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 337 rows. Rows per page: 
1234567
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Fultz 29434The trial court abused its discretion when it overruled appellant’s motion for a new trial. There was juror misconduct when a juror looked at outside information during deliberations, and it materially affected appellant’s substantial rights. Judgment reversed and remanded. (Epley, J., dissenting.)DonovanMontgomery 11/23/2022 11/23/2022 2022-Ohio-4177
State v. Reid 29495In 2002, appellant was convicted of aggravated murder and aggravated robbery; the trial court’s judgment entry stated that the aggravated murder sentence was a “life sentence,” without stating that appellant would be eligible for parole after 20 years. In 2022, appellant filed a motion asserting that the omission from the judgment entry rendered his sentence void. Because the defect only made the sentence voidable, not void, and a voidable sentence must be challenged on direct appeal, the trial court did not err in overruling the motion. Moreover, appellant’s parole eligibility after 20 years is presumed because the sentencing entry did not state otherwise. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 11/23/2022 11/23/2022 2022-Ohio-4178
Sanchez v. Casiano 29415The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody of the minor children to their mother after considering the best interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1). The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in the division of assets; it properly considered the mortgage and equity relating to the house, and the parties failed to object to the de facto termination of marriage date used by the magistrate. The trial court did abuse its discretion in its calculation of child support and spousal support when it imputed $60,000 of income to the father without considering the factors listed in R.C. 3119.01(C)(17). Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.LewisMontgomery 11/23/2022 11/23/2022 2022-Ohio-4179
Smith v. Farmer 29524The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of deceased pension plan participant’s second wife/widow and denying first wife’s motion for summary judgment on her claims based on second wife’s receipt of survivor benefits. The 1988 divorce decree provided that first wife was to receive one-half of participant’s gross monthly benefits and, if the plan were later modified to provide for surviving spouse benefits, that she would be the “surviving spouse.” The surviving spouse provision remained valid after the domestic relations court issued an entry vacating the domestic relations court’s subsequent QDRO and converting the gross monthly pension benefits to a spousal support order. However, first wife is not entitled to the benefits second wife is receiving. Second wife is receiving statutory surviving spouse benefits, which are limited to the spouse at the time of the participant’s death; the plan was not “modified” to allow those benefits to be paid to a former spouse, and the divorce decree cannot require the plan to provide a survivor benefit to a former spouse under R.C. 742.37(D) and R.C. 742.58 when such benefits are not authorized by statute. In addition, assuming the divorce decree required the plan participant to designate first wife as his beneficiary if he were to select a different annuity option, no change to his plan was made following the divorce, and second wife is not receiving a survivorship payment under an annuity plan. Accordingly, first wife has no right, equitable or otherwise, to the payments second wife is receiving. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 11/23/2022 11/23/2022 2022-Ohio-4180
Vukovic-Burkhardt v. Dayton Bd. of Edn. 29539The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s Civ.R. 60(B)(3) motion as untimely. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion alleging a fraud upon the court. The trial court reasonably concluded that appellant had failed to present facts that would warrant relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) or entitle her to a hearing. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 11/23/2022 11/23/2022 2022-Ohio-4183
State v. Webb 2022-CA-7; 2022-CA-8Appellant’s conviction for operating a vehicle under the influence was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the circumstantial evidence presented by the State was sufficient to establish that appellant had operated his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Judgment affirmed.DonovanClark 11/23/2022 11/23/2022 2022-Ohio-4184
State v. Wilson 29448Appellant’s appeal is dismissed as moot; a review of the docket entries reveals that the jury returned a not guilty verdict after his trial. Appeal dismissed.LewisMontgomery 11/23/2022 11/23/2022 2022-Ohio-4185
State v. Greene 2021-CA-65Conceded error. The trial court’s imposition of a non-life indefinite prison term under the Reagan Tokes Act was contrary to law when the court failed to provide the notifications set forth in R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) at the sentencing hearing. Judgment reversed and remanded.EpleyClark 11/18/2022 11/18/2022 2022-Ohio-4113
State v. Hanners 29375Appellant was not required to consent to having the magistrate preside over his criminal jury trial, because she proceeded in her capacity as an acting judge, not as a magistrate. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for an acquittal based on an improper statement by the prosecutor during closing argument. Any potential prejudice was removed as a result of the trial court’s actions in response to the error. Lastly, although disorderly conduct under R.C. 2917.11(A)(1) is a lesser included offense of menacing, the trial court did not err in refusing to give a jury instruction for the lesser included offense based on the facts presented at trial. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 11/18/2022 11/18/2022 2022-Ohio-4114
In re Z.D.Y. 2022-CA-37The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by awarding permanent custody of appellant’s minor child to appellee, a children services agency. The court’s decision was supported by competent, credible evidence. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumGreene 11/18/2022 11/18/2022 2022-Ohio-4115
R.Y.D. v. M.M. 2022-CA-14The trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting a child’s counselor from opining on the child’s credibility in making sexual abuse allegations. The trial court did abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s petition for a domestic violence civil protection order on behalf of her daughter and against Father, after the trial court specifically found that the child’s testimony that Father had molested her was credible and that Father’s testimony was not credible. Judgment reversed and remanded.DonovanMiami 11/18/2022 11/18/2022 2022-Ohio-4116
State v. Rimi 29414The jury’s guilty verdict on a domestic violence charge was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; appellant admitted that he had thrown an object at the victim that hit her and caused her to bleed, and the victim testified that appellant had also punched and kicked her. The jury’s finding that appellant had a prior domestic violence conviction was also supported by the evidence where the State presented a certified copy of the prior conviction. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 11/18/2022 11/18/2022 2022-Ohio-4117
State v. Santana 29348The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of past trespasses on appellant’s property where the evidence was remote in time and did not involve the trespassers involved in the current case. Even if the trial court had allowed this evidence to be presented to the jury, no reasonable jury could have found that appellant acted in self-defense where he was the first aggressor. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to play recordings of appellant’s interviews with the police where appellant failed to establish unfair prejudice. Appellant’s convictions for murder and felonious assault were supported by the evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 11/18/2022 11/18/2022 2022-Ohio-4118
State v. Snowden 29355The trial court’s order overruling appellant’s petition for postconviction relief and motion for leave to file a motion for new trial was not an abuse of discretion; the petition was untimely, and appellant failed to establish that he had been unavoidably prevented from discovering the information on which his petition and motion were based. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 11/18/2022 11/18/2022 2022-Ohio-4119
State v. Taylor 29410The trial court correctly declined to award jail-time credit for a period where appellant was serving a misdemeanor sentence for a separate offense. The trial court did not unreasonably delay appellant’s sentencing in violation of Crim.R. 32(A). The trial court reasonably continued sentencing in one case to facilitate the resolution of two cases together. The trial court erred in imposing two to five years of post-release control where appellant was subject to only 18 months to three years of post-release control. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.TuckerMontgomery 11/18/2022 11/18/2022 2022-Ohio-4120
Cobia v. Goode 29557Appellant filed a petition for a civil stalking protection order against appellee. Following a full hearing, the magistrate denied the petition. Appellant did not file objections, and the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision. Because no objections were filed, this court is confined to plain error review, and appellant’s failure to file a transcript of the full hearing precludes a finding of plain error in this case. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 11/10/2022 11/10/2022 2022-Ohio-4002
State v. Donley 29429The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief where the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the petition due to its untimeliness. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 11/10/2022 11/10/2022 2022-Ohio-4003
State v. Midkiff 2021-CA-39The trial court did not err when it did not instruct the jury on the updated “stand your ground” law, because the change in the law was substantive and thus could not be applied retroactively. Further, the trial court correctly instructed the jury on the law of self-defense. Finally, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the jury instructions, as the self-defense instructions were accurate. Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 11/10/2022 11/10/2022 2022-Ohio-4004
State v. Woodson 29394The trial court did not err in finding appellant guilty of assault and obstructing official business; the convictions were supported by the evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 11/10/2022 11/10/2022 2022-Ohio-4005
State v. Barker 2022-CA-27The trial court did not err in its analysis of the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 when it sentenced appellant to a prison term of 11 months. Thus, appellant cannot demonstrate that his sentence was clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.DonovanClark 11/4/2022 11/4/2022 2022-Ohio-3939
State v. Beal-Ragland 2022-CA-22Anders appeal. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding there are no meritorious issues to present on appeal. Neither the 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. Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 11/4/2022 11/4/2022 2022-Ohio-3940
State v. Cobbins 29365Anders appeal. After conducting 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), the court finds the appeal is frivolous as there are no issues with arguable merit for appeal. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 11/4/2022 11/4/2022 2022-Ohio-3941
Coleman v. Sami 29502 & 29503Appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court committed prejudicial error by granting two civil stalking protection orders against her under R.C. 2903.214. Judgments affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 11/4/2022 11/4/2022 2022-Ohio-3942
In re A.Z. 2022-CA-9The trial court did not err in granting Father legal and residential custody of the parties’ minor daughter and granting Mother the standard order of parenting time. Because Mother’s objections in the trial court were general, we review only for plain error, and this is not the rare situation involving extraordinary circumstances where a court’s error affected the legitimacy of the judicial process. There was no plain error. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMiami 11/4/2022 11/4/2022 2022-Ohio-3943
State v. Kirchgessner 2022-CA-1Appellant’s no contest pleas to aggravated vehicular manslaughter and operating a vehicle while intoxicated were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; the record does not support appellant’s assertion that she was unable to understand the proceedings due to a brain injury. The court considered the presentence investigation report in imposing sentence, which addressed her work history and prospects, and we infer that the trial court fulfilled its duty to consider appellant’s present and future ability to pay her financial sanctions. Appellant’s fines for her offenses were not contrary to law. Ineffective assistance of counsel is not demonstrated in defense counsel’s failure to request a hearing regarding appellant’s ability to pay her fines. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMiami 11/4/2022 11/4/2022 2022-Ohio-3944
State v. Price 29344The trial court reasonably credited the testimony of the State’s witnesses that appellant approached the victim’s vehicle, ignited a combustible item, placed it under the vehicle, and fled the scene as an explosion occurred. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of criminal damaging proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court’s judgment also was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 11/4/2022 11/4/2022 2022-Ohio-3945
State v. Slaughter 29305Appellant’s waiver of his right to a jury trial did not strictly comply with R.C. 2945.05. The written jury waiver form was not “signed by the defendant” when, absent extraordinary circumstances, the form was signed by defense counsel for the defendant with defendant’s consent. Judgment reversed and remanded.EpleyMontgomery 11/4/2022 11/4/2022 2022-Ohio-3946
State v. Atha 2022-CA-12Following a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of felonious assault and was sentenced to an indefinite prison term of 8-12 years. At the sentencing hearing, the State informed the trial court of other criminal acts appellant purportedly had committed against the victim. The source of this information cannot be discerned from the record. Based on this record, we cannot conclude that the allegations of other acts against the victim, though perhaps problematic, influenced the trial court’s decision, or that the sentence was otherwise contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. (Welbaum, J., concurring.)TuckerClark 10/28/2022 10/28/2022 2022-Ohio-3842
Hanahan v. DPA Dev., L.L.C. 29486The trial court failed to comply with this court’s prior mandate upon remand. Judgment reversed and remanded.LewisMontgomery 10/28/2022 10/28/2022 2022-Ohio-3843
State v. Klink 2022-CA-18Appellant did not request a presentence investigation (“PSI”). The trial court was required to impose a prison sentence for appellant’s firearm specification, and it chose to impose prison terms for involuntary manslaughter and aggravated robbery; under these circumstances, it was within the court’s discretion not to order a PSI. The trial court made the findings required to impose consecutive sentences, namely that at least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of a course of conduct and that the harm was so great that no single term would adequately reflect the seriousness of appellant’s conduct. We cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record did not support the trial court’s findings. Judgment affirmed.DonovanGreene 10/28/2022 10/28/2022 2022-Ohio-3844
State v. Shade 29373 & 29374The trial court did not err when it failed to note at the plea hearing that a prison term for a violation of R.C. 2921.331(D) (failure to comply) must be served consecutively to any other prison term, as appellant’s plea was voluntarily made. The trial court strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) and substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (b). Further, appellant cannot show prejudice. Judgments affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 10/28/2022 10/28/2022 2022-Ohio-3845
State v. Stargell 2021-CA-57The trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed a juror after deliberations had begun. There is no indication on the record that the juror was unable, unwilling, or unqualified to continue serving as a juror. Judgments reversed and remanded.DonovanClark 10/28/2022 10/28/2022 2022-Ohio-3847
State ex rel. Stafford v. Carpenter 2022-CA-13When making an attorney-fee award, the trial court abused its discretion in reducing one of appellant’s attorney’s hourly rate from $325 to $200 without supporting evidence. The largest reduction the record reasonably supported was a reduction to $250 per hour. The trial court did not abuse its discretion, however, in making a 30-percent reduction to the number of hours for which appellant was entitled to attorney fees, denying attorney fees associated with a fee application, denying expert fees as costs, and excluding two pages of billing summaries. The trial court also adequately explained the basis of its attorney-fee award. Judgment reversed and remanded for recalculation of the fee award.TuckerGreene 10/28/2022 10/28/2022 2022-Ohio-3848
State v. Walker 2022-CA-2The State presented sufficient evidence of the lawful-arrest element of resisting arrest, and the jury’s determination that the lawful-arrest element was proven beyond a reasonable doubt was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumDarke 10/28/2022 10/28/2022 2022-Ohio-3849
White v. Martin 29395Appellant’s claim that he did not receive a fair trial lacks merit. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the trial court magistrate exhibited racial bias by crediting appellees’ trial testimony over appellant’s testimony and video evidence. Moreover, the credibility of the witnesses’ testimony was for the magistrate, as trier of fact, to resolve, and there is nothing in the record indicating that the magistrate’s credibility determination was unsound. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 10/28/2022 10/28/2022 2022-Ohio-3850
State ex rel. Tangeman v. Miami Cty. Bd. of Commrs. 2022-CA-13Petitioner's expedited type-2 annexation petition complied with all seven conditions of R.C. 709.023(E), including the requirement that the municipal corporation to which annexation is proposed adopt an ordinance or resolution stating what services it will provide to the territory pursuant to R.C. 709.023(C). A board of county commissioners may not deny an expedited type-2 annexation petition becuase a services ordinance or resolution does not specify that the municipal corporation will provide water and sewer services to the territory proposed to be annexed. Writ of mandamus granted.Per CuriamMiami 10/21/2022 10/28/2022 2022-Ohio-3851
State v. Barker 29227Appellant was convicted of murder and discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises in a jury trial and of having weapons while under disability in a bench trial. The trial court abused its discretion in its wording of the “at fault” portion of the jury instruction on self-defense. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.EpleyMontgomery 10/21/2022 10/21/2022 2022-Ohio-3756
Burhill Leasing Corp. v. Graham 29401In an action to enforce a garnishment pursuant to R.C. 2716.21(F), appellant-garnishor failed to establish that appellee-garnishee held property belonging to the judgment debtor. The trial court properly denied appellant’s motion for summary judgment. Judgment affirmed. (Tucker, P.J., concurring.)DonovanMontgomery 10/21/2022 10/21/2022 2022-Ohio-3757
State v. Davis 2022-CA-8Following a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of three driving under suspension offenses. The jury’s verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. However, the trial court erred by its failure to merge the offenses. Judgments affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.TuckerChampaign 10/21/2022 10/21/2022 2022-Ohio-3758
State v. Gilbreath 2020-CA-37The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, because the trial court reasonably determined that appellant had failed to establish a manifest injustice warranting the withdrawal of the plea. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumClark 10/21/2022 10/21/2022 2022-Ohio-3759
State v. Lloyd 29407The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea where the record demonstrated that appellant understood the effect of his plea and the mandatory nature of his sentence. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 10/21/2022 10/21/2022 2022-Ohio-3760
State v. Springs 2022-CA-19The trial court did not err when it found that appellant’s right to speedy trial had not been violated because of appellant’s vacillating and dilatory conduct in repeatedly refusing to testify before a grand jury pursuant to a plea agreement with the State. The trial court also did not err when if found that the triple-count provision in R.C. 2945.71(E) did not apply to a period of time during which appellant was incarcerated on additional pending charges in another case. Judgment affirmed.DonovanClark 10/21/2022 10/21/2022 2022-Ohio-3761
State v. Wiesenborn 29388The trial court did not erroneously apply res judicata and the law of the case to overrule appellant’s post-sentence plea-withdrawal motion. The trial court did not apply res judicata or the law of the case to those aspects of the motion that relied on evidence outside the trial record and raised issues that could not have been presented on direct appeal. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no manifest injustice warranting withdrawal of the appellant’s no-contest plea. The trial court had no authority to order a new sentencing hearing to modify the appellant’s sentence. Judgment affirmed. (Donovan, J., dissenting.)TuckerMontgomery 10/21/2022 10/21/2022 2022-Ohio-3762
State v. Wilson 2021-CA-68Appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify a self-defense instruction. Affirmative defenses involve concession of the prosecution’s facts and independent or substantive matters exempting the defendant from liability; affirmative defenses also may not negate any elements of the charged crime. In this case, appellant did not concede that the prosecution’s factual claims were true; instead, he attempted to negate the elements of the crime with which he was charged. As a result, a self-defense instruction was not warranted, and trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to request such an instruction. Judgment affirmed. (Donovan, J., dissenting.)WelbaumClark 10/21/2022 10/21/2022 2022-Ohio-3763
In re E.R. 29515The trial court did not err in ordering a change to parenting time based on its finding that such a change was in the best interest of the child. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 10/14/2022 10/14/2022 2022-Ohio-3658
State v. Mays 29051Appellant’s conviction for assault was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; appellant’s claim of self-defense was belied by video evidence showing that appellant went on the offensive and used force against the victim in a manner that was inconsistent with self-defense. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 10/14/2022 10/14/2022 2022-Ohio-3659
State v. Murray 29200The trial court did not err when it failed to merge appellant’s convictions for domestic violence and violation of a protection order while committing a felony, as the crimes were committed with a temporal break between them. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 10/14/2022 10/14/2022 2022-Ohio-3660
State v. Jackson 2021-CA-44Appellant’s guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. The trial court failed to advise appellant of the effect of his guilty plea either orally at the plea hearing or on the written plea form. Judgment reversed and remanded.LewisChampaign 10/14/2022 10/14/2022 2022-Ohio-3662
State v. Zerkle 2022-CA-6Following a guilty plea, appellant, who was subject to sex offender registration and verification requirements, was convicted of a failure to provide verification of a change of address in violation of R.C. 2950.05(F)(1). The trial court imposed a 24-month prison term. The prison term is not contrary to law. Judgments affirmed.TuckerChampaign 10/14/2022 10/14/2022 2022-Ohio-3663
State v. Boldman 2022-CA-5Appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law where the trial court properly considered sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 in imposing the sentences, which were all within the applicable sentencing ranges. The trial court did not violate appellant’s right to appeal, right to trial by jury, right to due process, or the separation of powers in imposing an indefinite sentence pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law. Judgment affirmed.LewisChampaign 10/7/2022 10/7/2022 2022-Ohio-3572
1234567