|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Smith
| 30201 | Appellant’s convictions for aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, and operating a vehicle while under the influence were based upon sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant did not attempt to introduce the victim-driver’s toxicology report at trial, so there is no evidentiary ruling on this issue to consider on appeal. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert accident reconstruction testimony or in imposing maximum and consecutive sentences. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
6/13/2025
|
6/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2086 |
|
State v. Tanner
| 30264 | The trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. The facts known to the officer when he called for the drug-sniffing canine during the traffic stop were insufficient to rise to the level of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify prolonging the stop, and the officer suspended his efforts to resolve the issue that led to the original stop until after the canine alerted. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Montgomery |
6/13/2025
|
6/13/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2087 |
|
State v. Robinson
| 30316 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling a motion to dismiss several of appellant’s criminal charges with prejudice; the court had already dismissed these charges without prejudice years earlier. Appellant’s motion was also barred by res judicata because he had previously appealed from a judgment that included dismissal of the charges. The motion was untimely if construed as a petition for postconviction relief. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
6/6/2025
|
6/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2026 |
|
State v. Eckelbarger
| 2024-CA-16 | Appellant’s claim that his guilty plea to violating a protection order was invalid because he did not waive his right to an indictment in strict compliance with R.C. 2941.021 lacks merit. The record establishes that appellant executed a waiver of indictment before he entered his guilty plea. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Champaign |
6/6/2025
|
6/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2024 |
|
State v. Nelson
| 2024-CA-75 | Appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of due process based on counsel’s lack of advocacy are not properly raised on direct appeal because they rely on evidence outside the record. Appellant also has not demonstrated that counsel’s actions affected his ability to enter a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek a dismissal based on a speedy trial violation and for failing to advise appellant of the speedy trial process under R.C. 2941.401. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
6/6/2025
|
6/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2025 |
|
State v. Roweton
| 2025-CA-6 | After appellant served a portion of his jail terms in three cases, the trial court suspended his jail sentences with conditions. Appellant appeals from the trial court’s judgments reimposing the suspended jail sentences after he violated a condition of his release. Appellant’s challenge to the aggregate length of his jail sentences was barred by res judicata, because he could have challenged it when the sentences were originally imposed. The trial court erred in failing to calculate the amount of jail-time credit to which he was entitled in each case. Judgments reversed in part and remanded for resentencing on jail-time credit; judgments affirmed in all other respects. | Epley | Miami |
6/6/2025
|
6/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2027 |
|
State v. Sellers
| 2024-CA-28 | Because appellant has completed his sentence, his challenge to the court’s alleged failure to reduce his sentence by the number of days he spent in jail prior to sentencing is moot; there is no remedy this court can provide. Appeal dismissed. | Huffman | Miami |
6/6/2025
|
6/6/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2028 |
|
In re Estate of Boggs v. Todd
| 2024-CA-23 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee. There was no genuine issue of material fact that the parties’ mother had transferred money into joint bank accounts with appellee and had not objected to appellee’s withdrawal of money from those accounts before she died. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering the testimony of appellee and mother’s friend regarding mother’s donative intent in depositing money into the joint bank accounts. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Miami |
5/30/2025
|
5/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1947 |
|
State v. Couch
| 2024-CA-55 | The trial court did not err in finding that appellant had not rebutted the presumption of a prison term for his burglary conviction. The trial court’s order for appellant to pay restitution of $8,209.10 absent record evidence supporting that figure did not create a manifest miscarriage of justice warranting plain-error relief under Crim.R. 52(B). Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
5/30/2025
|
5/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1943 |
|
State v. Hambidge
| 2024-CA-54 | The trial court did not err in revoking appellant’s community control following her administrative discharge from a treatment program. Appellant was provided with all of the due process protections applicable to a revocation hearing. Even if the witnesses who testified at the revocation hearing lacked first-hand knowledge of appellant’s behavior at the treatment program, there was no dispute that she had failed to complete the program, which was a condition of her community control. Appellant did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Greene |
5/30/2025
|
5/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1944 |
|
State v. Helton
| 2024-CA-21 | The revocation of appellant’s community control sanctions was based on non-technical violations, which authorized the trial court to impose a seven-month prison sentence. We cannot clearly and convincingly conclude that the record did not support the trial court’s consecutive sentence findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Judgments affirmed. | Lewis | Champaign |
5/30/2025
|
5/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1945 |
|
State v. Hoskins
| 2024-CA-27 | Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law, and the court considered the principles and purposes of sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors in imposing sentence. The trial court’s findings in support of imposing consecutive sentences were supported by the record. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Champaign |
5/30/2025
|
5/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1946 |
|
Lu v. Univ. of Dayton
| 30272; 30375 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee. Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under R.C. 4112.02(I). Even if he had, appellee presented legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for rejecting appellant’s employment application, and there was no evidence that appellee’s reasons were a pretext for unlawful discrimination. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for relief from judgment, as he did not establish any of the requirements for relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(2) or (3). Judgments affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
5/30/2025
|
5/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1948 |
|
State v. Pierce
| 30276 | Appellant’s “motion to proceed to trial” was properly overruled by the trial court. The issues contemplated in the motion were known at the time of trial and could and should have been raised on direct appeal. Those issues were also raised in a 2020 motion to the trial court. Because the issues could and should have been raised previously and were not, appellant’s arguments are barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
5/21/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1812 |
|
State v. Warren
| 30258 | Appellant’s convictions for obstructing official business and resisting arrest were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
5/21/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1814 |
|
State v. Williams-Stupp
| 30304 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by calling a police detective to testify at a motion to suppress hearing where the detective had observed appellant jaywalking and communicated this fact to the police officer who made the investigatory stop of appellant. The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/21/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1815 |
|
Village Capital & Invest., L.L.C. v. Unknown Heirs of Watters
| 2024-CA-26 | In this foreclosure action, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee-lender. Appellant did not submit any Civ.R. 56 evidence in opposition to summary judgment, and appellant’s various “statements” in his summary judgment response were irrelevant to whether the trial court should grant foreclosure. Appellant did not challenge appellee’s notice of default in the trial court, waiving all but plain error on that issue, and no plain error is shown. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Champaign |
5/21/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1813 |
|
State v. Bonerigo
| 2024-CA-61 | Appellant’s domestic violence conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Despite the victim’s refusal to testify against appellant at trial, his conviction was supported by the victim’s 911 call, allegations she made to responding police officers, and the content of jailhouse phone calls. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
5/21/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1809 |
|
In re E.M.
| 2024-CA-5 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Father’s motion to terminate or modify a shared-parenting plan. The court reasonably concluded that there had been no change in circumstances, that changing the parenting arrangement was not in the child’s best interest, and that shared parenting should not be terminated. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Miami |
5/21/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1810 |
|
State v. Burt
| 2024-CA-27 | Having pled guilty to aggravated arson, appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument was waived except as it affected his plea, and appellant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The trial court considered the appropriate factors at sentencing, and appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Miami |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1758 |
|
State v. Thomas
| 2024-CA-17 | Crim.R. 23(A) requires a defendant in a petty offense case to file a written jury demand if he wants a trial by jury; in the absence of such a demand, appellant’s constitutional rights were not violated by a bench trial. Appellant’s conviction for criminal damaging was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err in awarding restitution in the amount sought by the victim; the amount was substantiated by testimony and exhibits, and appellant did not contest the amount in the trial court. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Miami |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1767 |
|
State v. King
| 2024-CA-50 | The trial court erred in ordering the sentence it imposed upon revoking appellant’s community control to be served consecutively to another sentence when the court had not notified appellant at his original sentencing that consecutive sentences were a possibility. Judgment reversed remanded for the filing of a new judgment entry imposing concurrent sentences. | Epley | Clark |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1762 |
|
State v. Davis
| 2024-CA-45 | The trial court’s imposition of two consecutive three-year firearm specifications was not contrary to law, and we cannot clearly and convincingly conclude that the record did not support the trial court’s consecutive sentence findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Appellant did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request for new counsel. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Greene |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1760 |
|
Clyburn v. Clyburn
| 2024-CA-34 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded the parties’ dog to appellee in their divorce proceedings, and it was not required to note on the record which statutory factors it considered when making its decision. Appellant cannot argue for the first time on appeal that the trial court should have given him half of the dog’s value, when he did not raise that issue in the trial court or present any evidence as to the dog’s value. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Champaign |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1759 |
|
State v. Masters
| 2024-CA-28 | The trial court’s decision to revoke appellant’s community control in Case No. 2024 CR 043 was not an abuse of discretion, and the aggregate 30-month prison term it imposed in Case Nos. 2024 CR 043 and 2024 CR 132 was not contrary to law. The trial court was not bound to follow the State’s recommended sentence of community control as contemplated by the parties’ plea agreement. Judgments affirmed. | Hanseman | Champaign |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1763 |
|
In re M.D.S.
| 30287 | The juvenile court incorrectly determined that the $9.00 court cost mandated by R.C. 2743.70(A)(2) was not waivable and abused its discretion by failing to exercise its authority to evaluate whether that cost should be waived on indigency grounds. Judgment reversed with respect to imposition of $9.00 court cost and remanded for the juvenile court to evaluate whether appellant is indigent for the purpose of determining whether it is appropriate to waive that cost. Judgment affirmed in all other respects. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1761 |
|
State v. Mitchell
| 30262 | Because appellant’s plea agreement included a jointly-recommended sentence that was imposed by the trial court and was authorized by law, the sentence is not reviewable on appeal. Appellant’s constitutional claim that R.C. 2929.02(B)(1) violates the Eighth Amendment is without merit because it is not cruel and unusual punishment for a juvenile to be sentenced to life term without considering his youth. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1764 |
|
Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling Co., L.P.A. v. Peterson
| 30307 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded appellee unpaid legal fees. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1765 |
|
Taylor v. Kettering Med. Ctr.
| 30162; 30163; 30164; 30165; 30222 | The trial court erred by denying appellants’ motions for summary judgment based on its implicit finding that the statute of repose in R.C. 2305.113(C) conflicted with Civ.R. 15(C) on a procedural matter, which rendered R.C. 2305.113(C) unconstitutional as applied. The other issues raised by the parties are either moot or not ripe for our review and are overruled. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/16/2025
|
5/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1766 |
|
State v. Mathews
| 2024-CA-2 | In his application for reopening, appellant has not established that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the ineffectiveness of trial counsel or failing to raise a "fabrication of evidence" claim; both arguments relate to a pair of gloves found in appellant’s possession several days after the offense, the relevance of which was not established, and a similar argument was raised on direct appeal. Appellant also has not established that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that there was a Mooney-Napue violation based on divergent testimony from two witnesses regarding whether appellant had gloves on his person when booked into jail. Application for reopening denied. | Per Curiam | Champaign |
5/14/2025
|
5/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1811 |
|
State v. Davis
| 2024-CA-32 | The trial court did not err in refusing to merge felonious assault and improper discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises offenses, because the felonious assault required harm to a particular person and firing a handgun across the roadway and penetrating a nearby house placed numerous people at risk and harmed the public at large. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to assert a speedy trial violation or to object to the admission of certain evidence at sentencing; appellant’s speedy trial time had not been exhausted, and the rules of evidence did not apply at the sentencing hearing. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
5/9/2025
|
5/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1676 |
|
In re Adoption of B.M.H.M
| 2025-CA-1 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting petitioners’ adoption petition. Biological father had consented to the adoption, biological mother’s consent was not necessary pursuant to R.C. 3107.07, the continued placement of the child with petitioners was the least detrimental available alternative, and the adoption was in the best interest of the child. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Darke |
5/9/2025
|
5/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1677 |
|
Miller v. Bates
| 2024-CA-9 | Although appellee conferred a benefit on appellant, who was his then-girlfriend, by helping with the construction of her home, he acted as a volunteer and also benefited from living in the home for 30 months without contributing to living expenses. Under these circumstances, and in the absence of any evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or bad faith on the part of appellant, the trial court’s finding of unjust enrichment was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Moreover, appellee’s construction company, a limited liability company, was not a party to this action; although appellee was the company’s sole member, the trial court erred as a matter of law in awarding damages to appellee on behalf of the company. Appellee was entitled to recover for the value of his personal gun safe, which had been built into appellant’s home, either through return of the safe or payment for its value. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Darke |
5/9/2025
|
5/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1679 |
|
State v. Anderson
| 30211 | The trial court did not err in rejecting appellant’s insanity defense. While both experts agreed that appellant suffered from a severe mental disease when he murdered the victim, they disagreed about whether, due to the disease, he failed to understand at the time of the offense that his conduct was wrongful. The trial court reasonably credited the State’s expert’s conclusion. Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to have appellant testify about his state of mind at the time of the crime; other evidence of appellant’s state of mind was admitted, including a video of appellant’s interview by police immediately after the crime and his own statements about his state of mind to both experts. Appellant is also presumed to have acquiesced in this decision. The trial court erred in merging one of appellant’s felonious assault convictions with the murder conviction, as it involved separate, identifiable harm to the victim and a separate offense. Judgment affirmed in all respects other than the merger of the felonious assault conviction; reversed and remanded for resentencing only as to that count. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
5/9/2025
|
5/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1673 |
|
B.M. v. P.M.
| 30326 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a change of circumstances had occurred and that a change in the parents’ custody arrangement was in the child’s best interest. Further, any harm likely to be caused by designating Mother as residential parent and legal custodian was outweighed by the advantages to the child. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
5/9/2025
|
5/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1674 |
|
State v. Dabbelt
| 30285 | Appellant’s conviction for violating a protection order was based on legally sufficient evidence. Appellant cannot collaterally attack the protection order’s constitutionality in a criminal case involving his prosecution for violating it. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
5/9/2025
|
5/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1675 |
|
In re Testamentary Trust of Jones
| 30295 | The individual trustee of a testamentary trust sought to challenge the probate court’s fee schedule as violative of her equal protection rights due to a different fee provision for corporate trustees. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the trustee’s proposed witnesses, denying her request for a special process server, and implicitly denying her constitutional argument. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in determining that the trustee had not established that she performed any extraordinary services warranting additional trustee fees. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
5/9/2025
|
5/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1678 |
|
Peoples v. Peoples
| 30299 | Appellant did not file a transcript of the final evidentiary hearing in the parties’ divorce proceedings, and the limited record before us does not affirmatively establish that the trial court abused its discretion in making the challenged findings. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/9/2025
|
5/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1680 |
|
S.B. v. L.S.
| 30371 | Appellant appeals from the issuance of a civil stalking protection order against him, but his failure to file objections to the trial court’s adoption of the protection order precludes appellate review. Even considering appellant’s arguments, in the absence of a written transcript of the full hearing, we must presume the regularity of the trial court’s proceedings and that the evidence supported the trial court’s order. The trial court was authorized by R.C. 2903.214(J)(2) to assess costs against appellant. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
5/9/2025
|
5/9/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1681 |
|
State v. Baker
| 30249 | Appellant’s conviction for domestic violence was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where he had physically assaulted a person with whom he cohabitated during a portion of the five years prior to the date of the assault. Appellant failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Judgments affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
5/2/2025
|
5/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1568 |
|
State v. Combs
| 30286 | The State was not bound by the parties’ negotiated plea agreement for an agreed sentence of community control sanctions where appellant, after entering his guilty plea, violated a court order that prohibited him from contacting anyone other than his counsel while in jail. Even if the State had been required to abide by the plea agreement and breached the agreement by requesting the maximum prison term instead of the agreed sentence, appellant did not raise that issue before the trial court and waived all but plain error for appeal. Appellant, who does not seek to withdraw his guilty plea but only to be resentenced in accordance with the plea agreement, cannot establish plain error, because it is not clear that, but for the State’s alleged breach of the plea agreement, the trial court would have imposed the agreed sentence of community control sanctions as opposed to a prison term. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
5/2/2025
|
5/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1569 |
|
State v. Rhines
| 30279 | The trial court did not err by failing to suppress identification testimony from appellant’s former parole officer. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
5/2/2025
|
5/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1571 |
|
State v. Sigurani
| 30266 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a continuance at the start of trial. Appellant’s convictions for criminal trespass, failure to disclose his personal information, and obstructing official business were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
5/2/2025
|
5/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1573 |
|
State v. Allen
| 2024-CA-48 | Appellant’s arguments challenging the trial court’s finding him in violation of his community control sanctions are moot. Even if appellant’s challenge to the violations at issue had merit, he would remain on pre-existing community control, which the trial court did not revoke. The only aspect of the judgment on appeal impacted by the violations the trial court found was its imposition of a jail term that the appellant has completed. Appellant’s constitutional challenges to the trial court’s imposition of community control sanctions are barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
5/2/2025
|
5/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1567 |
|
State v. King
| 2024-CA-51 | Appellant entered his plea in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary manner. He concedes that the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11, and the record reflects that he was not forced into entering the plea agreement. Further, the record shows no sign of ineffective assistance of counsel; the plea was made in a voluntary manner, and trial counsel stated that he was prepared for trial. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
5/2/2025
|
5/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1570 |
|
State v. Scott
| 2024-CA-17 | The trial court did not err in concluding that appellant had not rebutted the presumption of prison for his aggravated possession of drugs conviction. The trial court properly considered the statutory sentencing factors and was not required to believe appellant’s claim that he was committed to substance use treatment. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Champaign |
5/2/2025
|
5/2/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1572 |
|
State v. Brown
| 2024-CA-53 | In 2020, appellant was found incompetent to stand trial for several sex offenses, and the trial court placed him on conditional release. Appellant appeals from a 2024 order that required him to complete a mandatory bi-annual psychological evaluation. Pursuant to R.C. 2945.401(C), the trial court is required to order such an evaluation and to hold a hearing on the resulting report every two years during appellant’s commitment. Although this constitutes a special proceeding, the trial court’s order that the evaluation be conducted did not affect a substantial right, and therefore it was not a final order pursuant to R.C. 2505.02 from which appellant could appeal. Appeal dismissed. | Huffman | Greene |
4/25/2025
|
4/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1480 |
|
State v. Price
| 2024-CA-69 | We lack jurisdiction to review whether the trial court erred by failing to recuse itself due to alleged judicial bias, and we otherwise find nothing in the record supporting appellant’s claim of judicial bias. Because there was no indication of judicial bias, appellant’s claim that her trial counsel was ineffective in failing to move for a recusal lacks merit. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing conditions of community control that required appellant to complete a drug and alcohol assessment and a mental health evaluation, as those conditions were reasonably related to the offense and the purposes and principles of misdemeanor sentencing, and they were not overly broad. The trial court’s acceptance of appellant’s guilty plea without calling for an explanation of circumstances as required by R.C. 2937.07 was harmless error. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Greene |
4/25/2025
|
4/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1487 |
|
State v. Holden
| 30270 | Appellant’s convictions for two murders and tampering with evidence were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Although appellant produced evidence that he acted in self-defense, the State’s evidence undermined his version of events, and the jury reasonably credited the State’s evidence disproving the self-defense claim. Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance in choosing not to cross-examine some witnesses or in failing to move for acquittal under Crim.R. 29(A). The trial court did not commit plain error by not asking appellant to speak after victim impact statements were made during sentencing; the statements did not introduce any new material facts, and the court did not consider them when it sentenced appellant. The record contained evidence from which it can be inferred that the court considered appellant’s present and future ability to pay. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
4/25/2025
|
4/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1481 |
|
In re C.S.H.-B.
| 30284 | The trial court’s order was not a final, appealable order. The order found appellant in contempt but failed to impose a specific sanction, and it contemplated future action to determine the specific amount to be imposed as a sanction. It also did not provide an opportunity for appellant to purge his contempt if the court intended for the proceedings to be civil contempt. Appeal dismissed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
4/25/2025
|
4/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1482 |
|