|
|
State v. Shackle
| 2026-CA-8 | Appellant’s guilty pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary where the trial court sufficiently informed her of the nature of her charges by reading the language of the indictment, which tracked the language of the relevant statutes. The failure of appellant’s trial counsel to file an affidavit of indigency did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel where the record did not show that there was a reasonable probability that if trial counsel had filed an affidavit of indigency, the court would have relieved appellant of the obligation to pay the mandatory fines. The trial court’s consecutive sentence finding under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) was supported by the record. The trial court did not err when it found that appellant’s two aggravated drug trafficking convictions did not involve allied offenses of similar import. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Champaign |
10/23/2026
|
10/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4185 |
|
State v. Quinn
| 2025-CA-97 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by applying the doctrine of res judicata to deny appellant’s third petition for postconviction relief. The petition’s claims concerning newly discovered evidence presented only immaterial evidence and reraised claims that had already been addressed by this court or that could have been raised in his prior postconviction filings. The petition’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is barred by res judicata because it could have been raised in appellant’s previous appeal. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Clark |
10/23/2026
|
10/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4184 |
|
State v. Impson
| 2025-CA-21 | The trial court erred in requiring appellant to present his evidence first at the hearing on his motion to suppress. However, the error did not affect appellant’s substantial rights. He was given a full opportunity to present and question any witnesses, and all relevant facts were before the court. The trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress to the extent that it sought the suppression of the results of his HGN field sobriety test. The State failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the police officer administered the test in substantial compliance with NHTSA standards. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress to the extent that it sought exclusion of the remaining evidence obtained during a traffic stop because the officer had reasonable articulable suspicion that appellant had committed a vehicle equipment violation in the officer’s jurisdiction. Because the trial court failed to suppress the HGN test results, appellant’s OVI conviction must be reversed. Sufficient evidence supported appellant’s OVI conviction. Appellant’s remaining assignments of error concerning his OVI conviction are overruled as moot. Appellant’s conviction for failing to have a working license plate light is affirmed. Judgment reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. | Lewis | Darke |
10/23/2026
|
10/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4182 |
|
In re J.B.
| 2026-CA-41 | The juvenile court’s award of permanent custody of appellant’s children to a public children services agency was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The juvenile court addressed all the statutory best interest factors in its decision, and its analysis was not limited only to consideration of appellant’s drug abuse. The custody award did not violate appellant’s constitutional right to raise her children. The agency made reasonable efforts to evaluate potential family placements before the termination of appellant’s parental rights. The juvenile court did not err by not extending the agency’s temporary custody of the children following the permanent custody hearing, because the court was not statutorily authorized to further extend the temporary custody order. Judgment affirmed. (Huffman, J., concurring in judgment only.) | Hanseman | Greene |
10/23/2026
|
10/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4183 |
|
State v. Domingo
| 2025-CA-45 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to dismiss on statutory speedy trial grounds. The trial court correctly determined that appellant’s arraignment request for a pretrial conference tolled his speedy trial time. Even if appellant’s speedy trial time had not been tolled and his time had run, under R.C. 2945.73(C)(2), he was not entitled to automatic dismissal of his case upon the filing of his motion. Appellant’s convictions of aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and disrupting public services with associated three-year firearm specifications were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court correctly sentenced appellant to consecutive three-year prison terms on the firearm specifications attached to his aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery offenses. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Miami |
10/23/2026
|
10/23/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4180 |
|