|
|
DH Hensley Ents., L.L.C. v. Nelson
| 30357, 30456 | In a dispute involving a purported breach of a real estate purchase agreement in which appellant was the buyer, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellees on appellant’s complaint. The evidence established as a matter of law that the first real estate purchase agreement had been terminated and the second real estate purchase agreement was not enforceable because it had not been signed by the seller of the real estate. Due to the lack of an enforceable contract, appellant’s claims failed as a matter of law. Judgments affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
6/18/2026
|
6/18/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2307 |
|
State v. Pettigrew
| 30772 | The trial court correctly determined that appellant’s charge of fourth-degree felony failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer rendered him ineligible for intervention in lieu of conviction under R.C. 2951.041(B)(10). Under the plain, unambiguous language of the statute, because the mandatory driver’s license suspension attendant to appellant’s conviction of the offense would disqualify him from operating a commercial motor vehicle, he met the statutory criteria for disqualification from ILC. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
6/18/2026
|
6/18/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2312 |
|
In re Adoption of F.M.W.
| 30732 | The probate court correctly determined that appellant-father’s consent to the adoption of his child was not required because he failed to object to the adoption petition. Father received a notice of the hearing on the adoption petition that met the statutory notice requirements, and he failed to file any objection with the probate court. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
6/18/2026
|
6/18/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2309 |
|
State v. Parks
| 30702 | Appellant appeals from the denial of his “motion to dismiss indictment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,” which he filed approximately a year after his convictions of murder and other offenses were affirmed on direct appeal. The record does not support appellant’s contention that the State failed to serve him with its response to the motion. The trial court properly concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction and that appellant’s argument was barred by res judicata. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in analyzing the motion as a petition for postconviction relief. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
6/18/2026
|
6/18/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2311 |
|
State v. Hake
| 30472, 30473 | The trial court’s judgments in these two consolidated misdemeanor appeals were rendered without the benefit of a transcript of the proceedings before a magistrate. Although appellant has filed a transcript on appeal, an appellate court may not consider materials that were not before the trial court at the time of its ruling. Without an admissible transcript, this court must presume regularity unless the limited record affirmatively demonstrates error. The lack of a transcript largely prevents appellant from establishing error related to (1) the denial of requests for a continuance, (2) waiver of his right to counsel, (3) reservation of a ruling on a Crim.R. 29 motion, (4) the legal sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence, (5) the admission of purported hearsay testimony about an unauthenticated document, and (6) a prosecution witness remaining in the courtroom despite a separation-of-witnesses order. To the extent that some of these issues are capable of being reviewed without a transcript, appellant has not shown reversible error. Finally, the record does reflect that the trial court violated Crim.R. 43 by sentencing appellant in his absence. Judgments affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cases remanded for resentencing. | Tucker | Montgomery |
6/18/2026
|
6/18/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2308 |
|