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?
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 289 rows. Rows per page: 
123456
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Pence 30039Appellant’s convictions for aggravated burglary, aggravated murder, and tampering with evidence were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress; the record demonstrates that appellant’s waiver of his Miranda rights was knowing, voluntary and intelligent, and was not the product of coercion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering three evaluations of appellant’s sanity at the time of the offenses. The record does not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court did not err in sentencing. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 10/25/2024 10/25/2024 2024-Ohio-5121
State v. Hayes 29968The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal on his domestic violence charge; there was sufficient evidence from which reasonable minds could have concluded that the victim was a household member of appellant. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 10/25/2024 10/25/2024 2024-Ohio-5119
FIG as Custodian for FIG OH18, L.L.C. v. Jones 30104The trial court did not err in dismissing with prejudice appellant’s foreclosure action as time-barred following the vacation of a default judgment due to lack of service and the subsequent successful service of appellee-homeowner. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 10/25/2024 10/25/2024 2024-Ohio-5116
State v. Fletcher 2023-CA-23; 2023-CA-24Appellant’s convictions for gross abuse of a corpse and tampering with evidence were supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the State to present evidence pertaining to a related murder investigation. Defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to request an aiding and abetting jury instruction, as such a decision was a matter of trial strategy, which cannot form the basis of an ineffective assistance claim. Judgment affirmed in Darke C.P. No. 22CR00244, but we instruct the trial court to file a nunc pro tunc entry properly identifying the offenses of which appellant was convicted. The trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on the essential element of recklessness at appellant’s trial for endangering children. Judgment reversed in Darke C.P. No. 22CR00306 and remanded for a new trial.WelbaumDarke 10/25/2024 10/25/2024 2024-Ohio-5117
State v. Powell 2024-CA-8Appellant’s claim that the State failed to present sufficient evidence establishing that the value of the ring he stole met the $1,000 threshold for a felony-level theft offense is without merit; appellant’s felony theft offense merged into his robbery offense, and a robbery conviction requires no evidence of the stolen property’s value. Appellant’s claim that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s award of $3,500 in restitution for the victim’s economic loss also lacks merit. The trial court was permitted to base the amount of restitution on the victim’s testimony, which indicating that he had paid $6,249.98 for the ring and had attempted to sell it for $3,500. The trial court erred in failing to determine jail-time credit. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded for resentencing related to jail-time credit.WelbaumClark 10/25/2024 10/25/2024 2024-Ohio-5122
In re Z.E.W. 2024-CA-36; 2024-CA-37The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it found Mother in contempt for violating the summer parenting schedule in the parties’ agreed order. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in allowing Father to have one of the two child tax credits and reducing his child support payments because the children were no longer in daycare. Judgment affirmed.EpleyGreene 10/25/2024 10/25/2024 2024-Ohio-5120
State v. Wooten 2024-CA-19At appellant’s sentencing hearing, the trial court erred by not advising appellant of the possibility of post-release control (PRC) and the possible consequences of violating the terms of PRC. The trial court also erred by not calculating and informing appellant of his jail time credit at the sentencing hearing and including this information in its judgment entries. The State concedes these errors. Judgments reversed and remanded for resentencing on these issues only. In all other respects, judgments affirmed.TuckerClark 10/25/2024 10/25/2024 2024-Ohio-5124
T.A. v. M.C. 30138Because appellant failed to file objections in the trial court to the granting of a civil stalking protection order, we are precluded from considering her arguments on appeal. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 10/25/2024 10/25/2024 2024-Ohio-5123
State v. Parks 30049Appellant’s conviction for attempted arson was supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court did not commit plain error in admitting alleged gruesome photos, which aided in proving the charges. Appellant’s trial counsel did not act ineffectively in failing to ask for a mistrial based on an outside party’s communication with a juror; the trial court properly held a hearing and found that the juror could be impartial. Given this fact and the overwhelming evidence against appellant, there was no basis for a mistrial. The trial court did not err in ordering a minimal amount of restitution, and its consideration of appellant’s ability to pay can be inferred from the circumstances. R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) does not violate double jeopardy protections by allowing sentence to be imposed on a firearm specification that was part of a merged offense; the Supreme Court of Ohio found this sanction permissible in State v. Bollar, 2022-Ohio-4370. Finally, the trial court did not err in admitting evidence pertaining to a bullet casing found at appellant’s home and a box of bullets found on a neighbor’s roof. These items were consistent with the bullet found in the victim’s body and were relevant to the charge of tampering with evidence. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 10/18/2024 10/18/2024 2024-Ohio-5026
In re E.G. 2024-CA-14The trial court did not err in awarding appellee Paternal Grandmother legal custody of appellant Father’s two minor children. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMiami 10/18/2024 10/18/2024 2024-Ohio-5024
State v. Weaver 30145State’s appeal. Appellee did not waive the issue of whether the police officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct field sobriety tests. The trial court erred in concluding that the officer did not have reasonable, articulable suspicion to extend the length of the traffic stop to perform field sobriety tests and in suppressing all resulting evidence. The trial court erred in suppressing the results of appellee’s urinalysis on the basis that the State had failed to substantially comply with Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-06(F). Judgment reversed and remanded.LewisMontgomery 10/18/2024 10/18/2024 2024-Ohio-5028
State v. Rupert 2024-CA-18Appellant’s conviction for possessing drug abuse instruments was supported by insufficient evidence and against the manifest weight of the evidence, because there was no evidence that he administered, used, or prepared a dangerous drug. Judgment vacated.EpleyGreene 10/18/2024 10/18/2024 2024-Ohio-5027
State v. Kinney 2024-CA-7Appellant was granted intervention in lieu of conviction (ILC) following her conditional guilty plea to aggravated possession of drugs. The State later sought revocation of ILC because appellant had violated certain ILC conditions. At the revocation hearing, appellant admitted the violation, and the trial court revoked ILC and sentenced her to community control sanctions. The record does not reflect that counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel at the revocation hearing. Judgment affirmed.TuckerChampaign 10/18/2024 10/18/2024 2024-Ohio-5025
State v. Woodruff 2024-CA-11Appellant’s convictions for kidnapping (with a firearm specification), having a weapon while under disability, and domestic violence were based on sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 10/11/2024 10/11/2024 2024-Ohio-4926
State v. Wolfe 30159The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s application to seal/expunge the record of his dismissed original murder indictment without a hearing. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 10/11/2024 10/11/2024 2024-Ohio-4924
State v. Powell 30053The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to dismiss a criminal charge of violating a protection order. The order was valid when the violation occurred. The domestic relations court had subject matter jurisdiction over the matter; therefore, its order was not void ab initio. Although the court later vacated the protection order upon learning that the parties were not family or household members, this fact did not affect the court’s authority to issue the order. During the time the protection order was in effect, appellant was required to obey it and failed to do so. As a result, appellant was properly found guilty of violating the order. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 10/11/2024 10/11/2024 2024-Ohio-4923
State v. Wood 29887The trial court did not err in ordering restitution in the amount of an estimate to repair damage to a vehicle caused by appellant in a collision, where there was no evidence to suggest that the cost of the repairs exceeded the value of the victim’s vehicle before the collision. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 10/11/2024 10/11/2024 2024-Ohio-4925
State v. Adams 2023-CA-70The record does not reflect that trial counsel’s “limited” advocacy at sentencing constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. As conceded by the State, the trial court failed in its obligation to advise appellant at the sentencing hearing of the potential consequences of a violation of post-release control. Judgment reversed in part and remanded for resentencing on post-release control only; in all other respects, judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 10/11/2024 10/11/2024 2024-Ohio-4920
State v. Fader 2024-CA-1The trial court erred by not defining the terms “reasonable doubt” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” in its jury instructions, as required by R.C. 2901.05(C). Judgment reversed and remanded.EpleyDarke 10/11/2024 10/11/2024 2024-Ohio-4921
In re Adoption of Z.R.B. 30006The trial court reasonably concluded that Father’s consent to Stepfather’s adoption of Father’s biological child was not required because, in the year before the adoption petition was filed, Father failed, without justifiable cause, to have more than de minimis contact with the child and to provide maintenance and support for the child. The court’s conclusion was supported by the weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 10/11/2024 10/11/2024 2024-Ohio-4922
State v. Harbut 2024-CA-14Appellant’s convictions for having weapons while under disability and tampering with evidence were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Prosecutor’s comments during closing argument were not improper and did not affect the outcome of the case. Appellant’s right to allocution was not violated by the prosecutor’s remark at sentencing about an admission appellant made in phone calls from the jail, because appellant had previously made the same admission himself at the sentencing hearing, and the remark did not affect the sentence imposed. Jail-time credit was not properly imposed. Because the jury made no finding with respect to forfeiture of a weapon, the trial court improperly ordered that the weapon be forfeited to the State. Judgment reversed with respect to jail-time credit only and remanded for the trial court to calculate jail time-credit. The order of forfeiture is vacated. In all other respects, judgment affirmed.HuffmanClark 10/4/2024 10/4/2024 2024-Ohio-4811
Christoff v. Am. Airlines, Inc. 30161Appellant failed to file a transcript when he objected to the magistrate’s decision granting judgment to appellee in his small claims action. As such, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s objections and entering judgment in favor of appellee. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 10/4/2024 10/4/2024 2024-Ohio-4810
Century 21 v. O'Malley 30019In a forcible entry and detainer action, the trial court granted restitution of the premises to appellee after appellant failed to appear at the hearing. Appellant did not obtain a stay and has been removed from the premises. Thus, the appeal is moot, and the record establishes no “great public interest or general interest” exception to the mootness doctrine. Appeal dismissed.TuckerMontgomery 10/4/2024 10/4/2024 2024-Ohio-4809
State v. Wells 2023-CA-41The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s motion to suppress the results of gunshot residue testing conducted upon appellant’s clothing after he was arrested. The trial court acted within its discretion by overruling appellant’s request in the middle of trial for a competency hearing and evaluation. Appellant’s convictions for felonious assault, domestic violence, having a weapon under disability, and tampering with evidence were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not commit any sentencing errors. Judgments affirmed.TuckerClark 10/4/2024 10/4/2024 2024-Ohio-4813
State v. Ringer 30062The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Appellant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 10/4/2024 10/4/2024 2024-Ohio-4812
State v. Brown 2024-CA-7The trial court did not err in finding appellant guilty of operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license. Appellant claimed he was not required to have a driver’s license because he was an “unfranchised common law free man,” another name for a “sovereign citizen” claim. However, Ohio courts have repeatedly found these types of claims frivolous, and that applies here. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMiami 10/4/2024 10/4/2024 2024-Ohio-4808
State v. Webb 2023-CA-34The trial court did not improperly sentence appellant based on factors or considerations that were extraneous to those permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Appellant pled guilty to escape based on the fact that he absconded while on post-release control supervision. In deciding on the sentence to impose, the court was entitled to consider pending charges for crimes appellant allegedly committed during the time he absconded. The sentence was not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumChampaign 9/27/2024 9/27/2024 2024-Ohio-4711
State v. Wilson 30059The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s post-conviction application for DNA testing under R.C. 2953.74(B) and (C); DNA testing was accepted, admissible, and available at the time of appellant’s trial, and any exclusion results would not have been outcome determinative because appellant’s identity was not at issue at trial. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 9/27/2024 9/27/2024 2024-Ohio-4712
Pathfinder Realty, Inc. v. Taylor 30126The municipal court correctly implied a month-to-month tenancy and evicted appellant for non-payment of rent. Although appellant had entered a land installment contract with a prior owner of the property, that contract was not recorded and therefore, pursuant to R.C. 5301.25, was fraudulent as to a subsequent owner of the property who was a bona fide purchaser without knowledge of the contract. In any event, appellant has vacated the premises, and there is no further relief to be granted. Appeal dismissed as moot.HuffmanMontgomery 9/27/2024 9/27/2024 2024-Ohio-4708
State v. Kiptanui 30051The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s application to seal his misdemeanor conviction for violating a protection order. Ohio’s record-sealing process did not apply to that offense, which was ineligible to be sealed. Appellant’s misdemeanor offense for criminal trespass also could not be sealed because the trial court never imposed a sentence after making a finding of guilt. In addition, the existence of the protection-order violation conviction precluded sealing of the criminal-trespass offense. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 9/27/2024 9/27/2024 2024-Ohio-4706
State v. Orr 2024-CA-13The trial court did not err in sentencing appellant to a prison term. The court complied with statutory sentencing requirements, and the court’s review of a police report included with the presentence investigation report did not involve consideration of an improper external factor in sentencing. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumClark 9/27/2024 9/27/2024 2024-Ohio-4707
State v. Tolle 2024-CA-4Appellant’s 18-month prison sentence for violating his community control sanctions was not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumChampaign 9/27/2024 9/27/2024 2024-Ohio-4709
State v. Tomlin 2024-CA-4The trial court did not err by failing to suppress drug evidence found on appellant’s person following a traffic stop, because the traffic stop and the subsequent investigatory detention and pat-down search of appellant were lawful. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMiami 9/27/2024 9/27/2024 2024-Ohio-4710
State v. King 2024-CA-1The record does not portray ineffective assistance of counsel based on appellant’s attorney’s failure to enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. Statutory forfeiture procedures did not apply where forfeiture was the product of the appellant’s voluntary plea agreement. Judgment affirmed.TuckerChampaign 9/27/2024 9/27/2024 2024-Ohio-4705
State v. Jones 30065; 30068Appeal from appellant’s conviction for assault and criminal damaging is moot where appellant has completely served his jail sentence and he has shown no collateral disability or loss of rights from his conviction. Appeal in Case No. 2023CRB4227 dismissed. The trial court’s application of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when imposing consecutive sentences for five misdemeanor counts of assault, while improper, was harmless error. Judgment in Case No. 2023CRB4238 affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 9/20/2024 9/20/2024 2024-Ohio-4604
State v. Walters 2024-CA-16The trial court reasonably concluded that appellant’s guilty plea to one count of menacing by stalking in exchange for the dismissal of three other felonies and a guarantee of community control was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and the court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court also reasonably concluded that experienced defense counsel’s representation that he had repeatedly and affirmatively advised appellant that he could appeal a speedy trial issue if he pled guilty was not credible, and ineffective assistance of counsel is not demonstrated. Appellant’s arguments about his speedy trial rights are not properly before us. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanClark 9/20/2024 9/20/2024 2024-Ohio-4607
State v. Brogan 30052The jury’s conclusion that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant did not act in self-defense was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not commit plain error when it failed to give a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter as an inferior-degree offense of murder. Also, trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a voluntary manslaughter instruction or to call a chokehold expert. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 9/20/2024 9/20/2024 2024-Ohio-4601
State v. Patterson 2024-CA-28Any error by the trial court in recasting appellant’s complaint for declaratory judgment as an untimely post-conviction-relief petition and dismissing it on that basis was harmless as a matter of law. The complaint was subject to dismissal on the grounds that a trial court cannot enter declaratory judgment for a defendant in a criminal case. Judgment affirmed.TuckerGreene 9/20/2024 9/20/2024 2024-Ohio-4605
State v. Champeau 30083The trial court complied with its obligation under Crim.R. 32(A)(1) and R.C. 2929.19(A) to provide appellant an opportunity to speak on his own behalf prior to sentencing by asking appellant if he had anything he wanted to say. Any error occasioned by defense counsel’s responding to that question on appellant’s behalf was invited error. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 9/20/2024 9/20/2024 2024-Ohio-4602
Vidovich v. Little Joe, L.L.C. 2024-CA-6The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee, who owned a convenience store where a third party shot and killed appellant’s decedent. Business owners have a duty to warn or protect business invitees from criminal acts of third parties when they know or should know of a substantial risk of harm to invitees on the owner’s premises, but the third party’s acts must be foreseeable for a duty to arise. To assess this, courts use a totality of the circumstances test in which they consider the location and character of the business and past crimes of a similar nature. Under this test, the totality of the circumstances must be somewhat overwhelming before an owner will be held to be on notice of and therefore under a duty to protect against the criminal acts of others. Here, applying this test and construing the facts in appellant’s favor, appellee did not have a duty to protect the decedent from the gunman’s criminal actions. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumClark 9/20/2024 9/20/2024 2024-Ohio-4606
State v. Gillilan 29901Appellant’s convictions for felony murder, felonious assault, and aggravated robbery were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as an inferior-degree offense to felony murder, and appellant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to request a voluntary manslaughter instruction. Although the State correctly argues on cross-appeal that the trial court erred by giving a self-defense jury instruction on appellant’s aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery charges, the error had no effect on appellant’s convictions because the jury found him guilty of those offenses. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 9/20/2024 9/20/2024 2024-Ohio-4603
State v. Hamilton 2023-CA-28Res judicata bars appellant’s challenge to the validity of his guilty plea to aggravated possession of drugs in this appeal from the judgment imposing sentence for violations of his community control sanctions. Judgment affirmed.EpleyDarke 9/13/2024 9/13/2024 2024-Ohio-4504
State v. Mowery 2023-CA-40Appellant was alleged to have committed a number of criminal offenses, including attempted murder, when he was 17 years old. Following a probable cause hearing, the juvenile court ordered that appellant be bound-over to the common pleas court’s general division for trial as an adult. Appellant ultimately pled guilty to attempted murder and was sentenced accordingly. Appellant’s assertion that the probable cause hearing was tainted by a Brady violation because the State did not apprise him of the victim’s criminal record prior to the hearing is without merit; the victim’s criminal record was a public record accessible to appellant. Moreover, based upon the evidence presented at the probable cause hearing, appellant was not prejudiced by any failure to be informed of the victim’s criminal record. Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 9/13/2024 9/13/2024 2024-Ohio-4507
Jones v. Jones 30022The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding appellant in civil contempt for failure to pay spousal support. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 9/13/2024 9/13/2024 2024-Ohio-4506
White v. Dollar Tree, Inc. 30140The trial court did not err in making several rulings against appellant, as a trial court has great discretion to manage and administer its own docket. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 9/13/2024 9/13/2024 2024-Ohio-4511
T.O. v. T.G. 30058The trial court erred by requiring Petitioner to show an immediate and present danger in order to obtain a sexually oriented offense civil protection order after a full hearing. Judgment reversed and remanded for the trial court to rule on Respondent’s objections using the appropriate legal standard.LewisMontgomery 9/13/2024 9/13/2024 2024-Ohio-4510
State v. Holder 30010The trial court permitted amendment of a misdemeanor complaint during trial, but the amendment did not change the name or identity of the offense charged, and appellant was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Appellant did not overcome the presumption that the trial judge acted without judicial bias or prejudice. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 9/13/2024 9/13/2024 2024-Ohio-4505
State v. Arnold 2024-CA-1Although appellant’s prison sentence is significantly longer than the prison term imposed on his codefendant, the record does not demonstrate that the trial court failed to consider the purposes of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11(B). Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 9/13/2024 9/13/2024 2024-Ohio-4503
Richart v. Greenlee 30037The trial court erred in vacating its order of restitution in favor of landlord in her forcible entry and detainer action and in restoring tenants to immediate possession of the property. The order of restitution was a final appealable order, which the trial court could not vacate sua sponte; tenants’ objections to the order under Civ.R. 53 had no legal import. The tenants’ mechanism for recovering the property was set forth in R.C. 1923.14(A). Judgments vacated; remanded for the trial court to immediately reinstate the writ of restitution.LewisMontgomery 9/13/2024 9/13/2024 2024-Ohio-4509
State v. Obermeyer 30064Appellant’s conviction for disobeying a traffic control device was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The accident victim and a police officer testified that appellant had entered the intersection after the traffic light turned red, and video evidence corroborated this testimony. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 9/13/2024 9/13/2024 2024-Ohio-4508
123456