|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Heater
| 5-22-32 | Reagan Tokes Law--Indefinite Sentences -- Indeterminate sentence imposed pursuant to Reagan Tokes Act did not violate the separation of powers doctrine, the right to due process, or the defendant's right to a trial by jury. | Waldick | Hancock |
5/30/2023
|
5/30/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1789 |
|
State v. Van Den Eynde
| 5-22-38 | Reserved Prison Term; Community Control Violation; R.C. 2929.19(B)(4). While R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) has been recently revised by the General Assembly, the general requirements for notifying offenders of the reserved prison term for potential community control violations, as set forth in State v. Brooks, 2004-Ohio-4746, 814 N.E.2d 837, are still applicable. The notification of the reserved prison range must come at the sentencing hearing. The failure to give such notification cannot be cured by a later journal entry. | Willamowski | Hancock |
5/30/2023
|
5/30/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1790 |
|
State v. Carpenter
| 2-22-20 | SUPPRESSION; FIELD SOBREITY TESTS; TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES; Totality of the circumstances supported officer expanding scope of traffic stop to an OVI investigation. | Waldick | Auglaize |
5/22/2023
|
5/22/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1702 |
|
Coldren v. Northview Shopping Plaza, L.L.C.
| 5-22-23 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT; OPEN AND OBVIOUS DOCTRINE; ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES; SLIP AND FALL. The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants-appellees because there is no genuine issue of material fact that the defendants-appellees owed a duty to the plaintiffs-appellants. The curb was an open and obvious hazard and there are no attendant circumstances which would warrant an exception to the open and obvious doctrine. | Zimmerman | Hancock |
5/22/2023
|
5/22/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1703 |
|
Blanchard Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Simon
| 6-22-17 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT; 42 U.S.C. 1983; FOURTH AMENDMENT; SEARCH WARRANTS; CRIM.R. 41; EXCLUSIONARY RULE; GOOD-FAITH EXCEPTION. The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee or third-party defendants-appellees because there is no genuine issue of material fact that the defendant/third-party plaintiff-appellant's constitutional and civil rights were not violated. | Zimmerman | Hardin |
5/22/2023
|
5/22/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1704 |
|
State v. Flack
| 14-22-24 | MOTION TO SUPPRESS; SUPPRESSION; INVESTIGATORY STOP; INDICATORS OF IMPAIRMENT; FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS; K9 SNIFF; CANINE SNIFF; The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant’s motion to suppress where the initiation and duration of the traffic stop was not unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Judgment affirmed. | Zimmerman | Union |
5/22/2023
|
5/22/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1705 |
|
Hoffman v. Atlas Title Solutions, Ltd.
| 14-23-04 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ESCROW FRAUD; BREACH OF CONTRACT; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; ECONOMIC LOSS RULE. The trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee as to plaintiff-appellant's breach-of-contract and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims. | Zimmerman | Union |
5/22/2023
|
5/22/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1706 |
|
Hancock Cty. Treasurer v. Barger
| 5-22-30 | Attorney fees; frivolous conduct. Trial court did not err in denying an award of attorney fees when there was no statutory duty, no contractual duty, and the city did not engage in frivolous conduct. | Willamowski | Hancock |
5/22/2023
|
5/22/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1707 |
|
State v. Rose
| 1-22-15 | Right to counsel; manifest weight; human trafficking; prostitution. Trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion to allow him to fire his counsel on the first day of trial and obtain a continuance to allow him to hire new counsel. Judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Epley | Allen |
5/15/2023
|
5/15/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1611 |
|
State v. Sullivan
| 1-22-37 | Reagan Tokes Law; Indefinite Sentence. The indefinite-sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law do not violate the right to a trial by jury, the separation-of-powers doctrine, or the right to due process. | Miller | Allen |
5/15/2023
|
5/15/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1612 |
|
State v. Smith
| 1-22-40 | Sufficient Evidence; Confrontation Clause; Forensic Interview; 2907.05(C)(2)(a); Corroborating Evidence; Reagan Tokes Act. Subtle or psychological forms of coercion are sufficient to demonstrate the element of force in a child rape case where the defendant is a parent or stands in loco parentis to the victim. R.C. 2907.05(C) has been revised to remove the language that required a mandatory prison sentence for a gross sexual imposition conviction that was corroborated by evidence other than the testimony of the victim. This language in former R.C. 2907.05(C) was held unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court. | Epley | Allen |
5/15/2023
|
5/15/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1613 |
|
State v. Harvey
| 1-22-43 | Bail Bond; Surety; Good Cause; R.C. 2937.36(C). A surety's inability to locate a defendant who has absconded on bond does not constitute a situation in which performance of the surety-bond contract has been rendered an impossibility. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the bond forfeited even where the surety argued that associates of the defendant were helping him to remain at large. | Epley | Allen |
5/15/2023
|
5/15/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1614 |
|
State v. Foster
| 1-22-64 | REAGAN TOKES LAW INDEFINITE SENTENCE. The indefinite-sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law do not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine, infringe upon defendant-appellant’s right to due process, or violate his right to a jury trial. Judgment affirmed. | Zimmerman | Allen |
5/15/2023
|
5/15/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1615 |
|
State v. Stauffer
| 1-22-71 | REAGAN TOKES LAW; INDEFINITE SENTENCE. The indefinite-sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law do not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine, infringe upon defendant-appellant’s right to due process, or violate his right to a jury trial. Judgment affirmed. | Zimmerman | Allen |
5/15/2023
|
5/15/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1616 |
|
State v. Springer
| 5-22-29 | Crim.R. 32.1; Presentence motion to withdraw plea; Abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. | Miller | Hancock |
5/15/2023
|
5/15/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1617 |
|
State v. Harrison
| 8-22-34 | MOTION TO SUPPRESS; TRACKING-DEVICE WARRANT; PROBABLE CAUSE; PROBABLE-CAUSE AFFIDAVIT; PROBABLE-CAUSE DETERMINATION. The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant’s motion to suppress. Judgment affirmed. | Zimmerman | Logan |
5/15/2023
|
5/15/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1618 |
|
State v. Lake
| 13-22-15 | SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE; MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; ARSON-OFFENDER REGISTRY; CULPABILITY; CULPABLE-MENTAL STATE; STRICT LIABILITY; FAILURE TO REREGISTER CRIMES; PRIMA FACIE CASE; COMMUNITY CONTROL SANCTION; COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL SANCTION; SCHEDULING OF JAIL SENTENCE. Defendant-appellant's failure-to-reregister-annually-as-an-arson-offender conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court’s sentence is not contrary to law, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the probation department to schedule when the jail sentence begins. Judgment affirmed. | Zimmerman | Seneca |
5/15/2023
|
5/15/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1619 |
|
State v. Shelley
| 2-22-17 & 2-22-18 | Reagan Tokes Act; consecutive sentences; effective assistance of counsel. The trial court did not err in ordering the sentences to be served consecutively when the findings were supported by the record. Indeterminate sentence imposed pursuant to Reagan Tokes Act did not violate the defendant's right to a trial by jury, the separation of powers doctrine, or the right to due process. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the indeterminate sentence. | Willamowski | Auglaize |
5/8/2023
|
5/8/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1528 |
|
In re I.G.
| 5-22-36 | R.C. 2151.414; PERMANENT CUSTODY; CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE; MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. The trial court did not err in applying R.C. 2151.414 to the evidence in this case, and the grant of permanent custody to the children's services agency is supported by the record. | Waldick | Hancock |
5/8/2023
|
5/8/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1529 |
|
Caldwell v. Whirlpool Corp.
| 9-22-61 | R.C. 4123.52; Workers' Compensation Appeal; Limitations Period. In Chatfield v. Whirlpool Corp., 2021-Ohio-4365, this Court held that claims falling within the ambit of R.C. 4123.52 expire five-years from the conditions specified therein as a matter of law. A litigant may refile a workers' compensation claim in a court of common pleas pursuant to Ohio's savings statute. However, if R.C. 4123.52 is applicable, the claim still expires as a matter of law after the allotted five-year period, regardless of whether the litigant has refiled the action pursuant to Ohio's savings statute. | Judge John R. Willamowski | Marion |
5/8/2023
|
5/8/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1530 |
|
State v. Bender
| 14-22-23 | MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; POST-CONVICTION; Appellant did not demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering "new evidence," notwithstanding lack of evidentiary quality of unsworn statements. | Waldick | Union |
5/8/2023
|
5/8/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1531 |
|
State v. Thobe
| 2-22-25 | SUPPRESSION; K9 SNIFF; trial court did not err by denying suppression motion where officer worked diligently on purposes of the stop. | Waldick | Auglaize |
5/1/2023
|
5/1/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1431 |
|
State v. Isaacs
| 3-22-43, 3-22-44, 3-22-45 | JUDICIAL RELEASE; ALLOCUTION; Revocation of judicial release was supported by the record. | Waldick | Crawford |
5/1/2023
|
5/1/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1432 |
|
State v. Lauck
| 5-22-07 | Intimidation, Predicate Offense - Trial court did not err in convicting defendant of violating R.C. 2921.03, intimidation, despite the fact that no conviction for a predicate offense occurred. The evidence was sufficient to allow the trial court to determine that a predicate offense occurred. | Willamowski | Hancock |
5/1/2023
|
5/1/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1433 |
|
State v. Foster
| 5-22-26 & 5-22-27 | SUPPRESSION; MANIFEST WEIGHT; JOINDER; PLEA AGREEMENTS; Trial court did not err by denying suppression motions; OVI convictions were not against the weight of the evidence; trial court did not abuse its discretion by joining cases for trial. | Waldick | Hancock |
5/1/2023
|
5/1/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1434 |
|
State v. Swift
| 9-22-17 | OBSTRUCTING OFFICIAL BUSINESS; RESISTING ARREST; GENERAL VERSUS SPECIFIC STATUTES; IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICTS. Defendant-appellant could properly be convicted of fifth-degree felony obstructing official business as there is no irreconcilable conflict between the offenses of obstructing official business and resisting arrest. | Miller | Marion |
5/1/2023
|
5/1/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1435 |
|
State v. Sanchez
| 11-22-06 | RIGHT OF REVIEW; PLEA OF NO CONTEST; CRIM.R. 12. Judgment of conviction and sentence must be affirmed where the defendant-appellant pled no contest and failed to preserve issues for appeal that were raised by motions outside the scope of Crim.R. 12(C). | Waldick | Paulding |
5/1/2023
|
5/1/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1436 |
|
Natl. Church Residences First Community Village v. Kessler
| 14-22-22 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT; CONTRACT; AGENCY; R.C. 1337.092; NURSING HOME REFORM ACT. The trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee. | Zimmerman | Union |
5/1/2023
|
5/1/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1437 |
|
In re K.F.
| 17-22-13, 17-22-14, 17-22-15 | LEGAL CUSTODY; LEGAL CUSTODY HEARING; CUSTODIAN'S PRESENCE; PLAIN ERROR; VISITATION. The trial court did not commit plain error by awarding legal custody to the custodian notwithstanding her absence from the legal custody hearing. The trial court did not err by not addressing father's visitation in its legal custody order. | Miller | Shelby |
5/1/2023
|
5/1/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1438 |
|
State v. Brady
| 9-22-25 | RELEVANT EVIDENCE. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that certain evidence proferred by defendant-appellant was not relevant. | Miller | Marion |
4/24/2023
|
4/24/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1328 |
|
State v. Rogers
| 9-22-39 | WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL; RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL. The trial court erred by conducting a bench trial without ensuring that defendant-appellant made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of her right to a jury trial. | Miller | Marion |
4/24/2023
|
4/24/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1329 |
|
State v. Miller
| 16-22-09 | APPLICATION TO RESIGN; LAW LICENSE; PRACTICE LAW. While the attorney in this case submitted an application to resign his license to practice law in October 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court did not accept his application to resign until January of 2023. Thus, the attorney still had a license to practice law through the end of the case presently before this Court. | Willamowski | Wyandot |
4/24/2023
|
4/24/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1330 |
|
State v. Everett
| 3-22-27 | COMMUNITY-CONTROL VIOLATION; NONTECHNICAL VIOLATION. The trial court did not err by determining that defendant-appellant's community-control violation constituted a nontechnical violation. | Miller | Crawford |
4/17/2023
|
4/17/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1243 |
|
State v. Bradshaw
| 8-22-09 | MOTION TO SEVER; EVID.R. 404(B); INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; RAPE; SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE; MANIFEST WEIGHT; REAGAN TOKES LAW; INDEFINITE SENTENCE. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-appellant’s motion to sever. The trial court did not commit plain error by permitting other-acts evidence. Defendant-appellant failed to demonstrate that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant-appellant’s rape convictions are supported by sufficient evidence. Defendant-appellant’s rape convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The indefinite-sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law do not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine or infringe upon defendant-appellant’s right to due process. | Miller | Logan |
4/17/2023
|
4/17/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1244 |
|
Columbia Gas v. Bailey
| 1-18-35 | APPROPRIATION OF EASEMENT RIGHTS; AGRICULTURAL EASEMENT; EVID.R. 408, 702. The petitioner-appellant/cross-appellee is not entitled to the irrebuttable presumption under R.C. 163.09(B)(1)(c) or the rebuttable presumption under 163.09(B)(1)(b). The trial court should have applied the prior public use doctrine to determine whether the specific easement rights sought by the petitioner-appellant/cross-appellee are authorized as a result of the agricultural easement. | Zimmerman | Union |
4/17/2023
|
4/17/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1245 |
|
State v. Gear
| 15-22-03 | NEW TRIAL; CUMULATIVE ERROR; INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE; JURY POLL. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for a new trial that is not timely filed. The decision to call an expert witness to testify on behalf of the Defense is a matter of trial strategy. The crime of tampering with evidence contains three elements. A defendant must know that an official proceeding or investigation is in progress or likely to be instituted; must alter, destroy, conceal, or remove a record, document, or thing; and must do so with the purpose to impair its value or availability as evidence in such proceeding or investigation. | Willamowski | Van Wert |
4/17/2023
|
4/17/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1246 |
|
State v. McKenzie
| 3-22-33 | CRIM.R. 11; SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE; EFFECT OF PLEA; WAIVER OF RIGHTS UPON GUILTY PLEA; Appellant did not demonstrate that his plea was anything other than knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Guilty plea waived any argument to defects at arraignment hearing. | Zimmerman | Crawford |
4/10/2023
|
4/10/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1178 |
|
State v. Chambers
| 3-22-41 | CRIMINAL RULE 11; SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE; Trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11, informing defendant of the effect of his plea. | Waldick | Crawford |
4/3/2023
|
4/3/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1107 |
|
Marquart v. Marquart
| 5-22-24 | SPOUSAL SUPPORT MODIFICATION. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by modifying defendant-appellant's spousal support obligation by an amount less than that requested by defendant-appellant. | Miller | Hancock |
4/3/2023
|
4/3/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1108 |
|
Roberts v. Farrell
| 9-22-46 | CIVIL CONTEMPT; CRIMINAL CONTEMPT; INDIRECT CONTEMPT; DIRECT CONTEMPT; INTENT TO DEFY; PUNITIVE. Intent to defy the court is an essential element of indirect criminal contempt that must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Failure to appear at a hearing is indirect contempt. When determining whether a contempt is criminal or civil in nature, courts look to the purpose of the proceeding. Criminal contempt seeks to punish an affront to the dignity of the court or the legal process. Thus, criminal contempt has a punitive purpose rather than a coercive or remedial purpose. | Willamowski | Marion |
4/3/2023
|
4/3/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1109 |
|
State v. Slone
| 15-22-04 | A verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply becuase conflicting testimony was presented at trial. The trial court, as the finder of fact, is free to believe or disbelieve any or all of the testimony that is presented at trial. | Willamowski | Van Wert |
4/3/2023
|
4/3/2023
| 2023-Ohio-1110 |
|
State v. Ochoa
| 5-22-19, 5-22-20, 5-22-22 | Trial court did not err in how it allocated jail time credit by applying the jail time credit to the community control sentence and terminating it before applying the remainder to the new cases. | Willamowski | Hancock |
3/27/2023
|
3/27/2023
| 2023-Ohio-978 |
|
State v. Rice
| 9-22-14 | REAGAN TOKES LAW; INDEFINITE SENTENCE; The indefinite-sentencing provisions of the Reagan Tokes Law do not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine or infringe upon defendant-appellant's right of due process. | Miller | Marion |
3/27/2023
|
3/27/2023
| 2023-Ohio-979 |
|
State v. Hale
| 10-22-01 | CONSENT SEARCH; MOTION TO SUPPRESS; SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant's motion to suppress evidence because he freely and voluntarily consented to the taking of his blood and urine samples. However, defendant-appellant's conviction for driving under a 12-point suspension is not supported by sufficient evidence because defendant-appellant's 12-point suspension had expired by operation of law by the time of the incident. Defendant-appellant's remaining convictions are supported by sufficient evidence. | Miller | Mercer |
3/27/2023
|
3/27/2023
| 2023-Ohio-980 |
|
In re Adoption of H.P.
| 15-21-03 | Issue of constitutionality of statutes as applied cannot be addressed on appeal as it was not raised in the trial court below. | Willamowski | Van Wert |
3/27/2023
|
3/27/2023
| 2023-Ohio-981 |
|
State v. Crose
| 3-22-34 | COMMUNITY-CONTROL VIOLATION; NON-TECHNICAL VIOLATION; CONSECUTIVE-SENTENCE-NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT; RESERVED-PRISON TERM. The trial court did not err by determining that defendant-appellant’s community-control violation constituted a non-technical violation. However, the trial court did err by ordering the defendant-appellant to serve a 6-month prison term consecutive to the sentence imposed in another county where the trial court had not previously notified the defendant-appellant, that upon revocation of her community control, she may be sentenced consecutively other sentences being served. Judgment affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Cause Remanded. | Zimmerman | Crawford |
3/20/2023
|
3/20/2023
| 2023-Ohio-880 |
|
State v. Frisbie
| 5-22-15 & 5-22-16 | FOURTH AMENDMENT; WARRANTLESS SEARCH; EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES; PLAIN VIEW; The trial court did not err by overruling the defendant-appellant's motions to suppress. | Waldick | Hancock |
3/20/2023
|
3/20/2023
| 2023-Ohio-881 |
|
State v. Tebelman
| 12-22-04 | If a significant trial witness recants his or her prior testimony, courts must apply a two-step analysis. First, the court must determine the credibility of the recantation. Second, the trial court must determine whether this testimony could have affected the outcome of the trial. In general, purported recantation testimony is viewed with suspicion. | Willamowski | Putnam |
3/20/2023
|
3/20/2023
| 2023-Ohio-882 |
|
Jones v. Gilbert
| 2-22-19 | The trial court did not err by granting defendant-appellee's motion for judgment on the pleadings. | Miller | Auglaize |
3/13/2023
|
3/13/2023
| 2023-Ohio-754 |
|
In re O.F.
| 4-22-09 & 4-22-10 | Appellant failed to demonstrate that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant's delinquency adjudication is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Miller | Defiance |
3/13/2023
|
3/13/2023
| 2023-Ohio-755 |
|