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 517 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Logan 111533Attempt; R.C. 2923.02; having weapons while under disability; R.C. 2923.13(A)(2); firearm specification; R.C. 2941.141(A); mandatory prison term; R.C. 2929.13(F)(8); community control; R.C. 2929.15(A)(1); underlying felony; split sentence; plain error. The defendant pleaded guilty to attempted having weapons while under disability with a one-year firearm specification. The trial court sentenced her to one year in prison on the firearm specification and two years of community control on the underlying felony. The state appealed, arguing that the trial court was required to impose a mandatory prison term on the underlying felony as a result of the specification, that community control was not an authorized sentence and that the sentence violated the split-sentence doctrine. The plain and unambiguous language of R.C. 2929.13(F)(8) requires that a trial court, when crafting a sentence for a felony (other than a violation of R.C. 2923.12) that is enhanced with a firearm specification, impose the definite prison term prescribed by R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(a) as a mandatory prison term. The statute does not require the imposition of a mandatory prison term with respect to the felony underlying the firearm specification. Where a trial court is not required to impose a prison sentence on an underlying felony, as here, a trial court may impose community-control sanctions on the underlying felony even where prison is mandatory for the accompanying specification. This does not constitute an unlawful “split sentence” because a specification is not part of the underlying offense but merely a sentencing enhancement to that offense. As the trial court was not required to impose a prison term, mandatory prison term or term of life imprisonment on the defendant on the underlying felony here, R.C. 2929.15(A)(1) authorized the court to impose community-control sanctions on that offense. Sentence affirmed.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 9/21/2023 9/21/2023 2023-Ohio-3353
Earth Mobile, Inc. v. U.S. Bank, N.A. 111851Motion to intervene; untimely; abuse of discretion; motion in limine; bias; findings of fact and conclusions of law. - Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion to intervene because the motion was untimely; trial court’s grant of defendant’s motion in limine did not demonstrate bias toward appellants because the disputed evidence was inadmissible under Evid.R. 402 and 403 and thus the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion; trial court had no duty to make findings of fact and conclusions of law because it did not conduct a trial or decide questions of fact.KeoughCuyahoga 9/21/2023 9/21/2023 2023-Ohio-3354
Lichtenstein v. Lichtenstein 111887 & 112340Divorce, temporary support, child support, obligor, income for child support, child tax credit, shared parenting order, attorney fees. The trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding temporary support, child support, and attorney fees. Each of the court’s findings are supported by evidence in the record. Additionally, appellant did not otherwise demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion. Judgment affirmed.ForbesCuyahoga 9/21/2023 9/21/2023 2023-Ohio-3355
State v. Parrish 111990Motion to suppress evidence; weapons while under disability; carrying concealed weapons; public gaming; dice game; detained; marijuana; reasonable suspicion standard; mixed question of fact and law; competent; credible evidence; Crim.R. 12(E); Fourth Amendment; unreasonable searches and seizures; suppression of evidence; fruit of the poisonous tree; reasonableness; nature and quality of the intrusion; investigatory stop; consensual encounter; arrest; investigative detention; minor misdemeanor; protective search; reasonable individualized suspicion; protective search limitation; valid investigatory stop; reasonable articulable suspicion; Terry v. Ohio; investigatory intent; pretext for warrantless evidentiary search; exclusion of evidence. Judgment affirmed. The defendant was indicted for having weapons while under disability and carrying concealed weapons. An officer observed the defendant standing with a group of 15 to 20 men participating in a dice game. The officer observed the defendant with his hand on his side as he headed away from law enforcement. Officers were justified in making an investigatory stop of the defendant based on a reasonable suspicion that he may have participated in gambling, a minor misdemeanor offense. The officers were justified in conducting a protective frisk of the defendant’s person because they reasonably believed he might be armed. The state was unable to articulate probable cause to extend the search beyond a protective search for officer safety and the frisk failed to produce evidence of an arrestable offense. The subsequent search exceeded the scope of a lawful frisk, violating the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. As a result, the trial court properly suppressed the fruit of the search.GrovesCuyahoga 9/21/2023 9/21/2023 2023-Ohio-3356
Weiler v. Google, L.L.C. 112038Temporary restraining order; reconsideration; motion to dismiss; amended complaint; appellees; claims; time-barred; libel; falsity; defamation index; search results; Civ.R. 12(B)(6); App.R. 16(A)(7); restraining order. Judgment affirmed. Appellant disputes the court’s denial of his motions for a temporary restraining order and reconsideration. Additionally, appellant challenges the dismissal of his amended complaints against several appellees, based on both procedural grounds and the merits of his claims. Appellant claims that appellees facilitated public access to documents regarding a lawsuit he filed against the government, thereby damaging his employment prospects. Appellant’s claims were time-barred and he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.GrovesCuyahoga 9/21/2023 9/21/2023 2023-Ohio-3357
State v. Thompson 112042Crim.R. 33(A)(6); motion for a new trial; recanted testimony; credibility; materiality; abuse of discretion; exculpatory evidence. The trial court abused its discretion when it denied appellant’s motion for a new trial based on recanted testimony from the victim-witness where the trial court found the victim-witness’s trial testimony more credible than their recantation.KilbaneCuyahoga 9/21/2023 9/21/2023 2023-Ohio-3358
State v. Spencer 112058Juvenile; adult; sex offender; rape; classification; Tier; adult; sentence; indefinite; as applied; cruel and unusual punishment; bindover; consider; youth offender; sex offender. Defendant’s automatic classification as a Tier III sex offender was not cruel and unusual punishment under U.S. Constitution, Amendment VIII, and Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 9, as he was no longer a “juvenile offender” once he was transferred to adult criminal court. The trial court complied with its obligation to carefully consider Spencer’s “youth and its characteristics as mitigating factors” pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b) before imposing a sentence. The Reagan Tokes Law does not violate a defendant’s constitutional right to a trial by jury, the separation-of-powers doctrine and due process.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 9/21/2023 9/21/2023 2023-Ohio-3359
State v. Efford 112077 & 112078Consecutive sentences; constitutionality of Reagan Tokes sentence; error in sentencing entry. The trial court erred when it stated in the sentencing entry that the defendant pleaded to, and was convicted of specifications that he was not charged with accordingly, the trial court must correct that error. The Reagan Tokes sentence was not unconstitutional. The trial court made the appropriate findings to support consecutive sentences. Furthermore, this court may only vacate, modify, or remand a sentence when the record does not clearly and convincingly support the trial court’s findings. This court cannot find that the trial court’s findings are not clearly and convincingly supported.GrovesCuyahoga 9/21/2023 9/21/2023 2023-Ohio-3360
State v. Swann 112096Theft; R.C. 2913.02(A)(1); misdemeanor; sufficiency; manifest weight.S. GallagherCuyahoga 9/21/2023 9/21/2023 2023-Ohio-3361
Santamaria v. Cleveland Clinic Found. 112216Medical claim; standard of care; dueling experts; directed verdict; Civ.R. 50. Affirmed. The trial court properly denied a motion for directed verdict when the issue advanced pertained to the disputed evidence on the breach of the standard of care as presented by both parties’ respective experts.S. GallagherCuyahoga 9/21/2023 9/21/2023 2023-Ohio-3362
ABV Corp. v. Cantor 112237Breach of contract; contract modification; CSPA; damages; sewer construction; attorney fees; bona fide error. Appellee sewer construction company introduced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parties’ conduct implicitly modified their original contract and that appellant homeowners, by their conduct, waived the no-oral-modification clause. Regarding appellants’ counterclaim of CSPA violation against appellee, appellants failed to prove actual economic damages resulting from appellee’s CSPA violation. The trial court properly determined that the jury should award $200 in statutory damages should it find appellee to have violated the CSPA. The jury’s finding that the CSPA violation was a bona fide error precluded an award of attorney fees.SheehanCuyahoga 9/21/2023 9/21/2023 2023-Ohio-3363
RS v. BA 112303Protection order; R.C. 2903.214; Civ.R. 65.1; objection; abuse of discretion. After petitioner testified at hearing on protective order pursuant to R.C. 2903.214, respondent asked for a continuance in order to obtain counsel. Magistrate conducting hearing granted a continuance. Thereafter, respondent failed to contact the court or appear for the hearing. Magistrate prepared order of protection that was adopted by the trial court. Respondent, through counsel, filed an objection, arguing that counsel told respondent not to appear. Counsel further did not enter appearance or seek continuance of the hearing. Appellate court could not say trial court did abuse its discretion where respondent’s objection did not address the substance of the order or the evidence upon which it was based, but in essence, was a denial of a second request for continuance of hearing.SheehanCuyahoga 9/21/2023 9/21/2023 2023-Ohio-3364
Brook Park v. Cleveland 112368Summary judgment; breach of contract; standing; specific performance; statute of limitations; laches. It is undisputed that Cleveland breached its agreement with the city of Brook Park to purchase residential homes in Brook Park in anticipation of the construction of an additional runway for Hopkins Airport. The trial court's decision granting Cleveland’s motion for summary judgment in this breach-of-contract action on grounds of standing, statute of limitations, laches, and inequity of specific performance is reversed because genuine issues of material fact remain for determination.SheehanCuyahoga 9/21/2023 9/21/2023 2023-Ohio-3365
In re B.A.T. 112405Mandatory bindover; probable cause; rules of evidence. Juvenile court erred in excluding evidence of juvenile’s confession and then concluding that there was no probable cause to believe that the juvenile committed the acts alleged in the complaint.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 9/21/2023 9/21/2023 2023-Ohio-3366
State v. Sowell 112558Final, appealable order; jurisdiction; void; voidable; postconviction relief. Trial court properly overruled successive petition to vacate the sentence on a repeat-violent-offender specification where the arguments raised were barred by res judicata.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 9/14/2023 9/14/2023 2023-Ohio-3252
State v. Goodykoontz 112016Crim.R. 29(A), sufficiency, pandering, R.C. 2907.322, illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance, R.C. 2907.323, possessing criminal tools, manifest weight of the evidence, consecutive sentences, sentencing factors, R.C. 2929.11, R.C. 2929.12, gross sexual imposition, R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), forfeiture of property, affirmative defense, proper purpose. Judgment affirmed. Defendant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to an affirmative defense jury instruction pursuant to R.C. 2907.323 A)(1)(a) and (b) or R.C. 2907.322(B)(1). Defendant failed to offer evidence that he had a proper interest in the prohibited materials, and his convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.GrovesCuyahoga 9/14/2023 9/14/2023 2023-Ohio-3243
State v. Williams 112053Obstructing official business; R.C. 2921.31; sufficiency of the evidence; affirmative act by defendant; struggle with police; fleeing the scene; manifest weight of the evidence; investigatory stop; reasonable force; objectively reasonable; jury instruction; flight; consciousness of guilt; abuse of discretion; affirmative steps to avoid detection and apprehension. Appellant’s conviction for obstructing official business was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where appellant struggled with and fled police. Because sufficient evidence was presented at trial to warrant the flight instruction, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on flight.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 9/14/2023 9/14/2023 2023-Ohio-3244
Herring v. Coleman 112177Jurisdiction; domestic relations matters; marriage. Trial court did not err when it dismissed appellant’s case for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant sought declaratory judgment that there never existed a marriage between himself and appellee. Determination of the existence of a marriage is one of the exclusive duties of the domestic relations court. As the trial court lacked jurisdiction, the remainder of the entry finding no cognizable issue pending is vacated.GrovesCuyahoga 9/14/2023 9/14/2023 2023-Ohio-3245
State v. Williams 112194Lesser-included offense instruction; verdict form; R.C. 2903.13(C); R.C. 2945.75(A)(2); assault; felonious assault; under the influence; jury instructions; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; ineffective assistance of counsel. - Because assault of a peace officer under R.C. 2903.13(A) is a lesser-included offense of felonious assault of a police officer under R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), the trial court properly instructed the jury that if it found the defendant not guilty of felonious assault, it could consider the lesser-included offense of assault; where the verdict form did not require the jury to find that the victim, at the time of the offense, was a peace officer while in the performance of the officer’s official duties, defendant’s conviction for fourth-degree felony assault was modified to first-degree-misdemeanor assault; because the evidence at trial was more than sufficient to demonstrate that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol such that the intoxication impaired her actions, reactions, and mental processes, and the jury would have convicted her if the correct instruction had been given, no error was found in the jury instructions despite the trial court’s failure to instruct on the meaning of “under the influence”; defendant’s convictions for assault on two police officers and driving under the influence were affirmed because they were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence; defense counsel was not ineffective because no prejudicial error was found.KeoughCuyahoga 9/14/2023 9/14/2023 2023-Ohio-3246
State v. Gray 112196Guilty plea; sentencing hearing; mandatory sentence; Crim.R. 11(C). - Trial court fully complied with Crim.R. 11(C) when it advised the defendant before he entered his plea that any sentence on a failure to comply offense would be served consecutively to any other prison sentence, and the defendant stated he so understood. The trial court’s erroneous advisement at the subsequent sentencing hearing that a failure to comply offense requires a mandatory prison sentence did not affect the knowing, voluntary, and intelligent nature of the defendant’s guilty plea at the earlier plea hearing.KeoughCuyahoga 9/14/2023 9/14/2023 2023-Ohio-3247
State v. McCollins 112205R.C. 2921.331; level of offense; App.R. 12; discretion; invited error; App.R. 3; necessity of cross-appeal. Defendant-appellee was convicted of several felonies and was sentenced to concurrent 12-month prison sentences. As part of the plea bargain leading to defendant’s convictions, the state offered an amendment to one of the charged felony offenses, failure to comply in violation of R.C. 2921.331. The amendment reduced the level of offense from a felony of the third degree to a misdemeanor offense. The trial court imposed a sentence on the charge as if it were a felony of the fourth degree, but declined to order the sentence to be served consecutively to other prison sentences imposed on defendant. Having believed that the defendant entered a plea to felony violation of R.C. 2921.331, the state appealed the trial court’s failure to impose consecutive sentences. Without filing either a direct appeal or cross-appeal, defendant-appellee stated the record showed that he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor offense, but was sentenced to prison. Defendant-appellee asked that the judgment be reversed and that he be resentenced. In its reply brief, the state conceded that defendant-appellee was sentenced to prison for a misdemeanor offense and asked that the trial court be ordered to resentence defendant-appellee or, in the alternative, that the plea be rescinded. Appellate courts will generally not consider errors not properly raised by appellant in assignments of error or raised for the first time in a reply brief. The state’s attempt to raise a new argument regarding propriety of plea will not be considered. Further, any error in the plea was invited error as state proposed the amendment to the indictment. Additionally, an appellee cannot seek to overturn the judgment appealed without filing either a direct appeal of the judgment or a cross-appeal. An appellate court has a limited ability to notice errors not properly raised by the parties where the parties have had the opportunity to brief the issues and the interests of justice demand the error to be noticed. The trial court’s error in sentencing a defendant who committed a misdemeanor to a prison sentence is an error antithetical to the administration of justice. Despite the failure of the parties to properly raise the error, the prison sentence imposed for the misdemeanor offense was reversed and the cause remanded to trial court for sentencing on that charge only.SheehanCuyahoga 9/14/2023 9/14/2023 2023-Ohio-3248
Incze v Incze 112208Motion to modify child support: motion to correct a prior judgment entry; continuation of hearing; res judicata. Appellant’s claims that the trial court’s judgment went beyond the scope of the motion to modify the child support and that the trial court violated her due process in proceeding with the hearing in her absence could have been raised on a direct appeal. Appellant’s motion to correct a prior judgment entry is an improper, untimely attempt to seek an appellate review of the trial court’s prior judgment.SheehanCuyahoga 9/14/2023 9/14/2023 2023-Ohio-3249
State v. Nagy 112295 & 112297R.C. 2929.14(C); consecutive-sentence findings; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Defendant was convicted of six felony offenses in two separate cases. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences, making findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C). Defendant had a criminal history that included a conviction for a violent offense and had served a prior prison sentence. The defendant further committed multiple crimes on separate days and caused particular harm to the victim of identity fraud. The appellate court cannot say the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court’s findings pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).SheehanCuyahoga 9/14/2023 9/14/2023 2023-Ohio-3250
State ex rel. Fortson v. Sutula 112977Mandamus, procedendo, petition for DNA testing, and mootness. This court dismissed as moot a procedendo and mandamus action to compel a ruling on a petition for DNA testing when the trial court denied the subject petition.S. GallagherCuyahoga 9/13/2023 9/14/2023 2023-Ohio-3253
Foster v. State 113109R.C. 2725.04(B) — proper party, Civ.R. 10 — caption, R.C. 2725.04 — verified petition, preliminary hearing, bindover. The petition is fatally defective for the following reasons: 1) request for habeas corpus does not name the officer or person in whose custody the petitioner is being held; 2) the caption of the request for habeas corpus does not comply with Civ.R. 10(A); 3) the request for habeas corpus is not verified as required by R.C. 2725.04; 4) petitioner has failed to attach a copy of the commitment papers as required by R.C. 2725.04; 5) petitioner has failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C); and 6) petitioner has failed to state a claim that is cognizable in habeas corpus.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 9/11/2023 9/14/2023 2023-Ohio-3254
State v. Head 111562App.R. 26(B); application to reopen; timeliness; five days late; and ineffective assistance of trial counsel and appellate counsel. Application to reopen under App.R. 26(B) denied as untimely because it was filed five days late.SheehanCuyahoga 9/11/2023 9/14/2023 2023-Ohio-3242
In re M.A. 112411Permanent custody; R.C. 2151.414(B)(1); best interest of child; R.C. 2151.414(D)(1); R.C. 2151.414(E); Evid.R. 803; hearsay exception; Evid.R. 901; R.C. 2317.422; self-authenticating medical records. There was competent credible evidence supporting the juvenile court’s decision to terminate mother’s parental rights and grant permanent custody of her children to the agency. Permanent custody was in the children’s best interest. Even though mother had achieved some of her case-plan goals, she had not remedied the conditions that caused the children to be removed from the home. The children had been in agency custody for more than three years and needed a permanent placement, the children were having their needs met in their current placement, and mother had not established or maintained sobriety. The trial court did not err in allowing testimony and evidence regarding mother’s positive drug tests because the records were certified and were kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity.RyanCuyahoga 9/11/2023 9/14/2023 2023-Ohio-3251
State v. Hrytsyak 112496OVI; limited driving privileges; R.C. 4510.021; ten-year lookback period; abuse of discretion; nunc pro tunc. Judgment reversed and remanded. The trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion for limited driving privileges because R.C. 4510.021 expressly forbids granting limited driving privileges if the offender had been convicted of or pleaded guilty to three or more OVI offenses within the preceding ten years. The record indicates that appellee had been convicted of or pleaded guilty to at least four OVI offenses within the preceding ten years. Further, appellee’s attempts to contest the validity of the sentence based on the court’s nunc pro tunc entry are without merit.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 9/7/2023 9/7/2023 2023-Ohio-3159
In re K.C. 112556Termination of parental rights; permanent custody; adjudication; disposition; in camera interview; plain error; 90-day statutory timeframe for dispositional hearings; separate counsel for child; ineffective assistance of counsel; best interest of child; clear and convincing evidence. Termination of father’s parental rights affirmed. The dispositional hearing commenced within R.C. 2151.35(B)(1)’s 90-day timeframe. The child did not repeatedly and consistently express a wish to live with father; therefore, the child’s wishes did not conflict with the guardian ad litem’s recommendation, and the appointment of separate counsel was not warranted. Father’s counsel was not ineffective given that his assignments of error were overruled. The child could not be placed with Father within a reasonable time because he lived out of state and failed to comply with case-plan objectives to have his home approved for placement.ForbesCuyahoga 9/7/2023 9/7/2023 2023-Ohio-3160
State v. Talley 112003Crim. R. 29; Sufficiency of evidence; burden of production; evidence of ownership; authorization to enter; breaking and entering; evidence of value; theft; degree of offense; misdemeanor theft conviction; vandalism; criminal tools; manifest weight; circumstantial evidence. Defendant appeals his convictions for vandalism, theft, breaking and entering, and possession of criminal tools. Trial court affirmed where the record contains sufficient evidence to support appellant’s convictions for breaking and entering, vandalism, and theft and the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.GrovesCuyahoga 9/7/2023 9/7/2023 2023-Ohio-3147
State v. Thomas 112064Ineffective assistance of counsel; prejudice; deficient; objection; consecutive sentences; contrary to law; findings; allied offense; plain error; victim. The trial court did not commit an obvious error by merging Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment and imposing separate sentences on the remaining offenses. Defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel at trial by failing to raise continuing objections to the use of the phrase “the victim.” Defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing by failing to object to the trial court’s decision to impose separate sentences on Counts 1, 3, and 4 of the indictment. The trial court failed to make each of the findings required to impose consecutive sentences.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 9/7/2023 9/7/2023 2023-Ohio-3148
Hoskins v. Cleveland 112095Summary judgment; genuine issues of material fact. The trial court properly denied the appellant’s summary judgment motion because there are genuine issues of material fact for trial.Laster MaysCuyahoga 9/7/2023 9/7/2023 2023-Ohio-3149
State v. Freeman 112098Manifest weight of the evidence; self-defense jury instruction; ineffective assistance of counsel; sufficiency of the evidence; R.C. 2923.162(A)(3); discharge of firearm on or over public road; R.C. 2941.25; merger of allied offenses; R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and 2903.11(A)(2); Reagan Tokes Law. The evidence was insufficient to support the claim that appellant discharged a firearm on or over a public road in violation of R.C. 2923.162(A)(3). Appellant is not entitled to a reversal of his convictions on the ground of manifest weight of the evidence though aspects of the testimony of the sole eyewitness who was also the victim were contradictory or inconsistent. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a self-defense instruction where not supported by the evidence. The trial court’s refusal to merge felonious assault convictions under R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and 2903.11(A)(2) did not constitute error. Gunshots separated by a brief interval but with separate animus may establish distinct offenses and preclude application of the merger doctrine.Laster MaysCuyahoga 9/7/2023 9/7/2023 2023-Ohio-3150
In re J.P.S. 112101Juvenile court; permanent custody; temporary custody; factors; visitation; agency; best interests of the child; clear and convincing evidence; domestic violence, parental rights; twenty-two-month; recommendation; mental health; substance abuse; drug screen; consistency. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in determining that an award of permanent custody was in the child’s best interest and did not err when it awarded permanent custody to the agency pursuant to R.C. 2151.414. Counsel’s withdrawal under Anders was appropriate because the appeal was wholly frivolous.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 9/7/2023 9/7/2023 2023-Ohio-3151
In re Estate of Wearn 112146Estate; administration; App.R. 12; App.R. 16. - Probate court did not err in its oversight of the administrator’s administration of the estate. Appellant did not avail himself to procedural processes or remedies that would have allowed him to review the probate court’s alleged biases and administrator’s purported mishandling of the estate. Appellant failed to comply with App.R. 12 and 16 by failing to support his arguments with legal authority and transcripts of the proceedings.KeoughCuyahoga 9/7/2023 9/7/2023 2023-Ohio-3152
State v. Martin 112188Postconviction DNA testing; kidnapping; attempted rape; gross sexual imposition; definitive DNA test; R.C. 2953.74(A); identity of perpetrator; R.C. 2953.74(C)(3); abuse of discretion. The defendant appealed the denial of an application for postconviction DNA testing of a minor victim’s underwear. We affirmed the judgment because there had been a prior definitive DNA test performed on the underwear and because the identity of the perpetrator was not an issue at trial. The minor victim claimed that the defendant attempted to rape her and also licked her “private part.” The victim’s underwear was tested for DNA prior to trial. Testing revealed the presence of amylase, which is found in human saliva but can also be found in other bodily fluids. DNA found in the amylase on the back panel of the underwear conclusively matched the defendant’s DNA. The defendant did not challenge that his DNA was on the underwear, but he asserted at trial that the DNA got there because his sweat was transferred from a shared toilet (as opposed to from saliva deposited during a criminal assault). He sought postconviction DNA testing not to exclude him as a contributor of DNA but rather to identify whether the amylase was deposited through saliva or sweat. Postconviction DNA testing is not available under these circumstances. Judgment affirmed.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 9/7/2023 9/7/2023 2023-Ohio-3153
State v. Bell 112234Sentence; Reagan Tokes Law. Appellant's claim that his indefinite sentence is unconstitutional is without merit pursuant to State v. Hacker, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2535.SheehanCuyahoga 9/7/2023 9/7/2023 2023-Ohio-3154
State v. Salako 112311Aggravated robbery; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight; incarceration; bribe; credibility; Reagan Tokes Law; Hacker. - Defendant’s convictions, including aggravated robbery and felonious assault, upheld where sufficient evidence was presented that the defendant robbed the victim at gunpoint and then struck the victim in the face with the firearm. Victim’s incarceration at trial and acceptance of defendant’s bribe did not render his testimony per se incredible. Defendant’s challenges to Reagan Tokes Law overruled in light of the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Hacker.KeoughCuyahoga 9/7/2023 9/7/2023 2023-Ohio-3155
State v. T.C.N. 112428R.C. 2953.32; sealing of records; abuse of discretion. Trial court abused its discretion when it denied an application to seal a conviction where the applicant’s uncontroverted testimony established rehabilitation. Applicant’s status as a police officer and the nature of the crime are not reasons for denying the application. Additionally, the applicant’s filing of a motion to withdraw guilty plea after fully complying with and being terminated from community control was not evidence of failure to rehabilitate where neither the state nor the court asked any questions about the motion at the application hearing and therefore failed to explore the applicant’s position at the time of the hearing.GrovesCuyahoga 9/7/2023 9/7/2023 2023-Ohio-3156
Warner v. Ohio Dept. of Jobs & Family Servs. 112471Ohio Department of Job and Family Services; Unemployment Compensation Review Commission; R.C. 4141.282; unemployment benefits; validity of application; R.C. 4141.29(A)(1); unemployed; R.C. 4141.01(R)(4); totally unemployed; remuneration. Judgment affirmed. The decision of both the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (“ODJFS”) and the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission (“UCRC”) that Warner’s application for unemployment benefits was invalid is supported by evidence in the record demonstrating that Warner did not fit the definition of “unemployed” at the time he applied for benefits. Accordingly, it was not unlawful, reasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence for the trial court to affirm the ODJFS and UCRC’s decisions.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 9/7/2023 9/7/2023 2023-Ohio-3157
State v. Boyle 113045Motion to quash; R.C. 2930.071; privilege, R.C. 2907.02; Article I, Section 10a, Ohio Constitution; Marsy’s Law; standing. A victim of crime has standing to appeal the trial court’s denial of a motion to quash a subpoena seeking the victim’s medical records because the victim is exercising their rights under Marsy’s Law. The defendant sought victim’s medical records. The trial court issued a subpoena duces tecum directed to the healthcare provider instructing the provider to bring the requested records to the trial court. The trial court held a hearing on the victim’s motion to quash and heard arguments as to whether the subpoena was unreasonable or oppressive based on the factors listed in R.C. 2930.071. The trial court was not required to quash the subpoena because the victim claimed the records were privileged. The trial court was required by R.C. 2930.071 to review the records in camera, determine if the records are privileged, and if so, determine if the records are to be disclosed to the defendant. The trial court’s judgment denying J.C.’s motion to quash the subpoena was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious and was not an abuse of discretion.SheehanCuyahoga 9/5/2023 9/7/2023 2023-Ohio-3161
State ex rel. Ware v. Bryd 112488Mandamus; Public Records Act; R.C. 149.43; clear and convincing evidence; summary judgment; Civ.R. 56(C); certified mail; records request; prerequisite for relief in mandamus; statutory damages; court costs; vexatious litigator; Loc.App.R. 23. Relator’s request for writ of mandamus for four public records requests was denied where relator failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that records requests were sent to respondents as alleged in the complaint. The requests for statutory damages and costs were also denied.GrovesCuyahoga 9/1/2023 9/7/2023 2023-Ohio-3158
State v. Rivera 112029App.R. 4(A); App.R. 5(A); delayed appeal. Because appellant failed to file a timely appeal under App.R. 4(A) and did not file a motion for delayed appeal under App.R. 5(A), we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal and must dismiss it.Laster MaysCuyahoga 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 2023-Ohio-3053
State v. Blade 112084Joinder of trials; Crim.R. 13; Crim.R. 8(A); object; failure to renew objection at end of state’s case; waiver; plain error; prejudice; hearsay; exception; Evid.R. 804(B)(6); forfeiture by wrongdoing; right of confrontation; Evid.R. 801; unavailability of witness due to wrongdoing of party; admission of evidence; abuse of discretion; good faith effort to secure witness; subpoena; Evid.R. 804(B)(5); jailhouse calls; dissuade witness from testifying; actively engaging in wrongdoing; totality of the circumstances; no-contact order; preponderance of evidence; App.R. 16(A)(3); arguments not separately assigned as error. The trial court did not err in joining appellant’s three cases for trial. The evidence in each of the three cases was simple and direct, and there is no indication in the record that the jury confused the evidence as to the different counts or that it was influenced by the cumulative effect of the joinder. In addition, appellant failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced or that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the indictments not been joined. The trial court properly admitted the victim’s statements under the hearsay exception for forfeiture by wrongdoing. The state demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant’s conduct caused the victim to be unavailable and that his purpose in making so many calls to her was to cause her to be unavailable at trial.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 2023-Ohio-3054
State v. Abrams 112102Sentence; constitutionality of Reagan Tokes Law. The trial court’s judgment sentencing appellant to a definite sentence for his second-degree felony offense of felonious assaults is contrary to law pursuant to State v. Hacker, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2535.SheehanCuyahoga 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 2023-Ohio-3056
State v. Williams 112122; 112123The Reagan Tokes Law. Definite prison term reversed for failure to sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law.ForbesCuyahoga 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 2023-Ohio-3057
State v. Rivera 112201Felony sentencing; standard of review; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), the appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence or vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing if it “clearly and convincingly” finds the record does not support the sentencing court’s statutory findings under certain statutes that are not relevant in this appeal or that the sentence is “otherwise contrary to law.” A sentence is contrary to law if (1) the sentence falls outside the statutory range for the particular degree of offense, or (2) the trial court fails to consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12. The four-year prison sentence imposed is not contrary to law because the trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12 and the sentence falls within the statutory range for her offenses.SheehanCuyahoga 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 2023-Ohio-3058
Champlain Ents., L.L.C. v. Kuiper 112248Civ.R. 52 findings of fact and conclusions of law; breach of contract; Civ.R. 60(B) relief from judgment; abuse of discretion; meritorious defense; inexcusable neglect under Civ.R. 60(B)(5). The trial court’s denial of defendant’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment is reversed. Defendant’s counsel’s abandonment of the case amounted to inexcusable neglect under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) and is subject to relief from judgment.ForbesCuyahoga 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 2023-Ohio-3059
Dipre v. Ohio Dept. of Ins. 112321Administrative appeal; Ohio Department of Insurance; notice of opportunity for hearing; order of revocation; R.C. 119.07; waiver; abuse of discretion; reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. The trial court’s order affirming the Ohio Department of Insurance’s order of revocation of appellant’s license was not an abuse of discretion where the order was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, where the appellant explicitly declined the opportunity for a hearing, and where the appellant provided a written admission to the allegations precipitating the revocation of his license. Appellant waived his right to challenge the constitutionality of R.C. 119.07 as applied to his case by not raising the issue before the administrative agency.KilbaneCuyahoga 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 2023-Ohio-3060
State v. Jackson 112326Res judicata. Appellant’s assignments of error are barred by res judicata.Laster MaysCuyahoga 8/31/2023 8/31/2023 2023-Ohio-3061