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 200 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Kramer-Kelly 111233Joinder; severance; Crim.R. 8(A); Crim.R. 14, abuse of discretion. Defendant was prejudiced by single indictment leading to only one trial involving two alleged rape victims for two reasons: the jury could have improperly accumulated evidence from first victim’s case to evidence from second victim’s case; and the evidence from either case would be inadmissible in the other case under Evid.R. 404(B). Rape convictions reversed, sentence vacated, and case remanded.ForbesCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1031
Danczak v. Danczak 111302Civ.R. 52; motion; findings of fact and conclusions of law; inappropriate; final appealable order; motion to modify child support; App.R. 4; time to appeal; bootstrapping. Appellant’s Civ.R. 52 motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law was inappropriate because the trial court had issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in its January 5, 2022 journal entry. Therefore, the inappropriate Civ.R. 52 motion did not toll the time to appeal under App.R. 4. Because Appellant appealed a January 5, 2022 decision of the trial court on February 18, 2022, it was not within 30 days and thus his appeal was untimely. Judgment affirmed.ForbesCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1032
Rigo v. Liberty Mut. Group, Inc. 111550App.R. 3; App.R. 16; negligence; manifest weight; jury verdict; Civ.R. 59; motion for a new trial; judicial admissions; credibility. The jury did not lose its way in returning a verdict in favor of defendant-appellee where the plaintiff-appellant did not sustain his burden of persuasion in establishing that defendant-appellee was negligent, that plaintiff-appellant was injured as a result of such negligence, and that plaintiff-appellant was entitled to damages. The jury verdict was appropriate where plaintiff’s entire case rested on his own credibility and he provided inconsistent versions of each relevant accident and his symptoms that allegedly resulted from those accidents. Appellate court is without jurisdiction to consider the trial court’s denial of plaintiff-appellant’s motion for a new trial where that judgment was not properly appealed from.KilbaneCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1033
State v. Mitchell 111558Felony convictions; prison sentence; nunc pro tunc entry; consecutive sentence; protection order; violation of a protection order; community-control supervision; probation; presentence investigation (“PSI”), sentencing; appellate review; clear-and-convincing standard; de novo review; R.C. 2929.14; 2929.11, 2929.12; and 2953.08; consecutive sentences; public protection; criminal history; multiple offenses; courses of conduct; harm caused; evidentiary support; sentencing entry; aggregate prison sentence; mitigating circumstances; statutory range; purposes and principles of sentencing; recidivism; seriousness factors; community control. Judgment affirmed and remanded. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) prescribes when a reviewing court may alter a felony sentence. A sentence is not contrary to law when it fell within the statutory range for the degree of felony and where the trial court considered the principles and purposes of sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. A trial court’s statement in its sentencing journal entry that it considered the required statutory factors is enough to fulfill a sentencing court’s obligations under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. A consecutive sentence will remain undisturbed by a reviewing court when the trial court makes the requisite findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and the record does not fail to clearly and convincingly support those findings.GrovesCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1034
State v. Sullivan 111621 & 111917Crim.R. 11(C); plea; knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made; de novo review; substantial compliance; maximum penalty; mandatory postrelease control; R.C. 2929.141; Reagan Tokes Law; required advisements; R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c). The trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 and appellant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. However, because the trial court failed to fully notify appellant of the R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) advisements, the case is remanded for resentencing solely to provide the proper advisements.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1036
Coventry Courts, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. 111646Unjust enrichment; fraud; political subdivision immunity; real estate taxes; illegal taxation claim; adequate remedy at law; equitable claim. Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of county on taxpayer’s fraud and unjust-enrichment claims where the county was immune from liability for the fraud claim and the taxpayer had an adequate remedy at law that precluded the equitable claim of unjust enrichment.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1037
In re A.R. 111690 & 111746Legal custody; best interest of a child; abuse of discretion; manifest weight of evidence. The juvenile court’s award of legal custody of the parents’ three children to relatives was based on competent credible evidence in the record and did not constitute an abuse of discretion where the Agency substantiated allegations of sexual abuse by father and where mother did not show she fully complied with or benefitted from services provided.SheehanCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1038
State v. Garrison 111728Motion to withdraw; guilty plea; Crim.R. 11(C); knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently; dismissed. - Motion to withdraw of appellant’s counsel granted and the appeal dismissed where, after an independent review of the record pursuant to the procedures set forth in Anders v. California, the appellate court determined that the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C) when accepting appellant’s guilty plea, appellant’s plea was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and there were no meritorious grounds for appeal.KeoughCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1039
State v. Rudolph 111732Presumption of community-control sanctions; R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a); R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b)(vii); position of trust; financial investments; plain error. Defendant did not show that trial court committed plain error in sentencing him to a prison sentence rather than community-control sanctions. Record was sufficient to conclude that defendant held a position of trust that facilitated theft offenses. Defendant’s crimes related directly to his position as a purported financial investor, broker or advisor and were facilitated by that position. Because the application of R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b)(vii) was supported by the record, trial court had discretion to impose a term of imprisonment rather than community-control sanctions.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1040
Djurin v. Ginley 111736Landlord; tenant; deposit; rent; R.C. 5321.07; escrow; distribution; magistrate’s decision; objections; untimely; Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i); Civ.R. 53(D)(5); Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c); pro se; plain error; civil; exceptional circumstances. Affirmed the judgment of the trial court in a landlord-tenant dispute involving rent deposited with the court pursuant to R.C. 5321.07. Pro se litigants are held to the same standard as litigants represented by counsel. Because the pro se defendant did not timely object to a magistrate’s decision on the distribution of the escrowed funds, he waived any challenge except for a claim of plain error. In a civil case, plain-error review is disfavored. The defendant failed to raise plain error, and the case did not present exceptional circumstances warranting application of the plain-error doctrine.S. GallagherCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1041
State v. Wilson 111755Felonious assault; improperly discharging a firearm at or into habitation; discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises; drive-by shooting firearm specification; peace-officer specification; sufficiency of evidence; manifest weight; Reagan Tokes Law. Appellant’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. However, the trial court erred in imposing a five-year drive-by shooting specification on the underlying offense of discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises in contravention of R.C. 2941.146(A). The case is remanded for resentencing for the sole purpose of providing appellant with the statutory notifications regarding his indefinite sentence imposed pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law.SheehanCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1042
State v. Riggins 111773Reagan Tokes Law; indefinite sentence; constitutionality. - Appellant’s constitutional challenges to the indefinite sentencing scheme under the Reagan Tokes Law are overruled.KeoughCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1043
State v. Mims 111780Felonious assault; R.C. 2903.11(A)(2); firearm specification; R.C. 2941.141(A); jail-time credit; mandatory prison term; R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b); judicial discretion; COVID; coronavirus; indigency; equal protection; judicial release; App.R. 5(C); R.C. 2945.67; ripeness; justiciability; jurisdiction. Where the defendant pleaded guilty to felonious assault with a one-year firearm specification, the trial court’s application of jail-time credit to the mandatory term imposed on the specification was contrary to law under the plain language of R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b) and following State v. Moore, 154 Ohio St.3d 94, 2018-Ohio-3237, 111 N.E.3d 1146. However well-intentioned a trial court may be in crafting a criminal sentence, it has no discretion to impose a sentence that is contrary to law. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Moore rejected the defendant’s equal-protection argument, which was essentially that he, because of his indigency, would lose jail-time credit if he were granted judicial release at the earliest opportunity where a nonindigent defendant would not. We found the state’s appeal to be ripe and determined that we have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The defendant had argued that the appeal would only be ripe if he were granted judicial release, but the state’s appeal is constitutionally and prudentially justiciable now. Finally, the fact that the trial court phrased its application of jail-time credit as a “request” does not prevent our court from having jurisdiction. The trial court made a “request” as to something that is not within the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s discretion, since the request went to the imposition of sentence itself. Sentence reversed in part, modified to delete the trial court’s application of jail-time credit to the mandatory prison term imposed on the specification.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1044
State v. Diaz 111794Reagan Tokes Law; constitutionality. State appealed sentence that did not impose indefinite sentence under Reagan Tokes Law. The trial found the Reagan Tokes Law to be unconstitutional. Pursuant to this court’s decision in State v. Delvallie, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 2022-Ohio-470, 185 N.E.3d 538 (en banc), the sentence imposed by the trial court is vacated and cause remanded for resentencing.SheehanCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1045
State v. Wilson 111814Amplification; voir dire; plain error; harmless error; Crim.R. 52; hearsay; and manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court’s amplification of the reasonable doubt standard during voir dire did not amount to plain error where the court later charged the jury with the statutory definition of the standard. The trial court’s introduction of improper opinion testimony to identify the defendant amounted to harmless error. The rules of hearsay did not apply to a witness’s testimony about a citation book maintained by his employer because the book was not introduced for the truth of the matter. A review of the record demonstrated that the trier of fact did not lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice when it convicted defendant.KilbaneCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1046
In re A.B. 111823Mootness; sexual offender classification; juvenile; abuse of discretion. Where appellant voluntarily completed inpatient treatment and that condition of his community control was subsequently terminated, his appeal of that condition is moot. The juvenile court abused its discretion in classifying appellant as a Tier I sexual offender.KilbaneCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1047
State v. Bridges 111833Motion to vacate a void judgment; R.C. 2953.21(A); R.C. 2953.23(A); petition for postconviction relief; successive petition; res judicata; motion for transcript; Civ.R. 58(B); vexatious litigator; Loc.App.R. 23(A). Trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to vacate a void judgment, construed as a successive petition for postconviction relief. Because appellant did not make the requisite showing under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1), the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider his untimely, successive petition for postconviction relief. Furthermore, because appellant raised or could have raised the claims in his petition on direct appeal or in his prior petitions for postconviction relief, his claims were barred by res judicata. Trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for trial transcript where official trial transcripts were prepared on appellant’s behalf, at the state’s expense, and filed in his direct appeal; appellant was not entitled to another copy of official transcripts at the state’s expense for use in his successive postconviction proceedings. Appellant was not deprived of an opportunity to appeal the trial court’s denial of his 2014 petition for postconviction relief due to the trial court’s failure to comply with Civ.R. 58(B). Appellant’s repeated, continued attempts to litigate the same issues constitutes frivolous conduct pursuant to Loc.App.R. 23(A); appellant designated a vexatious litigator under Loc.App.R. 23.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1048
Werner Properties, Inc. v. Gasearch, L.L.C. 111850Appellate jurisdiction; subject-matter jurisdiction; exclusive jurisdiction; Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. - The appellate court had jurisdiction to consider the appeal even though the trial court’s dismissal entry did not specifically dismiss appellant’s claims against the John/Jane Doe defendants because although appellant’s complaint named the Doe defendants, it did not state any claims against them, the trial court’s entry implicitly dismissed the claims against them, and the entry contained the requisite Civ.R. 54(B) language; the trial court properly dismissed appellant’s claims against the defendants — a public utility, a natural gas supplier, and its owner — for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio had exclusive jurisdiction over appellant’s service- and rate-related claims.KeoughCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1049
In re Contempt of Bensing 112041Contempt; direct; criminal; attorney; abuse of discretion; trial court; appellate court; oral argument; precedence; late; extenuating circumstances; sensibilities; administration of justice; R.C. 2705.01. Judgment of contempt reversed. The trial court abused its discretion in finding attorney in direct contempt when the attorney presented extenuating circumstances for appearing late and then leaving a trial court proceeding to attend an oral argument in the court of appeals, which took precedence. Although the conduct was contemptuous to the trial court’s sensibilities, it did not constitute punishable, criminal contempt.S. GallagherCuyahoga 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 2023-Ohio-1050
Midland Funding, L.L.C. v. Hottenroth 111328Law-of-the-case doctrine; partial remand; scope of appellate mandate; appellate jurisdiction; claims abandoned on appeal; commencement of class action; final appealable order; motion for reconsideration; R.C. 2505.02(B); Civ.R. 54(B). The trial court lacked jurisdiction to exceed the scope of the remand of this court from the prior appeal, which only reversed the dismissal of the individual claims. The class claims had been abandoned on appeal. Consequently, the court’s consideration and adjudication of the motion for class certification was in error. However, since the court denied the motion for class certification, the parties are in the same positions, and the judgment is affirmed. In addition, despite the trial court’s inclusion of Civ.R. 54(B) certification, the judgment entry denying the motions for reconsideration did not constitute a final appealable order and this court lacked jurisdiction to review them.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 3/23/2023 3/23/2023 2023-Ohio-923
Rocky River v. Alaref 111567Community-control sanctions; abuse of discretion; Jones test; persisting in disorderly conduct; no-contact; victims; abstain drugs and alcohol; asylum; support; restitution. The trial court’s imposition of no-contact with the appellant’s wife and daughter was a proper condition of community control when appellant pled guilty to persisting in disorderly conduct. However, the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed drug- and alcohol-related conditions, a requirement that appellant cooperate with his wife and daughter’s asylum applications, and “continue to support” his wife and daughter as restitution. These conditions do not meet the Jones test and, are therefore, reversed. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.ForbesCuyahoga 3/23/2023 3/23/2023 2023-Ohio-924
In re M.P. 111608Juvenile adjudication; juvenile delinquency; rape; R.C. 2907.02; gross sexual imposition; R.C. 2907.05; Evid.R. 803(4); social worker testimony; SANE nurse testimony; sufficiency of the evidence; penetration; manifest weight of the evidence. The juvenile court’s adjudication that defendant was delinquent of seven counts of rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition is affirmed. The trial court did not err in admitting hearsay testimony from the CCDCFS social worker and the SANE nurses where it fit into the hearsay exception under Evid.R. 803(4), statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Furthermore, the adjudications were not based on insufficient evidence or against the manifest weight of the evidence.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 3/23/2023 3/23/2023 2023-Ohio-925
Loftus v. Three Palms Crocker Park, L.L.C. 111635Summary judgment; respondeat superior liability; scope of employment, commercial general liability coverage policy; contract interpretation. Plaintiff, a passenger in a single car accident, sued the driver and driver’s employer for injuries sustained in the accident. The driver was convicted of operating a vehicle under impairment and felony vehicular assault. The accident occurred after driver and plaintiff had dinner and socialized with friends. After the lawsuit was filed, the employer’s insurance company intervened seeking declaratory judgment that the Commercial General Liability Coverage policy it issued to employer did not cover the accident. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment to driver’s employer was proper where driver was not acting within the course of employment at the time of the accident. The general business insurance policy would apply if the employee was acting in furtherance of the employer’s business. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment to employer’s insurance company was proper because driver was not acting in furtherance of the employer’s business at the time of the accident.SheehanCuyahoga 3/23/2023 3/23/2023 2023-Ohio-926
Loftus v. Three Palms Crocker Park, L.L.C. 111639Summary judgment; respondeat superior liability; scope of employment, commercial general liability coverage policy; contract interpretation. Plaintiff, a passenger in a single car accident, sued the driver and driver’s employer for injuries sustained in the accident. The driver was convicted of operating a vehicle under impairment and felony vehicular assault. The accident occurred after driver and plaintiff had dinner and socialized with friends. After the lawsuit was filed, the employer’s insurance company intervened seeking declaratory judgment that the Commercial General Liability Coverage policy it issued to employer did not cover the accident. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment to driver’s employer was proper where driver was not acting within the course of employment at the time of the accident. The general business insurance policy would apply if the employee was acting in furtherance of the employer’s business. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment to employer’s insurance company was proper because driver was not acting in furtherance of the employer’s business at the time of the accident.SheehanCuyahoga 3/23/2023 3/23/2023 2023-Ohio-927
State v. Taylor 111694Admission of evidence; Evid.R. 404(B); other-acts evidence; abuse of discretion; failure to object; ineffective assistance of counsel; trial strategy; closing argument; prosecutorial misconduct; mistrial; curative instruction; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; hearsay testimony; vouch for credibility of another witness; failure to file motion to suppress; probable cause; traffic stop; window tint; other indicia of criminal activity; Reagan Tokes Law. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Further, appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel, and the trial court did not err in its admission of testimony or giving a curative instruction. Finally, appellant’s sentence was properly imposed under the Reagan Tokes Law.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 3/23/2023 3/23/2023 2023-Ohio-928
In re S.D.L. 111791Petition to seal record; R.C. 2953.32; abuse of discretion; eligible offender; hearing. Because appellant was an eligible offender, the trial court erred by not holding a hearing in order to make the determinations required by R.C. 2953.32(C)(1) before ruling upon his petition to seal record.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 3/23/2023 3/23/2023 2023-Ohio-929
In re J.B. 111797Permanent custody; termination of parental rights; best interest of the children; denial of continuance. The juvenile court’s termination of mother’s parental rights is affirmed. Mother abandoned the children, who were in agency custody for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. Permanent custody to the agency is in the children’s best interest. The court did not abuse its discretion by denying mother’s attorney’s request for a continuance when mother abandoned the children and failed to appear at the hearing on the motion for permanent custody.ForbesCuyahoga 3/23/2023 3/23/2023 2023-Ohio-930
Horn v. Cherian 111821Small claims; medical malpractice; derivative claim; loss of consortium; expenditures; motion to dismiss; Civ.R. 12(B)(6); standing; affidavit of merit; Civ.R. 10(D); common knowledge exception; damages; mental anguish; attorney fees; litigation costs; litigation expenses; collateral litigation; dismissal with prejudice; motion to reconsider. The plaintiff’s small claims complaint alleged that the defendant doctor negligently used an online health management system to communicate with the plaintiff’s spouse during the spouse’s treatment. These communications allegedly caused the doctor’s employer to remove the spouse as a patient, leaving her without needed medical care. The plaintiff alleged that he and his spouse filed other litigation to attempt to undo that care decision and had suffered mental anguish. We affirmed the municipal court’s dismissal, with prejudice, of the plaintiff’s malpractice claim against the doctor; the plaintiff lacked standing to assert a malpractice claim where he was not the doctor’s patient. After considering the concise, nontechnical nature of small claims complaints, we read the plaintiff’s complaint to assert derivative medical claims for loss of consortium and expenditures. We found that it was error for the municipal court to dismiss those claims with prejudice for lack of standing and for being outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. But where the plaintiff did not file an affidavit of merit and waived any argument that Civ.R. 10(D) does not apply to small claims matters, we agreed that the complaint was deficient and remanded the matter with instructions for the municipal court to dismiss the derivative claims without prejudice for lack of an affidavit of merit. We affirmed the dismissal, with prejudice, of the plaintiff’s prayer for damages attributable to legal expenses and attorney fees related to collateral litigation; these were not cognizable compensatory damages for loss of consortium or expenditures under the facts of the case and were barred by the American rule. The plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the municipal court’s dismissal order was a nullity and was properly denied.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 3/23/2023 3/23/2023 2023-Ohio-931
State v. Williamson 111838 & 111839Sentence; contrary to law; Reagan Tokes Law; constitutional. Reversed and remanded. The trial court’s sentence was contrary to law because it failed to sentence codefendants with the Tokes Law, which this court found constitutional. Codefendants’ sentences are reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court to sentence each codefendant in accordance with the Tokes Law.BoyleCuyahoga 3/23/2023 3/23/2023 2023-Ohio-932
Bostick v. Salvation Army 111916Summary judgment; race discrimination; unlawful retaliation; wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the employer where the employee failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination or unlawful retaliation. Further, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the employer on the employee’s wrongful termination claim where the employee failed to demonstrate that (1) a clear public policy existed; (2) the employee’s dismissal jeopardized the public policy; (3) the dismissal was motivated by conduct related to the public policy; and (4) the employer lacked an overriding legitimate business justification for the dismissal. Rather, the record demonstrates that in her 11-month period of employment with the employer, the employee was continually unable to get along with her coworkers and that was the reason for her termination.RyanCuyahoga 3/23/2023 3/23/2023 2023-Ohio-933
Geletka v. MetroHealth Sys. 111942Medical malpractice; motion for a directed verdict; Civ.R. 50; causation; expert testimony; reasonable degree of medical certainty; Evid.R. 703; motion for new trial; Civ.R. 59; admissibility of evidence; Evid.R. 901; authentication of evidence; R.C. 2317.422; misconduct of opposing counsel. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in granting a defendant-doctor’s motion for a directed verdict where plaintiff-patient’s expert failed to opine that the doctor’s alleged negligence caused the patient any pain or suffering. The trial court also did not err in failing to grant plaintiff’s motion for a new trial based on an irregularity of the proceeding or opposing counsel’s misconduct.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 3/23/2023 3/23/2023 2023-Ohio-934
KeyBank Natl. Assn. v. Hogan Elec. Co., L.L.C. 112010Breach of personal guarantee; summary judgment; untimely appeal; App.R. 4; bootstrapping. In 2019, the trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on its claim for breach of personal guarantee. The defendant did not appeal that judgment; he instead filed several miscellaneous motions over the next three years asking the trial court for a hearing and arguing that the plaintiff was not entitled to the judgment the trial court awarded. He now appeals the summary denial of his most recent motion, the substance of which is again that the trial court erred in entering the summary judgment against him in 2019. This is an example of impermissible “bootstrapping,” whereby an appellant assigns error from a final order that was not the subject of a timely appeal in an otherwise timely appeal. The appeal is untimely and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. Appeal dismissed.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 3/23/2023 3/23/2023 2023-Ohio-935
In re K.R. 112036Best interest of the child; manifest weight; sufficiency of the evidence; abuse of discretion; R.C. 2151.414(D); R.C. 2151.414(E). Juvenile court’s decision granting permanent custody of the child to the agency was supported by the sufficiency and greater weight of the evidence, where the record established that the Mother’s three older children had previously been committed to the permanent custody of the agency; Mother gave birth to a fourth child; did not obtain prenatal care; and over the course of six months did not successfully complete case plan goals. Further, the record established that the child should not be returned to Mother’s care, and Mother did not rebut that presumption as required by R.C. 2151.414(E)(11). Further, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by including in its journal entry all of the best interest factors, even those that were not directly relevant to the case. The court was required to demonstrate that it considered all the factors when deciding the best interest of the child. Even so, the juvenile court in this case did include findings of fact that illustrated its consideration of the factors and what factors in this specific case supported its decision.GrovesCuyahoga 3/23/2023 3/23/2023 2023-Ohio-936
In re A.C. 111975Parental rights; permanent custody; manifest weight of the evidence; R.C. 2151.414; clear and convincing evidence; best interests of the child; abuse of discretion. The record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that the children were in the agency’s custody for 12 months or longer for a consecutive 22-month period and that it was in the best interests of the children to grant permanent custody to the agency. The juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody of the child to the agency was not against the manifest weight of the evidence nor was its finding that the parents posed an ongoing threat to the children an abuse of discretion.SheehanCuyahoga 3/23/2023 3/23/2023 2023-Ohio-938
State ex rel. Portaro Group, Inc. v. Parma Mun. Court 112134Prohibition; jurisdictional priority rule; forcible entry and detainer action; declaratory judgment claim for not surrendering possession. The court dismissed a prohibition action that argued the jurisdictional priority rule. A declaratory judgment claim that a tenant is not compelled to surrender possession did not divest a municipal court of jurisdiction to adjudicate a forcible entry and detainer action based on the authority of State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530, 705 N.E.2d 127 (1999).E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 3/21/2023 3/23/2023 2023-Ohio-937
State v. Mullins 111291Crim.R. 11 guilty plea; knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; prejudice; complete failure; State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1, 2020-Ohio-2765, 164 N.E.3d 286; OVI; repeat OVI offender specification; third-degree felony; R.C. 4511.19; R.C. 2929.14; R.C. 2941.1413; R.C. 2929.13. Judgment is vacated and remanded. Defendant’s guilty plea is not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because he was misinformed regarding the possible sentence he faced and the nature of his charges. Here, the court failed to correct the mistake in defendant’s sentence and failed to advise defendant of the full nature of his charges. The omissions and the misinformation by the trial court demonstrate a complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11(C) and eliminate the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s error. Because defendant’s plea is vacated, any error regarding his sentence is moot.BoyleCuyahoga 3/16/2023 3/16/2023 2023-Ohio-803
Best Motors, L.L.C. v. Kaba 111459 & 111713Summary judgment Civ.R. 56; App.R. 12. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment when issues of material fact remained regarding whether the defendant was involved in the sale of a stolen vehicle. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff in support of its motion for summary judgment showed questions of material fact. There was no evidence defendant was involved in the sale of the car other than the defendant owner’s affidavit and substantial evidence that created questions of material fact.RyanCuyahoga 3/16/2023 3/16/2023 2023-Ohio-804
State v. Rodriguez 111466Felony sentencing; contrary to law; indefinite; Reagan Tokes; mandatory; judicial release; earned credit. The trial court’s imposition of an indefinite prison term pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law was not unconstitutional. The trial court clearly and convincingly failed to comply with the applicable sentencing statutes by imposing a mandatory prison term on the defendant’s third-degree felony conviction.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 3/16/2023 3/16/2023 2023-Ohio-805
State v. Penland 111531Rape; sufficiency; manifest weight; evidence; credibility; impeachment; abuse of discretion; ineffective assistance of counsel; confrontation; prosecutorial misconduct; closing arguments; plain error; cross-examination; preindictment delay. Defendant’s rape conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant was not deprived of his right to confront his accuser. Defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to disclose his impending suspension from the practice of law, failing to file a motion to dismiss based on prejudicial preindictment delay, and failing to effectively cross-examine the state’s witnesses. Defendant’s substantial rights were not prejudicially affected by the prosecution’s closing arguments.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 3/16/2023 3/16/2023 2023-Ohio-806
State v. Ramsey 111555Amended indictment; Crim.R. 7; grand jury evidence; disclosure of grand jury transcripts; particularized need; insufficiency of the evidence; Crim.R. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal; and manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court’s grant of the state’s motion to amend the dates of the indictment was in accordance with Crim.R. 7 and did not prejudice the defendant and, therefore, did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Absent the defendant demonstrating a particularized need to review the grand jury transcripts, the trial court’s refusal to disclose the transcripts was not an abuse of discretion. Where the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s convictions at the close of the state’s case-in-chief and following the defendant’s case-in-chief, defendant’s insufficiency of the evidence and Crim.R. 29 motions for judgment of acquittal lacked merit. A review of the record demonstrated that the trier of fact did not lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice when it convicted defendant.KilbaneCuyahoga 3/16/2023 3/16/2023 2023-Ohio-807
State v. Johnson 111606 & 111612Crim.R. 33 motion for new trial; hearing on motion for a new trial; res judicata; newly discovered evidence; Petro factors; DNA testing; lost evidence; abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial. The evidence appellant submitted in support of his motion for new trial did not meet the Petro factors and was not newly discovered evidence. The matter of the missing evidence for which appellant wanted DNA testing completed had previously been litigated. The affidavit of appellant’s proposed expert in eyewitness testimony was not newly discovered evidence. The appellant did not show that an expert was not available to him at trial and there was not a strong probability that the results of the trial would have been different if an expert on eyewitness identification had testified at his trial. The multiple affidavits of the person who claimed he committed the crimes for which appellant was convicted do not constitute newly discovered evidence. The other person was known to appellant prior to his trial and defense strategy at trial was that this other person committed the crimes, his affidavits were inconsistent, and four victims identified appellant as the person who committed the crimes.RyanCuyahoga 3/16/2023 3/16/2023 2023-Ohio-808
State v. Adams 111637Victim-impact statement; R.C. 2930.14; failure to object; plain error; consecutive sentencing; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); ineffective assistance of counsel. The court complied with R.C. 2930.14 by permitting and considering victim-impact statements. The court made the appropriate consecutive sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and incorporated them into the sentencing journal entry. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the victim-impact statements.ForbesCuyahoga 3/16/2023 3/16/2023 2023-Ohio-809
State v. Walker 111656Megan’s Law; classification; sexual predator; manifest weight; record; relevant; reliable; abuse of discretion; pattern of conduct; behavior; nature of offense; future; sexually oriented offense. The trial court was within its discretion to consider relevant information gathered during the underlying police investigation when making its sexual predator determination. The trial court’s judgment classifying appellant as a sexual predator is supported by competent, credible evidence.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 3/16/2023 3/16/2023 2023-Ohio-810
State v. Jarrett 111659Juvenile offender; life imprisonment; age as a mitigating factor; postconviction-relief petition; cruel and unusual punishment. The juvenile offender’s postconviction-relief petition was untimely. Even if the motion had been timely, his Eighth Amendment claim would be barred by res judicata. Moreover, the rule announced by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State v. Patrick is procedural and may not be applied retroactively.SheehanCuyahoga 3/16/2023 3/16/2023 2023-Ohio-811
Cleveland v. Khamies 111661C.C.O. 433.01; operating a vehicle under the influence; C.C.O. 431.34; failure to control; ineffective assistance of counsel; R.C. 2317.02(B)(2); motion to suppress; App.R. 9; inaudible transcript segments. The decision of defense counsel not to seek suppression of medical records secured under R.C. 2317.02(B)(2) does not constitute ineffective assistance. The record does not support a reasonable probability that the motion would have been successful if made and that the decision affected the outcome of the case. It is the duty of the appellant to provide a complete transcript under App.R. 9. The inaudible portions of the record did not prevent a thorough and meaningful review on appeal, and appellant has failed to demonstrate prejudice.Laster MaysCuyahoga 3/16/2023 3/16/2023 2023-Ohio-812
State v. Mitchell 111685R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); consecutive sentences. The trial court did not err by imposing consecutive sentences because the trial court made the requisite findings and they are supported by the record.ForbesCuyahoga 3/16/2023 3/16/2023 2023-Ohio-813
Pike v. Wilson 111688Securities fraud; aggravated theft; restitution; financial sanctions; R.C. 2929.18; termination of community-control sanctions; R.C. 2929.15; civil judgment; judgment on the pleadings; Civ.R. 12(C); the absurd result principle; double-jeopardy protections. Judgment affirmed. Appellant pled guilty to securities fraud and aggravated theft after collecting money from three victims, promising returns on their investments. Appellant was sentenced to five years of community control and required to pay restitution to the victims. Appellant’s five years of community control elapsed and appellant had not paid restitution. Thereafter, the victims reduced the trial court’s order to pay restitution to a civil judgment and filed a creditor’s bill against appellant. The victims prevailed on a motion for judgment on the pleadings and appellant was ordered to pay $99,978.78 plus any interest to the victims. On appeal, appellant suggested that the trial court erred in granting the victim’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that (1) he should not be required to pay the restitution since he was released from community control, and (2) that the civil judgment violated his double-jeopardy protections. We reject appellant’s contentions and affirm the judgment of the trial court.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 3/16/2023 3/16/2023 2023-Ohio-814
State v. Yauger 111734Community-control sanctions; grand theft; R.C. 2929.19(B); notification requirements; Crim.R. 36; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); nontechnical violation of community-control sanctions; R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii). Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in imposing a 36-month consecutive prison sentence where the appellant was properly notified of the sentence prior to its imposition. Additionally, the record supported that the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences and that appellant’s community-control violation was nontechnical.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 3/16/2023 3/16/2023 2023-Ohio-815
Lee v. Bath Manor Ltd. Partnership 111756Motion to compel arbitration; R.C. 2711.03; hearing; enforceability; unconscionable. The trial court erred when it failed to hold a hearing prior to ruling on appellants’ motion to compel arbitration when the issue of enforceability was raised, the appellants specifically requested a hearing, and no evidence was submitted to the trial court on the issue of enforceability.ForbesCuyahoga 3/16/2023 3/16/2023 2023-Ohio-816
State v. Jeffrey 111763Manifest weight; double jeopardy; allied offenses of similar import. Convictions for felonious assault, abduction, and domestic violence were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where a jury is permitted to believe, disbelieve, or accept part of the testimony of a particular witness. A review of the entire record disputes appellant’s contention that the victim was a pathological liar who lied throughout her testimony. Furthermore, appellant’s convictions for felonious assault, abduction, and domestic violence did not violate double jeopardy and were not allied offenses of similar import requiring one sentence. The record established that the crimes, with the exception of the two Counts of abduction, were committed separately, permitting the trial court to impose sentences for each. However, it was an error for the trial court to sentence appellant on each of two counts of abduction, which the trial court had properly merged. As allied offenses of similar import, the state should have been allowed to choose which count they wished to proceed on and the trial court should have sentenced appellant to only one count of abduction. Accordingly, the sentence is vacated as to Counts 3 and 4 and remanded for the state to elect which count it wishes for sentencing to proceed.GrovesCuyahoga 3/16/2023 3/16/2023 2023-Ohio-817