(D)(2) and 4511.196(A). The purpose for requiring initial appearance to be held within five days was to provide defendant with the opportunity to appeal the administrative license suspension, and trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss as it related to the administrative license suspension. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/18/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1477 |
|
State ex rel. Crenshaw v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections
| 113588 | Mandamus; Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss; R.C. 733.49; Cleveland City Charter Sections 70 and 77; declaratory judgment; prohibitory injunction; election vs. appointment of Cleveland law director; Loc.App.R. 45(C) – filing fee or poverty affidavit. The requisites for mandamus are well established: (1) the relator possesses a clear legal right to the requested relief; (2) the respondent possesses a clear legal duty to perform the requested relief; and (3) there exists no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Herein, we find that the relator has failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that a conflict actually exists between R.C. 733.49 and Sections 70 and 77 of the Cleveland City Charter with regard to the appointment versus the election of the Cleveland law director. Of greater significance is the fact that the relator seeks a declaratory judgment that R.C. 733.49 supersedes the Cleveland City Charter, which requires the election of the Cleveland law director and prevents the appointment of the Cleveland law director. A complaint couched in the form of mandamus does not state a cause of action in mandamus when the clear substance of the allegations demonstrates an action for declaratory judgment and prohibitory injunction. A declaratory judgment action that is cloaked in mandamus is subject to dismissal, because the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear declaratory judgment actions. Finally, the relator has failed to pay the filing fee to initiate this action or file an affidavit of indigence as required by Loc.App.R. 45(C). Failure to pay the filing fee or provide an affidavit of indigence constitutes grounds for dismissal. | Per Curiam | Cuyahoga |
4/12/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1478 |
|
State ex rel. Rance v. Corrigan
| 113680 | Writ of procedendo; proceed to judgment; summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; moot; R.C. 2969.25(C). A request for writ of procedendo was rendered moot when during the pendency of the complaint, the respondent entered judgment in the underlying action. Therefore, the respondent’s motion for summary judgment was granted. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
4/12/2024
|
4/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1479 |
|
State v. Dudas
| 111875 | Denial of timely filed petition for postconviction relief; R.C. 2953.21(A); findings of fact and conclusions of law; R.C. 2953.21(D); R.C. 2953.21(H). Trial court erred in denying appellant’s timely petition for postconviction relief without making findings of fact and conclusions of law; judgment reversed and case remanded for the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by R.C. 2953.21. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1358 |
|
State v. Smith
| 112214 | Crim.R. 33; motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial; hearing; newly discovered evidence; recanting witness; abuse of discretion; unavoidably prevented from timely discovering new evidence; findings of fact and conclusions of law. Trial court abused its discretion in denying appellants’ motions for leave to file a motion for a new trial without a hearing as it related to witness’ recantation of his trial testimony. Appellants submitted documents that, on their face, together with other evidence in the record, could support their claims that they were unavoidably prevented from discovering witness’ recantation within the required time frame. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant leave to file a motion for a new trial without a hearing based on new information allegedly contained within transcripts from other appellant’s trial. Appellant did not submit documents with his motion that, on their face, supported his claim that he was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering any such new evidence. Crim.R. 33 does not require trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1360 |
|
State v. Thomas
| 112624 | Motion to suppress; R.C. 306.35(Y); plain meaning; RTA officers; authority; jurisdiction; within transit facilities; Fourth Amendment; Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution unreasonable searches and seizures. Affirmed. R.C. 306.35(Y) is unambiguous. Applying the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute, GCRTA officers are granted with the authority to act as peace officers within transit facilities owned, operated, or leased by the GCRTA. The plain language of R.C. 306.35(Y) does not support the interpretation proposed by the state. Furthermore, under Brown, 143 Ohio St.3d 444, 2015-Ohio-2438, 39 N.E.3d 496, ¶ 26, the GCRTA officers’ attempted traffic stop on a public road for an allegedly minor misdemeanor and Thomas’s subsequent arrest at her home nearly one month later was outside the GCRTA officers’ statutory authority and violated the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures established by Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution. Therefore, the trial court properly suppressed any evidence obtained by the GCRTA police officers. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1361 |
|
State v. Counts
| 112715 & 112775 | Speedy trial; R.C. 2945.72; Marsy’s Law. The appellee’s speedy trial rights were not violated by the victims’ filing an appeal, because the time tolled in accordance with R.C. 2945.72(E) and (H). | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1362 |
|
State v. Reed
| 112737 | Manifest weight of the evidence; conflicting testimony; credibility determination. Defendant was convicted after trial of abduction and assault. Defendant asserted on appeal his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence because of contradictions in the victim’s testimony and her actions as well as contradictions with other testimony. The determination of credibility and resolving conflicts in testimony and evidence rest solely with the finder of fact, and an appellate court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the finder of fact. After review of the record, the finder of fact did not clearly lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice necessitating reversal of defendant’s convictions. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1363 |
|
State v. Hamrick
| 112826 | Menacing by stalking; R.C. 2903.211; protective order; sufficiency; manifest weight; admissibility; authentication; Evid.R. 901(A); mistrial; abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed. The court properly denied Hamrick’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal because his menacing by stalking conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. Furthermore, his convictions of menacing by stalking and violation of protection order were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Duo messages at issue were admissible because they were properly authenticated by H.C. under Evid.R. 901. Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hamrick’s motion for a mistrial because the state did not willfully fail to turn over evidence in discovery. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1364 |
|
State v. Bethel
| 112921 | Crim.R. 29; motion for acquittal; sufficiency of the evidence; circumstantial evidence; probative value; knowingly; manifest weight of the evidence; inconsistent testimony; direct identification unnecessary. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal, and appellant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Celebrezze | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1365 |
|
State v. Costlow
| 113013 | R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(a); third-degree felony; sentencing; impact statements; R.C. 2929.19; sentencing review; App.R. 16(A)(7). Affirmed. The trial court properly sentenced the defendant to five years in prison on his guilty plea to a third-degree felony, gross sexual imposition offense under R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(a), and the offender has not demonstrated error with citations to relevant authority regarding the court’s decision to consider impact statements from friends and family of the victim or to impose the particular sentence entered. | S. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1366 |
|
State v. Garrett
| 113058 | Petition for postconviction relief; evidentiary hearing; res judicata; ineffective assistance of counsel. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in denying defendant-appellant Jerome Garrett’s untimely amended petition for postconviction relief when all the evidence submitted in support of his petition had already been considered and rejected by this court during his direct appeal, barring Garrett’s claims by res judicata. Because Garrett did not demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence prompting the postconviction petition, the trial court also did not err in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing. | Celebrezze | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1367 |
|
Amin, Turocy & Watson, L.L.P. v. Just Funky, L.L.C.
| 113076 | Summary judgment; unpaid legal services; expert report; self-serving affidavit; Civ.R. 54(C). Judgment affirmed. The trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff law firm on its claim for unpaid legal services. The law firm’s motion for summary judgment was supported by an affidavit and specific, corroborating evidence. The trial court properly found the defendant’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the law firm’s motion was self-serving. Although the affiant claimed that the law firm overcharged it, the supporting documentation was deficient in lending support to that claim. The amount of the judgment in favor of the plaintiff law firm was proper under Civ.R. 54(C). Although it is a different amount than prayed for in the complaint, the plaintiff’s documentation supports the amount. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1368 |
|
State v. Artagos
| 113107 | Improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle; under the influence; sufficiency; manifest weight; child support; community control. Appellant’s improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where competent, credible evidence established that appellant was intoxicated and there was evidence of alcohol and marijuana in his car. Condition of community control that required appellant to establish a child-support order was an abuse of discretion where the community-control condition was not related to the offense. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1369 |
|
State v. Duncan
| 113165 & 113169 | Nunc pro tunc; plea and sentence. The trial court’s journal entries reflecting appellant’s plea and sentence incorrectly stated the crime that appellant pleaded guilty to. Case remanded for issuance of nunc pro tunc journal entries. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1370 |
|
State v. Johnson
| 113196 | Final appealable order; nunc pro tunc; finality of judgment for appeal. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in entering a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry renumbering the counts to the proper counts utilized at trial because this action was not inconsistent with this court’s jurisdiction. Further, the nunc pro tunc entry did not extend defendant’s time to file an appeal nor did service of the nunc pro tunc entry affect the finality of the judgment. | Celebrezze | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1371 |
|
In re T.H.
| 113277 | Permanent custody; manifest weight of the evidence; clear and convincing evidence; R.C. 2151.414(E); R.C. 2151.414(B) and (D). The trial court’s decision to grant permanent custody of appellant’s children was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and there was clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the court’s decision. While appellant engaged in mental health, domestic violence, and anger management classes he was unable to show that he benefitted from services. Appellant did not establish sobriety and was continually angry and aggressive towards agency staff. Although the agency and the court gave appellant numerous chances, visitation had to be stopped due to appellant’s volatile behavior. | Ryan | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1372 |
|
Cuyahoga Supply & Tool, Inc. v. BECDIR Constr. Co.
| 113096 | Motion to compel arbitration and/or stay proceedings; abuse of discretion; contractual interpretation; de novo review; R.C. 2711.02; written arbitration agreement; agreement not signed; intent to be bound; meeting of the minds; performance of contract containing arbitration clause. Appellee’s performance under the purchase order constituted its acceptance of the terms contained therein, including the arbitration clause. Thus, the dispute between the parties, which arose out of the purchase order, was required to be arbitrated. The trial court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. | Celebrezze | Cuyahoga |
4/11/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1375 |
|
State ex rel. Parker v. Russo
| 113774 | Prohibition; mandamus; sua sponte dismissal; R.C. 2969.25(C); affidavit of indigency; affidavit of waiver; statement of inmate account. A complaint for writs of prohibition and mandamus was sua sponte dismissed because the incarcerated relator failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) by filing the necessary affidavits that this statute requires when initiating an action against a governmental agency or employee. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
4/10/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1373 |
|
Parma v. Perotti
| 112089 | App.R. 26(B) application for reopening; consecutive sentences; allied offenses; bifurcation; joinder of offenses. The appellant’s App.R. 26(B) application for reopening is denied because appellate counsel was not ineffective on appeal. Proposed assignments of error that dealt with the imposition of consecutive sentences, allied offenses, and joinder of offenses for trial are without merit. The appellant was not prejudiced by the failure of appellate counsel to raise the three proposed assignment of error on appeal. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/9/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1359 |
|
State ex rel. Sowell v. Matia
| 113781 | Mandamus; repeat violent offender specification; final, appealable order; R.C. 2969.25(C); and certified prison cashier's statement. The court denied an application for a writ of mandamus because the relator failed to file a prison cashier's statement pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(C). | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/5/2024
|
4/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1374 |
|
State v. Wadlington
| 112286 | Self-defense; aggravated assault; involuntary manslaughter; abuse of discretion; specific instances of conduct; character evidence; victim’s prior conduct; Evid.R. 404(A); Evid.R. 405; provocation; rage; fear; jury instructions; inferior offense; lesser included offense. Judgment is affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it limited evidence of victim’s prior conduct to specific instances known to the appellant that tended to show appellant’s state of mind. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not instruct on the inferior offense of aggravated assault or the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter because the appellant testified that she shot the victim because she was in fear. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1268 |
|
701 Lakeside, L.L.C. v Pinnacle Condominium Unit Owners' Assn.
| 112441 | Standing; declaratory judgment; reciprocal easement agreement; condominium instruments; declaration and bylaws; condominium unit owners’ association; summary judgment; res judicata. The trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment to the condominium unit owners’ association was affirmed. Appellant was not an interested person under the condominium declaration. Therefore, appellant lacked standing to seek declaratory judgment concerning the relationship between the condominium owners’ association and the condominium owners. Appellant’s claims pertaining to the reciprocal easement agreements were barred by res judicata. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1269 |
|
Machen v. Miller
| 112453, 112454, 112479 | Divorce; abuse of discretion; res judicata; de facto termination of marriage date; Evid.R. 611(A); one-day trial; parties’ income; spousal support; witness credibility; division of property; double-dipping; student-loan debt; attorney fees; findings of fact and conclusions of law; failure to grant stay pending appeal; qualified domestic relations order. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1270 |
|
Cleveland v. S.W. Invests., L.L.C.
| 112485, 112486, 112683 | Building Code violation; community-control sanctions; community-control violation; res judicata; voidable; sentences; judgment of conviction; violation of community control; financial sanctions; mootness. Judgment affirmed. The trial court’s imposition of a community-control sanctions violation in the amount of $25,000 was not an abuse of discretion because defendant was given proper notice of the consequences of violating community control and the $25,000 fine was authorized by statute. We are unable to review defendant’s challenge to the community-control sanction banning appellant from selling, gifting, or transferring his properties because such argument is barred by res judicata. We are also unable to review defendant’s error alleging that the trial court should have granted his motion to stay the fine pending appeal because this court granted defendant such relief after the instant appeal was filed in this court. | Celebrezze | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1271 |
|
Granada v. Rojas
| 112622 | Divorce; final decree; business valuation; fair market value of business; expert witnesses; manifest weight; spousal support; tax responsibility. Affirmed. Plaintiff-appellant Adriana Granada appeals her final divorce decree, arguing that the trial court erred in its valuation of the family business and in accepting defendant-appellee Israel Rojas’s expert witness in making such valuation. Granada also contests the trial court’s decision to refrain from awarding spousal support as well as the trial court’s failure to address any potential tax liability. Granada’s assigned errors are without merit and overruled. | Celebrezze | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1272 |
|
Machen v. Miller
| 112644 | See companion cases Machen v. Miller, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 112453, 112454 & 112479 | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1273 |
|
Cleveland v. 3006 Montclair Ave., L.L.C.
| 112695 | Standing; housing code violations; terms and conditions of community control; separate and distinct legal entities. Appellant had standing to challenge housing court’s order on appeal only to the extent that the order injuriously affected appellant, not to assert the rights of third parties. Housing court erred and abused its discretion to the extent that it imposed restrictions or requirements relating to properties owned by other entities as a term or condition of appellant’s community control. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1274 |
|
State v. Gaines
| 112701 | Instagram; authentication; evidentiary foundation; ineffective assistance of counsel; Bruton rule; manifest weight of the evidence; R.C. 2903.11(A); Evid.R. 901; video evidence; Evid.R. 801(D)(2); jury; procedural history; witness testimony. Defendant-appellant contested her convictions for felonious assault. The trial court erred when it admitted social media evidence without proper authentication; however the error was harmless. Instagram messages attributed to testifying codefendant were admissible. Appellant failed to prove that counsel’s performance was both deficient and that this deficiency prejudiced the defense. Convictions affirmed. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1275 |
|
State v. Kemp
| 112710 | Ineffective assistance of counsel, self-defense, R.C. 2901.05(B)(1), manifest weight. Appellant’s trial counsel was not deficient when he did not argue self-defense because there was no evidence in the record to support such a claim. Appellant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The testimony from the surviving victim was corroborated by physical evidence, witness testimony, and 911 calls. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1276 |
|
State v. Armstrong
| 112711 | Sufficiency of the evidence, weight of the evidence, jail-time credit, R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i)-(ii), Reagan Tokes Law. Appellant’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. A trial court is empowered under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i)-(ii) to consider the arguments of the parties at the sentencing and conduct a hearing if requested to determine the proper amount of jail-time credit to which a prisoner is entitled. Application of the Reagan Tokes Law to qualifying sentences is mandatory. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1277 |
|
Beyer v. Beyer
| 112887 & 112912 | Affirmed in part. The domestic relations court did not err in finding that the marital home was Husband’s separate property despite evidence that the mortgage, expenses, and upkeep of the property were paid from commingled funds; the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the domestic relations court abused its discretion in calculating child support based on the husband’s income averaged over three years; the domestic relations court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Wife violated the domestic relations court’s mutual restraining order by not paying a utility bill for the marital home during the pendency of the divorce proceedings; domestic relations court erred in not calculating a 10 percent downward deviation in Husband’s child support obligation; domestic relations court abused its discretion in ordering Husband to pay Wife cash medical support because the parties agreed in the shared parenting plan to split the children’s medical expenses equally; domestic relations court did not abuse its discretion in determining the effective date of Husband’s child support obligation. | S. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1278 |
|
State v. Maxey
| 112981 | R.C. 2903.01(A), aggravated murder; sufficiency of the evidence, Evid.R. 403, prejudicial photographs; bench trial; denial of request for new appointed counsel. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was sufficient to support the essential elements of aggravated murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court’s allowance of multiple autopsy photographs did not constitute an abuse of discretion. In a bench trial, an appellate court presumes that the trial court relied on material, relevant, competent evidence in reaching a judgment. Appellant failed to demonstrate proper grounds for the appointment of new counsel. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1279 |
|
N. Royalton Court Condo Owners' Assn. v. Stadul
| 113050 | Foreclosure; tax certificates; liens; praecipe for order of sale; slander of title. To prevail on a claim of slander of title, a plaintiff must prove (1) there was a publication of a slanderous statement disparaging claimant’s title; (2) the statement was false; (3) the statement was made with malice or made with reckless disregard of its falsity; and (4) the statement caused actual or special damages. Intervenor-appellant’s claim of slander of title based on the tax certificates recorded by cross-claimant-appellee and the praecipe for order of sale the latter filed to collect the remaining balance on the tax certificates cannot be established under the unique circumstances of this case. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1280 |
|
Bedford Hts. v. Davis
| 113060 | Traffic stop; obstructing official business; overt act; insufficient evidence. Appellant was convicted of obstructing official business based on the officer’s testimony that he refused to identify himself or provide his driver’s license during a traffic stop. However, one cannot be guilty of obstructing official business by doing nothing because the text of R.C. 2921.31, which defines the offense of obstructing official business, specifically requires an offender to act. The mere refusal to answer a police officer’s questions regarding one’s identity cannot support a conviction for obstructing official business. Because the limited testimony elicited from the officer by the prosecutor did not reflect that appellant engaged in an overt act, appellant’s conviction of obstructing official business is vacated for insufficient evidence. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1281 |
|
Portfolio Recovery Assocs., L.L.C. v. Crenshaw
| 113102 | Debt collection; final appealable order; Civ.R. 4; Civ.R. 56; Civ.R. 58; Civ.R. 60; motion for summary judgment. Affirmed. Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review an untimely appeal of a final judgment, and appellant cannot use a motion for relief for judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) as a substitute for that untimely appeal. | S. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1282 |
|
In re A.P.
| 113227 & 113230 | Termination of parental rights; clear and convincing evidence; court findings. The trial court’s findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record when it terminated appellants’ parental rights. Specifically, the court’s finding pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(E)(1) was supported because while appellants each completed case plan services at one point during the pendency of the case, evidence in the record demonstrated that they did not benefit from those services and, therefore, the issues that lead to the children’s removal remained to be an issue for each of the appellants. Judgment affirmed. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1283 |
|
Zdolshek v. AGZ Properties, L.L.C.
| 113249 | Dismissal of complaint; doctrine of lis alibi pendens. Trial court erred in dismissing complaint based on the doctrine of lis alibi pendens where second action was filed in the same court and involved different claims seeking different relief than those asserted in the first action. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1284 |
|
State v. Thompson
| 113510 | Trial court; dismissal; without prejudice; prejudice; recantation; constitutional; Crim.R. 48. The trial court did not err by dismissing the defendant’s case without prejudice. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
4/4/2024
|
4/4/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1285 |
|
State v. Foster
| 112564 | Crim.R. 11; guilty plea; knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily; Sierah’s Law, R.C. 2903.41 through 2903.44; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), consecutive sentences; firearm specification, R.C. 2941.145(A); mandatory prison term; Reagan Tokes Law. Appellant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. The trial court partially complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) regarding mandatory imprisonment and consecutive service of the firearm specification, but appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice. The trial court failed to make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence findings on the record or in the judgment entry, advise the appellant of Sierah’s Law’s registration obligations, and apply the Reagan Tokes Law to the involuntary manslaughter sentence. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
3/28/2024
|
3/28/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1160 |
|