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 247 rows. Rows per page: 
12345
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Patrick C-220049NO-CONTACT ORDER – COMMUNITY CONTROL — NOTIFICIATION OF POSTRELEASE CONTROL – R.C. 2929.191: The trial court erred in imposing both a prison term and a community control sanction (a no-contact order) for the same offense. The trial court’s recommendation that defendant complete mental health treatment and substance-abuse counseling while incarcerated was not a community-control sanction, but merely a recommendation. The trial court failed to properly advise defendant of the terms of his postrelease control at the sentencing hearing; nevertheless, the court may correct this error by following the procedure set forth in R.C. 2929.191.CrouseHamilton 11/23/2022 11/23/2022 2022-Ohio-4171
State v. Pitts C-220080RESISTING ARREST — R.C. 2921.33(B) — CAUSATION — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT: Defendant’s conviction for resisting arrest was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence: the record reflects defendant violently resisted the officers where a reasonable person would have known that he was being lawfully arrested, and such resistance caused an arresting officer to sustain an injury to his knee when he had to kneel on the floor in the vicinity of taser prongs—which did not connect with defendant—to assist with subduing and arresting defendant.BockHamilton 11/23/2022 11/23/2022 2022-Ohio-4172
Cintrifuse Landlord, L.L.C. v. Panino, L.L.C. C-220050 & C-220065CONTRACTS – BEST EFFORTS – FRAUD: The trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of commercial landlord-plaintiff where a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether landlord had exercised best efforts to fulfil a contractual obligation in the lease: The duty of best efforts requires the promisor to pursue its contractual obligations diligently and with reasonable effort considering its ability, the means at its disposal, and the other party’s justifiable expectations.The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of commercial landlord-plaintiff on counterclaims for fraudulent inducement and fraud where the evidence showed that landlord’s representations to lessee-defendant were not false at the time they were made.CrouseHamilton 11/18/2022 11/18/2022 2022-Ohio-4104
Crutcher v. Oncology/Hematology Care, Inc. C-220086 & C-220106CONTRACTS — WAIVER BY ESTOPPEL — RELEASE — ALTER EGO — SETTLEMENT — PREJUDGMENT INTEREST — BREACH OF CONTRACT — LITIGATION PRIVILEGE: The trial court did not err in finding that plaintiff had waived by estoppel a claim for damages because he had accepted 64 months of payments from defendants based off a lower amount. The trial court did not err in finding that plaintiff’s suit against certain defendants was in violation of a release in a settlement agreement drafted between the parties. The trial court did not err in finding that the defendants did not act in bad faith when it denied denied plaintiff’s motion to compel where defendants had provided plaintiff with ample documentation and where plaintiff sought financial information that he should already have possessed. The trial court erred in failing to award plaintiff prejudgment interest on his damages award in accordance with R.C. 1343.03. The trial court did not err in finding that plaintiff’s allegedly disparaging statements were covered by the litigation privilege.BergeronHamilton 11/18/2022 11/18/2022 2022-Ohio-4105
Eagle Realty Invests., Inc. v. Dumon C-220087; C-220109; C-220111SUMMARY JUDGMENT — BREACH OF CONTRACT — CONDITION PRECEDENT — CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES — PREJUDGMENT INTEREST — ATTORNEY FEES — MOTION TO AMEND: The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs where the contract language and subsequent acts of the parties made clear that the contract did not contain a condition precedent. The trial court’s award of compensatory damages for equity contributions was proper because the contract referenced plaintiffs’ obligations to provide equity payments, and loss of those equity payments was the natural and probable consequence of defendants’ breach of the contract. The trial court properly determined the accrual date for prejudgment interest, and the statutory rate under R.C. 1343.03(A) applied. The trial court erred awarding attorney fees without holding a hearing where defendants disputed the reasonableness of plaintiffs’ attorney-fee request. The trial court properly denied defendants’ motion to strike an affidavit attached to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment when the affidavit was supplemented to comply with Civ.R. 56(E). The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendants’ motion to amend their pleading when the amendment would have been futile, and the motion was untimely when it was filed months after the parties moved for summary judgment.BockHamilton 11/18/2022 11/18/2022 2022-Ohio-4106
State v. Savage C-220131POSTCONVICTION – R.C. 2953.23(A) The common pleas court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain defendant’s late petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.23(A), because defendant’s claims failed to satisfy the statutory exceptions for untimely petitions under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1), where the postconviction claims were based on evidence and testimony presented at trial and not facts that defendant was unavoidably prevented from discovering.BockHamilton 11/18/2022 11/18/2022 2022-Ohio-4107
State v. Bryant C-220144DOMESTIC VIOLENCE — R.C. 2919.25 — EVIDENCE — CREDIBILITY The trial court did not err in finding that defendant was a family member of his domestic violence victim: the victim’s testimony that she was the mother of defendant’s child, in the absence of any conflicting evidence, was sufficient to establish the family member requirement for first degree misdemeanor domestic violence under R.C. 2919.25.The trial court did not err in finding the victim’s testimony credible concerning whether defendant actually committed an act of domestic violence.BergeronHamilton 11/18/2022 11/18/2022 2022-Ohio-4108
State v. Bailey C-210584MOTION TO SUPPRESS – MIRANDA – CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION – FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE The trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to suppress a statement made by defendant about the possession of marijuana and derivative evidence found based on that statement, because defendant made the statement while subject to custodial interrogation without first being advised of his Miranda rights, where he was ordered out of his vehicle, handcuffed, patted down, surrounded by police officers, questioned about the contents of his vehicle, and told that a K 9 unit would be walked around his car.CrouseHamilton 11/14/2022 11/14/2022 2022-Ohio-4028
State v. Coleman C-210600AGGRAVATED MENACING – SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE – COURT COSTS – R.C. 2947.23(C): The Defendant’s conviction for aggravated menacing under R.C. 2903.21 was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim testified that defendant threatened him with a firearm, the responding officer testified that the victim appeared to be frightened when he arrived at the scene, and defendant’s testimony revealed a motive for the threat. While the court erred in failing to impose court costs at the sentencing hearing, any error was harmless because, pursuant to State v. Fissel, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210483, 2022-Ohio-1856, and R.C. 2947.23(C) defendant can file a motion in the trial court for a waiver of court costs at any time.CrouseHamilton 11/14/2022 11/14/2022 2022-Ohio-4029
State v. Montgomery C-220063MOTION TO SUPPRESS – CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION – MIRANDA – R.C. 2935.03: Where defendant voluntarily arrived on the scene and approached the officers, was not handcuffed, was questioned on a sidewalk outside his home, and voluntarily answered officers’ questions, and where the officers did not engage in coercive tactics, intimidation, or threaten defendant, defendant was not subject to a custodial interrogation. Where defendant was not subject to a custodial interrogation, Miranda warnings were not required and the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress.MyersHamilton 11/14/2022 11/14/2022 2022-Ohio-4030
Veach v. Adams C-220072R.C. 3109.051 — PARENTING TIME — BEST INTEREST — CONTEMPT The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that no child would be forced to attend parenting time with father where the trial court found that such an order was in the best interest of the children and such determination was not unreasonable or arbitrary. The trial court did not err in ordering that it would not entertain any motion for contempt in the narrow circumstance where a child had “vehemently” protested attending parenting time as the court was empowered to determine the kind and character of conduct that would constitute contempt.CrouseHamilton 11/14/2022 11/14/2022 2022-Ohio-4031
Ownerland Realty, Inc. v. Conversion Properties, L.L.C. C-220074CONTRACTS — STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS — SUMMARY JUDGMENT: The trial court erred by granting summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff’s claim for breach of a written contract was governed by the six-year statute of limitations found in R.C. 2305.07 because the eight-year statute of limitations of former R.C. 2305.06 applied.WinklerHamilton 11/14/2022 11/14/2022 2022-Ohio-4032
In re Ezeh C-220081; C-220084COMPETENCY — R.C. 5122.01 — COURT-ORDERED TREATMENT — INVOLUNTARY MEDICATION: Respondent’s appeal was not moot because respondent continued to be subject to court-ordered treatment. The trial court’s judgment finding respondent a mentally-ill person subject to court-ordered treatment under R.C. 5122.01 was supported by competent, credible evidence where the state presented clear and convincing evidence that respondent had a substantial thought-and-mood disorder, which impaired respondent’s functioning, and was at substantial risk of physical harm to others.BockHamilton 11/14/2022 11/14/2022 2022-Ohio-4033
Early Church of God in Christ, Inc. v. Jackson C-220115ECCLESIASTICAL-ABSTENTION DOCTRINE – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CIVIL – CHURCH PROPERTY– FIRST AMENDMENT – FIDUCIARY DUTIES – DEMAND FOR ACCOUNTING – DISMISSAL – TRESPASS: The trial court erred in sua sponte dismissing the second and third counts of plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, because the complaint alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty and an accounting and inspection of records that can be resolved by neutral principles of law. The trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s first count in its complaint for trespass because the issue was ecclesiastical.BergeronHamilton 11/14/2022 11/14/2022 2022-Ohio-4034
State v. Reed C-200104CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – FOURTH AMENDMENT – WAIVER – PROBABLE CAUSE – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – SENTENCING ¬– REAGAN TOKES LAW: Defendant did not waive the issue of probable cause where he argued in the trial court that police exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry stop because such an argument necessarily implies that probable cause is lacking. The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress where police had probable cause to arrest defendant based on observation of defendant engaged with a known drug dealer in a specific pattern of behavior known to be followed when the drug dealer sold drugs. The trial court properly imposed an indefinite sentence for a first-degree-felony offense as required by the Reagan Tokes Law, which is not unconstitutional on its face. See State v. Guyton, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190657, 2022-Ohio-2962. [But see DISSENT: The statutory provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law do not provide the fundamental requirements for procedural due process, and stare decisis carries less weight when constitutional interpretation is at issue.]CrouseHamilton 11/9/2022 11/9/2022 2022-Ohio-3986
In re J.H. C-210663 & C-210664DELINQUENCY – WEAPONS UNDER DISABILITY – CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON – FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE –EVIDENCE There was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile’s adjudication for having weapons under disability where the state did not establish that the juvenile was a fugitive from justice. The juvenile’s adjudication for carrying a concealed weapon was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the juvenile had a firearm in his pocket, he did not present affirmative evidence at trial that he was in his own home when he was arrested, and there was sufficient evidence to authenticate the firearm.BergeronHamilton 11/9/2022 11/9/2022 2022-Ohio-3987
In re N.S. C-220066R.C. 3109.12 – R.C. 3109.051 – GRANDPARENT VISITATION – ABUSE OF DISCRETION – CREDIBILITY: Where the trial court accorded special weight to father’s wishes that grandfather not be granted visitation with his children, and where the court balanced father’s wishes against the other relevant factors in R.C. 3109.051(D), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that visitation with grandfather was in the children’s best interest. The trial court did not improperly shift the burden of proof to father to establish that visitation with grandfather was not in the children’s best interest where the record contains no indication that the trial court, when weighing the relevant factors and considering the evidence, placed the burden of proof on father.MyersHamilton 11/9/2022 11/9/2022 2022-Ohio-3988
Edwards v. Horton C-220123CHILD SUPPORT — ADMINSTRATIVE ORDER — PERSONAL JURISDICTON: Where defendant child-support obligor failed to object to personal jurisdiction in his first appearance before the juvenile court, he waived any argument that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.BockHamilton 11/9/2022 11/9/2022 2022-Ohio-3989
State v. Hayden C-210352SEARCHES AND SEIZURES — FOURTH AMENDMENT —EXCLUSIONARY RULE — SUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE — REAGAN TOKES LAW : The trial court properly overruled defendant’s motion to suppress contraband found in a car defendant drove and cash discovered on his person where defendant’s probation officer had reasonable grounds to suspect defendant was in violation of the law and the terms of his probation and where defendant had agreed to warrantless searches based on reasonable grounds as a condition of his probation Defendant’s convictions for multiple drug offenses and the offense of having weapons while under disability were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where, despite evidence that defendant shared the car where probation officers found drugs and a gun, strong circumstantial evidence tied defendant to the contraband, including the presence of $1000 cash in mixed denominations on defendant’s person. The trial court did not err by imposing an indefinite sentence for qualifying offenses where the sentencing scheme embodied in the Reagan Tokes Law is not unconstitutional on its face.WinklerHamilton 11/4/2022 11/4/2022 2022-Ohio-3933
Mehta v. Johnson C-220013DAMAGES — WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE — LANDLORD/TENANT The trial court’s calculation of damages for unpaid rent was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence showed that the parties agreed to a monthly rental amount and no evidence was presented of any subsequent change in such agreement. The trial court’s findings that the tenant was responsible for the water bill and caused damage to the garage door were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where competing testimony was presented on each issue and the trial court made a credibility determination that was best left to the trier of fact.ZayasHamilton 11/4/2022 11/4/2022 2022-Ohio-3934
State v. Lykins C-220103CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL — SPEEDY TRIAL — COUNSEL The trial court did not err by denying defendant’s pro se motion to dismiss based on a speedy-trial violation where the defendant was represented by counsel at the time of the filing and counsel did not join in the motion. The trial court did not violate defendant’s speedy-trial rights where the trial court accepted defendant’s no-contest pleas and found him within the statutory time limit, and, therefore trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to raise the speedy-trial issue in the trial court.BockHamilton 11/4/2022 11/4/2022 2022-Ohio-3935
State v. Ward C-210655EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – THEFT – AIDING AND ABETTING: Defendant’s conviction for aiding and abetting theft was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where the evidence established that defendant aided and abetted the person who committed the theft by driving the person to the victim’s home, parking close to the garage to facilitate the theft, driving to a scrap yard to sell the stolen items, and accepting payment for driving the vehicle.ZayasHamilton 11/2/2022 11/2/2022 2022-Ohio-3899
State v. Carter C-220030EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – RESISTING ARREST: Defendant’s conviction for resisting arrest was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where the evidence established that defendant repeatedly refused to follow the officer’s commands to lie on the ground and place his hands behind his back.ZayasHamilton 11/2/2022 11/2/2022 2022-Ohio-3901
State v. Ledger C-220067APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL – ERROR PRESERVATION – FORFEITURE – PLEA AGREEMENT – BLANKET POLICY: Defendant did not forfeit a challenge to the trial court’s blanket policy of rejecting plea agreements by failing to submit a plea agreement to the trial court where it would have been futile for defendant to submit a plea agreement to the court after the trial court announced that it would have summarily rejected the plea under its policy. The trial court abused its discretion when it refused to accept defendant’s plea agreement with the state under a blanket policy of not accepting pleas in “these cases.”BockHamilton 11/2/2022 11/2/2022 2022-Ohio-3902
Maddali v. Haverkamp C-210358CONTRACTS — STATUTE OF FRAUDS: An oral agreement, funded by adequate consideration and satisfying any statutory writing requirement by part performance, will be enforced where the agreement is supported by clear evidence.WinklerHamilton 10/28/2022 10/28/2022 2022-Ohio-3826
State v. Brown C-210433EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Defendant’s conviction for domestic violence was not supported by sufficient evidence where the evidence failed to establish that the victim was a family or household member because the definition of natural parent does not include a pregnant victim’s unborn child; however, the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for minor-misdemeanor disorderly conduct.ZayasHamilton 10/28/2022 10/28/2022 2022-Ohio-3828
State v. Parker C-210440SELF-DEFENSE – DUTY TO RETREAT – R.C. 2901.09 – RETROACTIVITY – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL – MANIFEST WEIGHT – CONSECUTIVE SENTENCE FINDINGS Where defendant argued that the jury should have been instructed on self-defense pursuant to 2020 Am.S.B. 175, the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the prior self-defense law because the offenses occurred prior to the statute’s effective date, the statute does not include any language to suggest that the General Assembly intended it to apply retroactively, the statute created a substantive right, and the statute “does not set out a penalty, punishment, or forfeiture, but instead provides the substantive law regarding an individual’s duty to retreat before using self-defense.” See State v. Hurt, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110732, 2022-Ohio-2039, ¶ 61.Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the court’s jury instruction on self-defense because the jury was properly instructed on self-defense. Defendant’s convictions for felonious assault, felonious assault with a deadly weapon, having weapons while under disability, and failing to comply with an order or signal of a police officer were not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the victims testified that they did not hit or threaten defendant prior to him shooting them with a handgun. The trial court erred when it failed to make, and incorporate into its entry, the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) prior to imposing consecutive sentences.CrouseHamilton 10/28/2022 10/28/2022 2022-Ohio-3831
Cincinnati v. Triton Servs., Inc. C-210475CONTRACTS — TWO-ISSUE RULE — PREJUDICE: Where juror interrogatories do not determine whether the verdict was based on defendant’s failure to provide early notice of potential claims or failure to comply with the required dispute-resolution process, and defendant fails to raise as error any issue related to the dispute-resolution process, the two-issue rule applies, rendering any other error harmless.BockHamilton 10/28/2022 10/28/2022 2022-Ohio-3832
State v. A.S. C-220259MISDEMEANOR – RECORD SEALING – ABUSE OF DISCRETION The trial court committed an abuse of discretion in denying defendant’s application to seal the record of her conviction where defendant clearly established that her interests in sealing the record outweighed the government’s and the government offered no interests in maintaining the record as public.BergeronHamilton 10/28/2022 10/28/2022 2022-Ohio-3833
State v. Wilson C-210535SELF DEFENSE—DISCHARGE OF FIREARM—BONA FIDE BELIEF: Where defendant was convicted of improperly discharging a firearm after discharging her gun indiscriminately into the night after a barrage of bullets hit her apartment, she did not have a bona fide belief that she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that her only means of escape was in use of such force because she did not see who the assailant was and the barrage of shots had ceased by the time defendant discharged her firearm.BergeronHamilton 10/26/2022 10/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3801
State v. Andrews C-210635DISORDERLY CONDUCT – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY: Defendant’s conviction for disorderly conduct based on the trial court’s finding that her Facebook posts stating “I want to fight” constituted a threat of harm to persons or property under R.C. 2917.11(A)(1) was based upon insufficient evidence because the statements did not indicate that defendant wanted to fight a specific person and the trial court had previously determined that the statements, without something more specific, did not “rise to the level of threatening.”MyersHamilton 10/26/2022 10/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3802
State v. Revere C-220018RESTITUTION — R.C. 4511.19 — ABUSE OF DISCRETION —SENTENCING: The trial court erred in enhancing defendant’s sentence pursuant to a two-prior violation statute instead of a one-prior violation statute where defendant had only one prior OVI conviction. The trial court abused its discretion ordering defendant to pay his victim restitution where defendant had demonstrated proof of insurance that had accepted liability at trial, and the state failed to challenge the adequacy of such coverage.BergeronHamilton 10/26/2022 10/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3803
State v. Everett C-220132POSTCONVICTION – R.C. 2953.23(A): The common pleas court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain defendant’s successive petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.23(A), because defendant’s claims failed to satisfy the statutory exceptions for successive petitions under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1), where the claims were based on the jury verdicts and not facts that the defendant was unavoidably prevented from discovering.WinklerHamilton 10/26/2022 10/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3804
Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v. Bronco Excavating, Inc. C-220163CIV.R. 60(B) The trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant’s motion for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) where the trial court failed to make a factual determination as to the alleged grounds for relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5), and where the record contained no evidence to support defendant’s assertion of excusable neglect.WinklerHamilton 10/26/2022 10/26/2022 2022-Ohio-3805
State v. Solorio C-210526GROSS SEXUAL IMPOSITION – BRADY VIOLATION – COUNSEL – EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT – SUFFICIENCY – EXPERT TESTIMONY – PLAIN ERROR – JURY INSTRUCTIONS: The state’s delayed disclosure of exculpatory evidence, in the form of the victim’s previous grand jury testimony, did not violate Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), where defense counsel was given the evidence in advance of the victim’s testimony at trial and defense counsel ably cross-examined the victim on the inconsistencies in her testimonies. Defendant failed to establish plain error where defendant failed to demonstrate that the time periods alleged in the indictment spanned so broadly so as to prevent him from effectively defending himself and where the trial court’s jury instructions tracked nearly verbatim the Ohio Jury Instructions. Defendant’s convictions for six counts of gross sexual imposition were not against the weight or sufficiency of the evidence where the precise dates on which the acts took place were not elements of the crimes and the child victim gave detailed testimony about each instance of gross sexual imposition. The trial court did not commit plain error in admitting expert testimony where defendant presents on appeal no argument as to how either witness failed to meet the requirements of Evid.R. 702 and where the court allowed defense counsel to cross-examine one expert about the contents of an email sent to her by the prosecution that was explained as making sure that the expert’s report met the requirements of Crim.R. 16(K). Defendant cannot establish that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel where the failure to call an expert witness, to further question and challenge prospective jurors, to object to statements that were not hearsay, to object to leading questions on direct examination of a child witness, and to object to testimony where another witness testified to the same matter did not prejudice defendant.BergeronHamilton 10/21/2022 10/21/2022 2022-Ohio-3749
Daly v. Rowe C-220026 & C-220031CLOSE CORPORATION – BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY – DERIVATIVE ACTION – DAMAGES – EVIDENCE – APPELLATE REVIEW/CIVIL: Where the shareholder plaintiff of a close corporation suffered an injury separate and distinct from the corporation, the trial court did not err in finding that plaintiff had standing to bring a direct claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Where plaintiff introduced evidence regarding the corporation’s annual sales and profit margins, as well as the percentage of profits received by the shareholders, for a five-year period preceding the events leading to the current litigation, and also introduced evidence regarding the corporation’s sales following the event that precipitated the litigation, the trial court erred in finding that plaintiff failed to carry his burden of proving damages.MyersHamilton 10/21/2022 10/21/2022 2022-Ohio-3750
In re C & C Children C-220358CHILDREN – PERMANENT CUSTODY – LEGAL CUSTODY: The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying grandmother’s motion for legal custody of the minor children and granting permanent custody to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services where clear and convincing evidence supported the court’s findings that an award of permanent custody was in the children’s best interest.MyersHamilton 10/21/2022 10/21/2022 2022-Ohio-3751
State v. Mitchell C-210675RAPE – R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) – SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE: The state’s evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) when testimony from the rape survivor and examining nurse, the sexual assault examination report, and DNA-test results established that defendant compelled the rape survivor to engage in sexual conduct through force. The evidence produced at trial weighed heavily in support of defendant’s conviction for rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) where the rape survivor’s testimony was credible and corroborated by testimony from the nurse who examined her, the sexual-assault-examination report, and the physical evidence produced at trial, and any inconsistencies in the survivor’s testimony were inconsequential.BockHamilton 10/19/2022 10/19/2022 2022-Ohio-3713
In re A.W. C-220248CHILDREN — PERMANENT CUSTODY — R.C. 2151.414(D) — R.C. 2151.414(E)(11): The trial court’s best-interest determination was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where, under R.C. 2151.414(E)(11), the burden was on mother to prove that she could provide a legally secure placement for the child and the record showed that she failed to present any evidence to prove that the condition upon which the child was removed had been remedied.ZayasHamilton 10/19/2022 10/19/2022 2022-Ohio-3715
State v. Savage C-190756RAPE — KIDNAPPING — ALLIED OFFENSES — CRIM.R. 11— R.C. 2929.19 — NOTICE REQUIREMENTS — R.C. 2929.11 — R.C 2929.12 — PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING — REAGAN TOKES LAW: Defendant’s offenses of rape and kidnapping were not allied as the act of dragging the victim into the alley to rape her exposed her to the risk of additional harm. The trial court’s failure to inform defendant of the rebuttable presumption of release under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) was harmless error as it strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) and substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)-(b). The trial court properly considered the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11(A)-(B) and 2929.12 and did not err in finding that defendant entered his pleas voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. The trial court did not err by sentencing defendant pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law as this court previously held that the law is facially constitutional in State v. Guyton, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190657, 2022-Ohio-2962 [But see DISSENT: The Reagan Tokes Law is unconstitutional because it violates the fundamental requirements of procedural due process.].BockHamilton 10/14/2022 10/14/2022 2022-Ohio-3653
State v. Dixon C-210502REAGAN TOKES LAW — SEPARATION OF POWERS — DUE PROCESS — COUNSEL: The trial court did not err by sentencing defendant pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law as this court previously held that the law is facially constitutional and does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine or due process in State v. Guyton, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190657, 2022-Ohio-2962, and that the law does not violate an inmate’s right to trial by jury in State v. Smith, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210449, 2022-Ohio-3629. Defendant received the effective assistance of counsel as the Reagan Tokes Law is facially constitutional; therefore, any challenge to defendant’s being sentenced under the law would have been futile.BockHamilton 10/14/2022 10/14/2022 2022-Ohio-3654
State v. Wilson C-220117SENTENCING – MISDEMEANOR – AGGRAVATED MENACING: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to consecutive maximum sentences where the trial court considered the relevant statutory factors in determining defendant’s sentences.BergeronHamilton 10/14/2022 10/14/2022 2022-Ohio-3655
State v. Kelly C-200013REAGAN TOKES LAW — R.C. 2967.217(B) NOTICE REQUIREMENTS —COUNSEL — SIERAH’S LAW — R.C. 2903.42(A)(2)(a) — GUILTY PLEA: The trial court did not err by sentencing defendant under the Reagan Tokes Law as this court previously held that the law is facially constitutional in State v. Guyton, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190657, 2022-Ohio-2962. The trial court failed to comply with the R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notification requirements during sentencing, and, therefore, the cause must be remanded for the trial court to provide the notifications. Defendant received the effective assistance of counsel where the indictment reflected that there was no coconspirator charged; therefore, defendant’s argument that the coconspirator was the principal fails because defendant was the sole person indicted and convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, and the record does not support that a challenge to the violent-offender-database registration requirement would have been successful.BockHamilton 10/12/2022 10/12/2022 2022-Ohio-3628
State v. Smith C-210449REAGAN TOKES LAW – SENTENCING – RIPENESS – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY: Constitutional challenges to the Reagan Tokes Law are ripe for review on direct appeal. The Reagan Tokes Law does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine or substantive- and procedural-due-process rights. Where the provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law do not allow the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to increase an offender’s penalty based upon facts not found by a jury, the law does not violate the right to a trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 5 of the Ohio Constitution.MyersHamilton 10/12/2022 10/12/2022 2022-Ohio-3629
In re R.Z. C-210660JUVENILE COURT – JURISDICTION – R.C. 2152.02 – R.C. 2945.67(A) – APPELLATE REVIEW – FINAL ORDER – R.C. 2505.02 – PROBABLE CAUSE – BINDOVER: The juvenile was a “child” under R.C. 2152.02 and fell within the juvenile court’s exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction under R.C. 2151.23(A)(1) because he was apprehended before his 21st birthday for an alleged act committed before his 18th birthday. The state properly exercised its right to appeal under R.C. 2945.67(A) because the juvenile court’s finding of no probable cause, and subsequent sua sponte dismissal of the charge, was the functional equivalent of granting a motion to dismiss. The juvenile court’s order dismissing the juvenile complaint without prejudice was a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4), because the dismissal prevented an adjudication of the delinquency charges alleged in the complaint. The state did not meet its burden of establishing probable cause to believe that the juvenile engaged in conduct that would have constituted burglary if he was an adult when the only evidence connecting the juvenile to the crime consisted of a BCI notification, which established only a preliminary association between the juvenile and biological evidence recovered from the scene, was an investigative lead, and required additional verification, and the state failed to present evidence explaining the meaning of a preliminary association to the juvenile court. [But see DISSENT: Where the state presented evidence that a DNA hit in CODIS identified a preliminary association between the juvenile and the DNA found on evidence from the scene, that the victim did not know the juvenile, and that there was no reason for the juvenile to have been in victim’s home, there was probable cause to find that the juvenile engaged in conduct that would have constituted the offense of burglary if committed by an adult.]BockHamilton 10/12/2022 10/12/2022 2022-Ohio-3630
State v. Meister C-210456CRIM.R. 32.1 – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL – RES JUDICATA: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s postsentence motion under Crim.R. 32.1 to withdraw his guilty pleas on the ground that his trial counsel had been ineffective concerning the plea: where defendant’s challenge raised issues that could have been raised on direct appeal, res judicata applied.MyersHamilton 10/7/2022 10/7/2022 2022-Ohio-3569
State v. Hammock C-210518 & C-218620VAGUENESS – FACIAL CHALLENGE – STRICT LIABILITY – JURY INSTRUCTIONS – PLAIN ERROR – COUNSEL: The trial court did not err in convicting defendant under an accumulation of garbage ordinance which was not unconstitutionally vague. Where defendant failed to identify any plain error with respect to the trial court’s jury instructions concerning the mens rea element, defendant’s conviction will not be reversed on appeal. Defense counsel was not ineffective where he raised the constitutional challenge to the ordinance in the trial court and where defendant failed to identify any alleged error by counsel with respect to the jury instructions.BergeronHamilton 10/7/2022 10/7/2022 2022-Ohio-3570
In re C.R. C-210591CHILDREN — CUSTODY: The trial court abused its discretion in finding that father was not a suitable parent where the evidence was insufficient to show that father abandoned the child or that custody to father would be detrimental to the child.ZayasHamilton 10/5/2022 10/5/2022 2022-Ohio-3540
Hammond v. Lotz C-220002PREMISES LIABILITY – NEGLIGENCE – OPEN AND OBVIOUS - ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES: The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant property owners because the edging ditch that plaintiff invitee tripped on, injuring herself, was an open-and-obvious condition, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate attendant circumstances.CrouseHamilton 10/5/2022 10/5/2022 2022-Ohio-3542
State v. Jackson C-200332GUILTY PLEA — CRIM.R. 11 — SENTENCING — VIOLENT OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION — REAGAN TOKES LAW: Defendant failed to demonstrate that his guilty plea was not made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently where the trial court fully complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2). The trial court erred by classifying defendant as a violent offender and ordering defendant to enroll in the violent-offender registry pursuant to R.C. 2903.41 where defendant was not convicted under any of the qualifying code sections. The trial court did not err by imposing an indefinite sentence for a second-degree-felony offense where the Reagan Tokes Law is not unconstitutional on its face, see State v. Guyton, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190657, 2022-Ohio-2962, but the trial court erred in failing to provide at sentencing the notices required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c).WinklerHamilton 9/30/2022 9/30/2022 2022-Ohio-3449
12345