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 76 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Bowshier 2022-CA-41Anders appeal. Appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his guilty plea. There are no issues of arguable merit to consider on appeal. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanClark 3/24/2023 3/24/2023 2023-Ohio-959
State v. Fleming 2022-CA-48Upon remand for resentencing, the trial court made the consecutive-sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and we cannot find that the court’s finding pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) was not supported by the record under the clear-and-convincing standard provided by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). The trial court's failure to reduce the amount of jail-time credit to a number of days, as required by R.C. 2949.08(B), along with the absence of any opportunity for appellant to be heard on the issue of jail-time credit, requires reversing in part and remanding for the court to properly address jail-time credit. In all other respects, judgment affirmed.HuffmanClark 3/24/2023 3/24/2023 2023-Ohio-961
State v. Hunt 2022-CA-40Appellant’s convictions for discharge of a firearm on or near a prohibited premises, having weapons while under disability, and carrying a concealed weapon were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 3/24/2023 3/24/2023 2023-Ohio-962
Lamar Co., L.L.C. v. Beavercreek 2022-CA-41The trial court did not err in upholding appellee-city’s denial of appellant’s application to erect a digital-billboard on property that is part of a commercial planned-unit development. The proposed sign was not allowed under the terms of a governing sign-program document, which explicitly identified “the total signage” for the completed planned-unit-development project. Judgment affirmed.TuckerGreene 3/24/2023 3/24/2023 2023-Ohio-964
State v. Williams 2022-CA-55Appellant appeals from trial court’s judgments, in two separate cases, finding him incompetent to stand trial and ordering treatment to restore his competency. The trial court’s orders that appellant undergo a competency evaluation and scheduling a hearing were encompassed within the final order on appeal. The trial court did not err in ordering the competency hearing and did not abuse its discretion in requiring a competency evaluation. Appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in denying his request to represent himself was outside the scope of the appeal. Judgments affirmed.EpleyGreene 3/24/2023 3/24/2023 2023-Ohio-965
Evil Empire, L.L.C. v. Troy Bd. of Zoning Appeals 2022-CA-25The trial court did not err in reversing Troy Board of Zoning Appeals’ decision approving appellant’s application for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish a building in the city’s historic district. The trial court correctly held that the BZA could not overlook appellant’s failure to satisfy prerequisites to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness and allow appellant to satisfy them later. The BZA’s decision was not a valid exercise of its authority to “modify” appellant’s application. In effect, the BZA’s decision impermissibly modified the requirements of Troy Zoning Code governing the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMiami 3/24/2023 3/24/2023 2023-Ohio-960
In re Z.C. 29616The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s request to supplement the record with additional evidence, where the evidence could have been produced with reasonable diligence prior to the hearing before the magistrate. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Mother’s objections to the magistrate’s decision and granting legal custody of Mother’s three minor children to maternal great-grandmother. Judgments affirmed.LewisMontgomery 3/24/2023 3/24/2023 2023-Ohio-963
State v. Wroten 29489The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court did incorrectly conclude that the motion should be evaluated as a post-sentence motion to withdraw. However, the sentence was agreed-upon and the trial court stated during the plea hearing that it would apply the agreed sentence. In such situations, a motion to withdraw a plea should be considered under pre-sentence standards. No abuse of discretion occurred, however, because the trial court did apply nine factors that are traditionally applied to pre-sentence motions to withdraw. The court’s decision to deny the motion was not unreasonable, as appellant lacked credibility and did not have a reasonable and legitimate reason for withdrawing his guilty plea. Further, in accepting the plea, the trial court did fail to completely comply with Crim.R.11(C)(2)(a)’s “maximum-penalty-advisement,” because the court failed to discuss community notification and residency requirements for sex offenders during the plea hearing. Appellant failed to show any prejudice, however, as his testimony during the plea withdrawal hearings was inconsistent and lacked credibility. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 3/24/2023 3/24/2023 2023-Ohio-966
State v. Baker 29546The trial court erred by ordering appellant to pay sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal. The trial court had no authority to determine whether the appeal was frivolous and whether to impose sanctions on that basis. Pursuant to App.R. 23, those determinations are solely for the appellate court. Judgment vacated.WelbaumMontgomery 3/17/2023 3/17/2023 2023-Ohio-855
State v. Haynes 29545The trial court did not violate appellant’s plea agreement by imposing an indeterminate prison term of 10 years minimum to 15 years maximum under the Reagan Tokes Act. Judgment affirmedTuckerMontgomery 3/17/2023 3/17/2023 2023-Ohio-858
State v. Hisel 29322Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), having found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. An examination of the record reveals no non-frivolous issues having arguable merit. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 3/17/2023 3/17/2023 2023-Ohio-859
State v. Works 29460The trial court abused its discretion in finding that appellant had violated his community control sanctions. Judgment reversed.LewisMontgomery 3/17/2023 3/17/2023 2023-Ohio-861
State v. King 2022-CA-38The trial court did not err in imposing a maximum prison sentence for a fourth-degree felony offense of violence. Judgment affirmed.LewisGreene 3/17/2023 3/17/2023 2023-Ohio-860
Dunbar v. Beacom 2022-CA-19The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellant-driver, who struck a pedestrian with his truck, because there were genuine issues of material fact as to where the pedestrian was standing when she was struck and whether appellant should have seen her sufficiently in advance to avoid striking her. Judgment reversed and remanded.LewisMiami 3/17/2023 3/17/2023 2023-Ohio-857
State v. Adams 2022-CA-21Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property and failure to comply. The verdicts were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The State presented the expert testimony of the forensic scientist who concluded that appellant’s DNA matched the DNA discovered on a baseball cap and a vehicle’s airbag, but the State did not introduce the testimony of the person who prepared the DNA samples for analysis. This failure did not constitute a Confrontation Clause violation. Finally, the trial court instructed the jury that “the unexplained possession by the defendant of the recently stolen property may give rise to a permissive inference from which you may conclude beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of receiving stolen property.” This instruction did not violate appellant’s right to remain silent. Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 3/17/2023 3/17/2023 2023-Ohio-854
State v. Collins 2022-CA-13Appellant was convicted of escape as a second-degree felony because the charges pending against him at the time of the escape included first-degree felonies. Based on the evidence that the charges pending against appellant at the time of the attempted escape included two counts of aggravated robbery, which is a first-degree felony, and defense counsel’s admission that the pending charges had included aggravated robberies, there was sufficient evidence to support the escape conviction as a second-degree felony. The escape conviction also was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant’s competence to stand trial was not raised in this case, but counsel informed the court that appellant’s competence had been raised (but not determined) in criminal proceedings pending in two other counties. Before the trial began, the trial court discussed this issue with counsel and appellant at length. Contrary to appellant’s assertion, this discussion was not a competency hearing. Moreover, nothing that occurred or was discussed would have reasonably triggered a concern regarding appellant’s competency to stand trial. Judgment affirmed.TuckerChampaign 3/17/2023 3/17/2023 2023-Ohio-856
State v. Turner 2022-CA-11Appellant challenges the trial court’s acceptance of her guilty plea. The trial court strictly complied with the constitutional requirements and substantially complied with the non-constitutional requirements of Crim.R. 11(C). Thus, she entered her guilty plea in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary manner. Judgment affirmed.EpleyChampaign 3/10/2023 3/10/2023 2023-Ohio-735
State v. Foster 2021-CA-50As conceded by the State, the trial court erred by not providing the R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) Reagan Tokes notifications during appellant’s sentencing hearing. Judgment reversed and remanded.TuckerClark 3/10/2023 3/10/2023 2023-Ohio-728
State v. Harris 2022-CA-47Anders appeal. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there are no arguably meritorious issues to present on appeal. Neither appellant nor his counsel raised any potential assignments of error having arguable merit for our review. After conducting an independent review of the proceedings, we agree that there are no issues with arguable merit for appeal. Judgments affirmed.TuckerClark 3/10/2023 3/10/2023 2023-Ohio-729
In re L.C. 2022-CA-77 & 2022-CA-78The trial court granted permanent custody of appellant’s two minor children to a children services agency. Specifically, the trial court concluded by clear and convincing evidence that appellant had abandoned the children and that it was in the children’s best interest that permanent custody be granted to the agency. These conclusions were supported by the record. Judgments affirmed.TuckerClark 3/10/2023 3/10/2023 2023-Ohio-731
State v. Manzi 2022-CA-24Conceded error appeal. The trial court erred when it failed to notify appellant at sentencing of the consequences of violating post-release control. In addition, the trial court’s judgment entry erroneously indicated that the duration of appellant’s post-release control could be increased up to a maximum term of eight years. Judgment reversed and case remanded.EpleyClark 3/10/2023 3/10/2023 2023-Ohio-732
In re F.D.H. 29562The trial court did not err by granting appellee’s petition to adopt a child without appellant-father’s consent. Appellant had had no contact with the child and had failed to provide for her support and maintenance without justifiable cause during the year immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 3/10/2023 3/10/2023 2023-Ohio-730
OTARMA v. Miami Twp. 29570The trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of appellee OTARMA in this declaratory-judgment action insofar as it found that OTARMA had no duty to defend appellants on an infliction-of-emotional-distress claim asserted against them in an underlying lawsuit in federal district court. The trial court should have entered summary judgment in favor of appellant Miami Township on that issue. In all other respects, the trial court did not err in entering summary judgment in favor of OTARMA. As a matter of law, OTARMA had no duty to defend or indemnify appellants on any other cause of action in the federal litigation. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in overruling a motion to compel discovery filed by appellants prior to its entry of summary judgment. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.TuckerMontgomery 3/10/2023 3/10/2023 2023-Ohio-733
State v. Rodgers 29403 & 29405The trial court did not err by failing to suppress evidence flowing from appellant’s warrantless arrest, where the arrest was supported by probable cause, was made in a public place, and was not effectuated by officers constructively entering appellant’s residence. Appellant’s claim that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s certifying four expert witnesses in front of the jury lacks merit; the record establishes that the trial court did not expressly declare or designate the witnesses as experts so as to give the appearance of judicial approval of their testimony. In addition, appellant failed to demonstrate plain error where the trial court allowed the admission of other-acts testimony that was elicited by appellant and offered for non-propensity-based purposes. Lastly, appellant’s convictions for aggravated murder, involuntary manslaughter, having weapons while under disability, and related firearm specifications were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgments affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 3/10/2023 3/10/2023 2023-Ohio-734
State v. Taylor 29563Appellate counsel found no non-frivolous issues for appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our examination of the record also reveals no non-frivolous issues having arguable merit. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 3/10/2023 3/10/2023 2023-Ohio-736
In re Estate of Goubeaux 2022-CA-7The trial court’s interlocutory entry construing the terms of a decedent’s will in the context of a will-probate proceeding was not a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B). Appeal dismissed.TuckerDarke 3/3/2023 3/3/2023 2023-Ohio-647
State v. Huelsman 2022-CA-21The trial court had personal jurisdiction over appellant, who claimed status akin to that of a “sovereign citizen.” Such arguments are frivolous. The court also had subject matter jurisdiction over the traffic citation issued to appellant, who was driving on a suspended license. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMiami 3/3/2023 3/3/2023 2023-Ohio-649
Monroe v. Troy Strawberry Festival, Inc. 2022-CA-23The trial court erred in overruling the city’s motion for summary judgment based on sovereign immunity where appellees’ injuries allegedly were due to the city’s negligence in performing its governmental function of maintaining sidewalks and streets. Because appellees failed to allege a viable exception to the city’s sovereign immunity, the city was entitled to summary judgment. Judgment reversed and remanded.LewisMiami 3/3/2023 3/3/2023 2023-Ohio-650
State v. Collins 2022-CA-40The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s motion to suppress evidence found on his cell phone. The challenged affidavit, despite being based primarily on hearsay evidence, was sufficient to ensure the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Further, the trial court did not err in accepting appellant’s no contest plea as it partially complied with Crim.R. 11 and appellant did not demonstrate prejudice. Judgment affirmed.EpleyGreene 3/3/2023 3/3/2023 2023-Ohio-646
State v. Bennington 29585Appellant’s conviction for violation of a protection order was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant was not acting as a mandated reporter because she was not reporting in her official or professional capacity, and she was not entitled to immunity. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 3/3/2023 3/3/2023 2023-Ohio-644
State v. Brown 29553Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of robbery (physical harm). The conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 3/3/2023 3/3/2023 2023-Ohio-645
State v. Harris 29379After merging multiple offenses and specifications, appellant was convicted of two counts of murder with firearm specifications, aggravated burglary, and having weapons while under disability. Appellant’s statutory and constitutional speedy trial rights were not violated. His convictions were based on sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err in admitting two short surveillance videos from the scene or in denying appellant’s subsequent motion for a mistrial. The trial court’s judgment entry did not accurately reflect the aggregate sentence orally imposed. Judgment affirmed, but the trial court is ordered to file a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the judgment entry.EpleyMontgomery 3/3/2023 3/3/2023 2023-Ohio-648
State v. Towe 2022-CA-18Anders appeal. After admitting to a violation of his community control, the trial court continued appellant’s community control, but ordered him to serve 94 days in jail and to pay court costs. Because appellant has served his jail sentence and his community control has been terminated, any claim related to his violation hearing or the court’s jail sentence is moot. No arguably meritorious issue exists concerning the order to pay court costs. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMiami 2/24/2023 2/24/2023 2023-Ohio-549
State v. Dyer 2022-CA-36Appellant’s domestic violence conviction was not based on insufficient evidence. Appellant’s testimony conflicted with that of the arresting officer, and construing the evidence in the State’s favor, any rational finder of fact could have concluded that appellant knowingly attempted to cause physical harm to a family member. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumGreene 2/24/2023 2/24/2023 2023-Ohio-544
Sweet v. Sweet 2022-CA-50The trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating child support where appellant had failed to object to the child support enforcement agency’s determination that the child subject to the support order had turned 18 years of age and was no longer attending full-time an accredited high school. Judgment affirmed.LewisGreene 2/24/2023 2/24/2023 2023-Ohio-548
USPG Portfolio Six, L.L.C. v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. 2022-CA-42The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in lessor-appellee’s favor because there were genuine issues of material fact concerning whether equitable estoppel and waiver applied to the lessor’s conduct. Other issues as to interpretation of the lease agreement were not raised in the trial court, and consideration of these issues under the plain error doctrine is unnecessary because the summary judgment is being reversed. Judgment reversed and remanded.WelbaumClark 2/24/2023 2/24/2023 2023-Ohio-550
State v. Dudley 29528Appellant’s conviction for felonious assault was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 2/24/2023 2/24/2023 2023-Ohio-543
In re N.S. 29599The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that it was in a child’s best interest to grant permanent custody of the child to Children’s Services; the child had bonded with her foster family and there were significant concerns about placing the child with her mother, father, or maternal grandmother. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 2/24/2023 2/24/2023 2023-Ohio-545
Monogram Credit Card Bank of GA v. Yoakum 29533The trial court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s motion to vacate a prior judgment against her where appellant’s affidavit, if credited, provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of proper service. Judgment reversed and remanded.LewisMontgomery 2/24/2023 2/24/2023 2023-Ohio-546
MWL Ents., L.L.C. v. Mid-Miami Invest. Co. 29445In a dispute over easements, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for sanctions under R.C. 2323.51, as cross-appellant’s motion for contempt was not frivolous. The trial court correctly noted that a reasonable lawyer could have argued that the circumstances surrounding a prior injunction granted against appellant were similar to the circumstances that led cross-appellant to file the contempt motion. The trial court also did not err in denying cross-appellant’s contempt motion, as the appellant had not yet taken any action. Instead, appellant had simply threatened to take action concerning the easements involved in the prior injunction. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 2/24/2023 2/24/2023 2023-Ohio-547
Vinebrook Homes, L.L.C. v. Matlock 29600The trial court erred in rendering judgment in favor of appellees as the court lacked personal jurisdiction over appellant. Judgment vacated.EpleyMontgomery 2/17/2023 2/17/2023 2023-Ohio-478
Y.A.B. ex rel. E.E.W. v. Wallace 29529Relator, an inmate incarcerated in Kentucky, did not prove clearly and convincingly that the respondents, a juvenile court judge and magistrate, completely failed to comply with constitutional due process in their exercise of personal jurisdiction over his child support obligation. Juvenile court records demonstrate that relator was an Ohio resident when the obligation was established, and there is no evidence that the respondents lack continuing exclusive jurisdiction to modify and enforce the obligation. Writ of prohibition denied.Per CuriamMontgomery 2/17/2023 2/24/2023 2023-Ohio-551
State v. Coffee 2022-CA-54 & 2022-CA-55Following an independent review of the record as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), this court finds no issues with arguable merit to advance on appeal. The record establishes that appellant’s guilty pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered and that the sentences imposed by the trial court were jointly recommended by the parties and authorized by law, making them unreviewable. Judgments affirmed.WelbaumClark 2/17/2023 2/17/2023 2023-Ohio-474
State v. Smith 2022-CA-52The trial court did not err by imposing a 7 to 10½ year sentence on appellant, as the disposition was not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 2/17/2023 2/17/2023 2023-Ohio-477
State v. Scott 2022-CA-16The trial court’s decision to impose the maximum possible jail term for each of appellant’s four vehicular manslaughter offenses was not an abuse of discretion. Judgments affirmed.WelbaumChampaign 2/17/2023 2/17/2023 2023-Ohio-476
In re Adoption of J.R.I. 2022-CA-22The trial court ruled that a domestic violence civil protection order prohibiting appellant-father from having contact with his child did not provide justifiable cause for appellant’s failure to have contact with the child in the one-year period before appellee-petitioner filed a petition seeking to adopt the child. Based upon this conclusion, the court found that appellant’s consent to the adoption was not required. While acknowledging that the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in In re Adoption of A.K., 168 Ohio St.3d 225, 2022-Ohio-350, 198 N.E.3d 47, applies to the case at hand, this Court does not adopt the lead opinion of the plurality decision. Rather, we continue to apply the two-step analysis applicable to the de minimis prong of R.C. 3107.07(A), which was supported by four of the Justices in In re Adoption of A.K. Under this analysis, the trial court’s decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence. Judgment affirmed.LewisGreene 2/17/2023 2/17/2023 2023-Ohio-475
State v. Wolfe 2022-CA-12Appellant’s appeal from the revocation of his community control is moot. Appeal dismissed.EpleyGreene 2/10/2023 2/10/2023 2023-Ohio-392
State v. Elliott 2022-CA-4The trial court correctly overruled appellant’s motion to suppress a confession he made to a detective and pictures the detective obtained from his cell phone. The protections of Miranda did not apply when appellant made his confession and the detective discovered the pictures, because appellant’s interaction with the detective was not a custodial interrogation. Appellant’s confession to the detective also was voluntary and not a product of police coercion. Judgment affirmed.TuckerDarke 2/10/2023 2/10/2023 2023-Ohio-388
State v. Greene 29274The trial court’s notifications under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)(i)-(iv) were not contrary to law. Although the trial court did not quote R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)(i)-(iv) verbatim, its notification contained the required information. However, the trial court failed to provide the notification required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c)(v) when it, seemingly inadvertently, told appellant that he must be released at the expiration of his minimum (as opposed to maximum) sentence. Judgment reversed and remanded for resentencing.EpleyMontgomery 2/10/2023 2/10/2023 2023-Ohio-389
In re A.R. 29604The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that it was in the child’s best interest to grant permanent custody of the child to Children’s Services, where the child had bonded with her foster family and the biological mother had not completed significant portions of her case plan, including having stable housing and verified income. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 2/10/2023 2/10/2023 2023-Ohio-390