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 640 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re M.W. 113820Permanent custody; legal custody; best interest of the child. Neither permanent custody nor legal custody was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. Mother had five children removed from the home because of educational neglect and housing issues. Three of the children were placed in the same foster home. One of the children was placed with a family member, and the fifth child was placed in a foster home on his own. Mother obtained housing and completed case plan objectives such that the agency returned the three oldest children to her care. Additionally, she gave birth to two additional children during the pendency of the case, and the agency did not establish grounds to intervene in Mother’s custody. Nevertheless, the agency sought legal custody to a family member for one of the remaining children and permanent custody to the agency for the other, in part due to Mother’s failure to consistently visit those two children. However, the record reflected that Mother had visited with both children, though not consistently. There was insufficient evidence to support the findings for permanent and legal custody.GrovesCuyahoga 11/7/2024 11/7/2024 2024-Ohio-5328
State v. Bissell 113158R.C. 2903.02(B); merger; knowledge; sufficiency; weight of the evidence; R.C. 2945.79(D). Insufficient evidence was presented to establish guilt for predicate offense of felonious assault supporting R.C. 2903.02(B) conviction where evidence failed to establish appellant acted knowingly. Appellant, with knowledge of the surrounding circumstances, acted in a way that created a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm. Having knowledge of the surrounding circumstances and acting anyway, disregarding a substantial risk is a hallmark of reckless conduct. Insufficient evidence was presented to establish conviction for failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer where no officer testified as to an order or direction and no officer testified that the officers conducting traffic control were authorized to direct traffic as required to convict under R.C. 2921.331(A). If a court finds that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction it may find the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense if the facts warrant it without ordering a new trial under R.C. 2945.79(D). The evidence in this case supported a finding that appellant was guilty of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter with reckless assault as a predicate offense. Having found the appellant guilty of the lesser included offense, the case is remanded for resentencing.GrovesCuyahoga 11/7/2024 11/7/2024 2024-Ohio-5317
Fuller v. Evergreen Title Servs., L.L.C. 113666Relief from judgment; Civ.R. 60(B); meritorious defense; fraud. The trial court abused its discretion in granting relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) where the movant failed to establish a meritorious claim or defense and failed to satisfy any the grounds for relief listed in the rule.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 11/7/2024 11/7/2024 2024-Ohio-5322
State v. Coleman 113692Consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); clearly and convincingly. - Consecutive sentences affirmed where appellate court did not have a firm conviction or belief that the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings were not clearly and convincingly supported by the record.KeoughCuyahoga 11/7/2024 11/7/2024 2024-Ohio-5324
State v. Miles 113645Self-defense; manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. The trial court’s judgment finding appellant guilty of aggravated assaulted and criminal damaging or endangering was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The State disproved at least one of the elements of appellant’s self-defense claim.Laster MaysCuyahoga 11/7/2024 11/7/2024 2024-Ohio-5321
State v. Coleman 113541Felonious assault; knowingly; sufficient evidence; manifest weight; complicity; bench trial; video evidence. Judgment affirmed. While there was no eyewitness testimony to the shooting, the video evidence and testimony of the investigating officers and forensic experts, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, is sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant knowingly caused serious physical harm to victim and caused or attempted to cause physical harm to the victim when the defendant Coleman fired his gun at the victim. Additionally, the trial court could have found that the defendant supported, assisted, encouraged, cooperated with, advised, or incited the unknown shooter who can be observed on video shooting at the victim. In a bench trial, the trial court is entitled to the presumption of regularity, that is, the trial court is presumed to know and follow the law in arriving at its judgment unless it affirmatively appears to the contrary. Moreover, defendant’s convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.BoyleCuyahoga 11/7/2024 11/7/2024 2024-Ohio-5320
RNE Ents., L.L.C. v. Imperial Kitchen Cabinet Factory, L.L.C. 113768Stay; satisfaction; res judicata; law-of-the-case doctrine; garnishment. - Res judicata and the law-of-the-case doctrine precludes appellant’s arguments that attempt to relitigate issues that were disposed of in prior appeals. Appellant’s failure to obtain a valid stay pending appeal permitted the appellee to execute successful garnishments that satisfied the judgments rendered in favor of the appellee.KeoughCuyahoga 11/7/2024 11/7/2024 2024-Ohio-5327
Fairview Park v. Werling 113684, 113686, 113687Menacing; ethnic intimidation; R.C. 2903.22(A); R.C. 2927.12(A); misdemeanor; Crim.R. 29; sufficiency; manifest weight; race; color; racial slurs; racially abusive language; predicate offense; underlying offense; motivating factor; totality of the circumstances; infer; venue; R.C. 2901.12(H); course of conduct. Affirmed appellant’s convictions for menacing under R.C. 2903.22(A) and ethnic intimidation under R.C. 2927.12(A). The convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Following a disagreement over a shoe return, there were multiple interactions with the employees of the store in which appellant engaged in menacing conduct and repeatedly directed racial slurs at one of the victims. Although words alone are generally not enough to establish ethnic intimidation, in this matter the appellant engaged in actions and ongoing behavior from which it could be reasonably inferred that she committed the predicate offense of menacing, at least in part, by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin. Appellant failed to demonstrate plain error in regard to her venue challenge, and venue was proper pursuant to R.C. 2901.12(H)(1) and (3).S. GallagherCuyahoga 11/7/2024 11/7/2024 2024-Ohio-5323
Pivonka v. Corcoran 113504Class-action certification; unjust enrichment; reimbursement to Medicaid for personal-injury awards; subrogation under R.C. 5101.58; subject-matter jurisdiction in common pleas court or Court of Claims; legal relief; equitable relief. In this class action against the State, particularly the Ohio Department of Medicaid, if the allegations in the complaint are seen as legal claims then subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the Court of Claims. However, if the allegations in the complaint are seen as equitable claims, the common pleas court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Here, the allegations in the complaint concern wrongfully collected reimbursement funds paid back to the Ohio Department of Medicaid by Medicaid participants. The remedy concerns return of the funds to the participants. The issue: is this action claiming reimbursement a civil suit for money damages or an action in equity brought to correct unjust enrichment? The answer lies in whether the plaintiffs are seeking to recover from the defendant’s general assets or specifically identified funds. Case dismissed and remanded to the trial court to develop the record with the jurisdictional facts needed for the court to determine whether this is a legal or equitable claim.ForbesCuyahoga 11/7/2024 11/7/2024 2024-Ohio-5318
State v. Miller 113764Community control; violation; reserve; consecutive; prison; sentence; due process; waiver; plain error; notice. The trial court’s imposition of consecutive prison terms for the defendant’s violation of his community-control sanctions was not contrary to law. The record does not reflect a violation of the defendant’s due process rights.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 11/7/2024 11/7/2024 2024-Ohio-5326
State v. Ali 113750Bollar, R.C. 2941.25(A); allied offenses; R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(b) and (g); firearm specifications; sentencing; felonious assault; R.C. 2903.11(A); merger; double jeopardy; coercion; right to trial. Judgment affirmed. Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law when the trial court followed the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Bollar, 2022-Ohio-4370, and ordered the three year firearm specifications to be run consecutively on the merged counts. The Bollar Court held that a firearm specification survives merger under the plain language of R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g). Furthermore, there is no violation of double jeopardy when a trial court complies with the statute in imposing a separate sentence on such a specification. Finally, appellant was not coerced into taking a plea to avoid consecutive sentences. Appellant exercised his right to trial.BoyleCuyahoga 11/7/2024 11/7/2024 2024-Ohio-5325
In re A.C. 113856Custody action; R.C. 2151.23(A)(2); genetic testing; R.C. 3111.09; parentage action; final and appealable order. Judgment affirmed. The juvenile court’s denial of the appellant’s request for court-ordered genetic testing was a final, appealable order because it affected a substantial right in the action, determined the issue of genetic testing, and prevented a judgment for appellant. The trial court did not err by denying appellant’s request for court-ordered genetic testing. Genetic testing is provided for under R.C. 3111.09 in parentage actions, not custody actions. Appellant initiated this case as a custody action under R.C. 2151.23(A)(2).RyanCuyahoga 11/7/2024 11/7/2024 2024-Ohio-5329
State v. Tate 113532One-year firearm specification; three-year firearm specification; rape; kidnapping; aggravated robbery; multiplicity; inconsistent verdict; double jeopardy; ineffective assistance of counsel; plain error; insufficient evidence; manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. Appellant’s convictions on the three-year firearm specifications and acquittals on the one-year firearm specifications did not result in an inconsistent verdict. Ohio appellate courts have repeatedly held that an acquittal on a one-year firearm specification and a finding of guilt on a three-year firearm specification do not result in an inconsistent verdict requiring the vacation of the three-year specification. The jury could have rendered these seemingly inconsistent verdicts for any number of reasons. The State presented evidence sufficient that the appellant had a firearm on or about his person or under his control while raping and robbing the victim. Therefore, the seemingly inconsistent verdicts were likely a product of compromise and leniency. Multiplicity occurs when a single crime has been arbitrarily divided or separated into two or more separate counts. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek dismissal of the indictment and failing to request jury instructions requiring the jury to make specific factual findings as to the firearm specifications because (1) sentence enhancements, such as firearm specifications, are not criminal offenses; it follows that the inclusion of multiple sentence enhancements in an indictment does not render the indictment multiplicitous or violate double jeopardy principles and (2) the use of jury interrogatories in criminal cases is questionable and the appellant does not cite to any statute mandating special verdicts in the instant case. There is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain appellant’s convictions and the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The victim testified that appellant threatened the victim and raped and robbed her by gunpoint while in a dark garage. Appellant then threatened the victim to remain in the garage before he left.BoyleCuyahoga 11/7/2024 11/7/2024 2024-Ohio-5319
Smith v Lincoln Elec. Co. 113340Wrongful termination; summary judgment; assault and battery. Trial court properly granted summary judgment for appellee on appellant’s claims for wrongful termination against public policy where appellant failed to identify a public policy that was applicable to the facts of the case. Trial court also properly granted summary judgment for appellee on appellant’s assault and battery claim where assailant was acting outside of the scope of employment and there was no evidence that the appellee had ratified the assailant’s conduct as necessary to impute the assault and battery to the employer.GrovesCuyahoga 10/31/2024 10/31/2024 2024-Ohio-5209
State v. Griffon 113608Community-control violations; due process; abuse of discretion; drug test; R.C. 2929.13(E)(2). The trial court abused its discretion in finding a violation of community-control sanctions because the violation was based on the defendant’s alleged violation of protection orders that were not introduced into evidence for the purposes of determining whether his conduct constituted a violation, and a single instance of testing positive for drugs cannot form an independent basis of a violation of community-control sanctions unless the trial court makes the findings under R.C. 2929.13(E)(2) on the record.S. GallagherCuyahoga 10/31/2024 10/31/2024 2024-Ohio-5212
State v. Walton 113688Aggravated vehicular homicide; aggravated vehicular assault; operating vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs; ineffective assistance of counsel; abuse of discretion. The then 20-year old defendant, while traveling at a high rate of speed, crashed his vehicle into a tree and three teenage girls died from injuries they sustained and two other people were injured. After his motion to suppress blood alcohol tests was denied, defendant pled guilty to several counts of aggravated vehicular homicide and aggravated vehicular assault as well as operating vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. His convictions were affirmed on appeal, and his motion to reopen appeal was denied. Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea alleging ineffective assistance of counsel that was denied. When a defendant claims ineffective assistance of counsel at the time of a plea, he must show that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and defendant would have insisted on going to trial. Defendant argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a strategy to attack the procedure for blood alcohol testing and had counsel done so, he would have gone to trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to withdraw plea. Defendant did not point to anything in the record to indicate trial counsel had a basis to attack the requirements for blood testing or that such challenge would have resulted in the suppression of the blood test. As such, defendant did not show trial counsel’s decision to focus efforts on challenging the results of the blood test itself, not on the procedure, fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Further, the record did not demonstrate that even had counsel been ineffective, defendant would have gone to trial where other evidence of impairment existed.SheehanCuyahoga 10/31/2024 10/31/2024 2024-Ohio-5214
Horn v. DeGennaro 113762Adverse possession; magistrate’s decision; objections; Civ.R. 53; transcript of all the evidence; exhibits; independent review; ruling on objections. -Trial court’s decision rejecting the magistrate’s decision on an adverse possession claim upheld where the record demonstrates that the trial court complied with Civ.R. 53 in its obligation to conduct an independent review of the magistrate’s decision and rule on the objections. Appellant failed to demonstrate error that the trial exhibits were not part of the record or that the trial court did not consider them in its Civ.R. 53 review.KeoughCuyahoga 10/31/2024 10/31/2024 2024-Ohio-5217
State v. Mosby 113545Cross-examination; victim; bias; manifest weight of the evidence; sexually violent predator specifications; jury waiver; consecutive sentences; cumulative-error doctrine; present ability to pay fine; R.C. 2929.19(B)(5). - Trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting defense counsel’s cross-examination to comport with the evidence; prosecutor’s, State’s witnesses’, and the judge’s use of the word “victim” to refer to the complaining witness was not plain error; defendant’s convictions for rape and kidnapping were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; defendant’s waiver of a jury trial on the sexually violent predator specifications was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and defense counsel’s advice to waive a jury trial on the specifications was not ineffective assistance of counsel; trial court’s findings regarding the necessity of consecutive sentences were supported by the record; the cumulative-error doctrine did not apply because there were not numerous trial court errors; trial court erred in imposing a fine without considering the defendant’s present ability to pay the fine, as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(5).KeoughCuyahoga 10/31/2024 10/31/2024 2024-Ohio-5210
State v. Medlock 113273Alford plea, knowingly, voluntarily, protestations of innocence. Judgment Affirmed. Based on the totality of circumstances, we find that appellant’s comment that he was not guilty when asked whether he was satisfied with his attorney, but then immediately reversed his position and acknowledged his guilt throughout the rest of the proceedings, including the sentencing, is not sufficient to trigger a trial court’s heightened duty under Alford. Because appellant was not protesting his innocence to the level required under Alford and State v. Padgett, 67 Ohio App.3d 332, 337-338 (2d Dist. 1990), we find that his plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered.BoyleCuyahoga 10/31/2024 10/31/2024 2024-Ohio-5208
Tilton v. Geronimo 113571Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56(C); breach of contract; unjust enrichment; trespass; fraudulent misrepresentation; consideration. Judgment affirmed. Summary judgment was proper when there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the parties’ agreement. Appellants agreed to the removal of 16 arborvitae trees so appellees could replace their driveway. Appellees’ agreement to forgo expanding their driveway and removing all of the trees lining their property, in exchange for appellants’ permission to remove the 16 arborvitaes, was valid consideration. Appellees were not fraudulently induced into this agreement. The agreement, which was expressed in the parties’ emails, did not include reimbursement. Because there was a valid contract, the trespass and unjust enrichment claims fail as a matter of law.BoyleCuyahoga 10/31/2024 10/31/2024 2024-Ohio-5211
State v. Malone 113700Motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial; hearing; “unavoidably prevented.” To obtain leave to file a delayed new-trial motion, a defendant must demonstrate by clear and convincing proof that the defendant was unavoidably prevented from filing his motion for a new trial. Appellant fails to attest to the circumstances relating to his late discovery of the new evidence other than the fact that he discovered the new evidence in 2023, nine years after his conviction. Furthermore, the alleged new evidence consists of several journal entries and a docket in two cases, which are matters of public record. Appellant’s affidavit offered no explanations for his efforts to uncover favorable evidence, the circumstances he discovered the new evidence, or the reasons for the nine-year delay. Because he has failed to demonstrate that he exercised due diligence to uncover the documents that have been in existence for years even before his conviction, we do not find an abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying the instant motion for leave. The trial court similarly did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion without a hearing because he fails to carry his burden of submitting documents that on their face support his claim of being unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence.SheehanCuyahoga 10/31/2024 10/31/2024 2024-Ohio-5215
Cleveland v. City Redevelopment, L.L.C. 113651Housing court; violations; building code; compliance; community-control sanctions; abuse of discretion; primary goal of misdemeanor sentencing; Jones test. Judgment affirmed in part, modified in part, and remanded. The housing court abused its discretion in this case when it prohibited the appellant from selling the subject property and any properties owned by appellant in the city as part of its community-control sanctions when the appellant was in full compliance with the city’s code at the time of sentencing. The primary goal of misdemeanor sentencing was satisfied in this matter — the violations were corrected and the Property was brought into full compliance with all building codes. Therefore, the matter is reversed in part and remanded to the trial court to issue a new sentencing entry modifying the appellant’s sentence by deleting only the portion of community-control sanctions requiring the appellant to “not to sell, gift, or transfer the properties it owns within the City of Cleveland while on community control without approval of the Court.” The remaining portions of the appellant’s community-city control sanctions are affirmed.BoyleCuyahoga 10/31/2024 10/31/2024 2024-Ohio-5213
Fast Tract Title Servs., Inc. v. Barry 113716Civ.R. 12(B)(6); motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted; res judicata. Trial court erred in dismissing complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) based on res judicata.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 10/31/2024 10/31/2024 2024-Ohio-5216
In re Adoption of R.L.A. 113860Adoption; adoption petition; R.C. 3107.07(A); consent to adopt; justifiable cause; failure to support; failure to communicate. The trial court did not err in finding that the biological father’s consent to adopt was not required because there was clear and convincing evidence that the biological father had failed to support or communicate with the child in the statutory time period. The biological father had never supported his child and had no communication with the child in several years. There was no evidence that the biological mother or prospective adoptive father substantially interfered in the biological father’s attempts to communicate with the child. The biological father offered no evidence of his income during the statutory time frame other than testimony that his income decreased during the pandemic.RyanCuyahoga 10/31/2024 10/31/2024 2024-Ohio-5218
Williams v. Hung 113363Sanctions; Civ.R. 11; Civ.R. 45; attorney fees; waiver; reasonableness of fees; sworn evidence; fee bills; disqualification order; mootness; ability to pay. Judgment affirmed. The court’s award of sanctions in the form of attorney fees to the plaintiff and two nonparties is affirmed where the record demonstrates that the sanctioned party contested the reasonableness of the fees and the trial court rejected the sanctioned party’s arguments and did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the sanctioned party’s arguments. Additionally, the sanctioned party’s attempt to dispute fees stemming from his disqualification as counsel are moot because no fees were awarded stemming from the disqualification and the trial court did not err in failing to consider the sanctioned party’s ability to pay where such evidence was not introduced before the trial court made its decision, despite numerous opportunities to present such evidence.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 10/24/2024 10/24/2024 2024-Ohio-5093
In re D.W. 112655Probable cause; juvenile court. The juvenile court did not err in determining that probable cause did not exist to believe that the appellee committed the crimes charged.Laster MaysCuyahoga 10/24/2024 10/24/2024 2024-Ohio-5091
State v. Campbell 113690Consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14; clear and convincing. The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences where the trial court made the requisite findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14 and the findings were not clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.KlattCuyahoga 10/24/2024 10/24/2024 2024-Ohio-5099
Olmsted Falls v. Bowman 113696Motion to compel; motion for protective order; attorney-client privilege; foreclosure; liens; summary judgment; res judicata; R.C. 2329.02; R.C. 2323.07. Judgment affirmed. The trial court properly granted the appellee’s motion for a protective order and denied the appellant’s motion to compel. The subject information was not discoverable because it was protected under the attorney-client privilege. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the appellee. The appellee obtained two judgments from courts of general jurisdiction against the appellant. In accordance with R.C. 2329.02, the appellee recorded the judgments as liens against appellant’s property located in appellee’s jurisdiction. The appellee initiated this foreclosure action under R.C. 2323.07. The facts surrounding the judgments appellee obtained have been extensively litigated and appellant’s attempts to contest the judgments are barred under the doctrine of res judicata. There were no genuine issues of material fact to be litigated in this foreclosure action.RyanCuyahoga 10/24/2024 10/24/2024 2024-Ohio-5100
State v. Hamrick 113784Consecutive; sentence; clear and convincing; findings; record; criminal history; seriousness; disproportionate; course of conduct. The trial court made the necessary findings to impose consecutive sentences and the findings are supported by the record.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 10/24/2024 10/24/2024 2024-Ohio-5101
In re A.L. 114102Permanent custody; best interest of the child; agency’s efforts. Our review indicates the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2151.414(E) are supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record and, therefore, the trial court appropriately found that L.A. could not “be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent.” R.C. 2151.414(E). The trial court also properly considered the statutory factors in determining that an award of permanent custody is in the child’s best interest. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision granting permanent custody to Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services ("CCDCFS") is affirmed.SheehanCuyahoga 10/24/2024 10/24/2024 2024-Ohio-5103
State v. Johnson 113591Jury Instruction; affirmative defense; entrapment; evidence; harmless error; bribery; manifest weight. Trial court properly refused to provide a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of entrapment where the evidence did not support an entrapment defense. Trial court’s decision not to instruct a witness to stop using the words “bribe” or “bribery payment” was not improper because the words “bribe” and “bribery payment” are commonly understood and did not amount to legal conclusions. Defendant’s bribery convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where video evidence clearly showed the defendant accepting cash in exchange for fake police reports.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 10/24/2024 10/24/2024 2024-Ohio-5098
State v. Taylor 113385, 113386, 113387Discretionary transfer; bindover; amenability; R.C. 2152.12; guilty plea; misdemeanor; plain error; Crim.R. 52(B). Judgment affirmed. Defendant argues that his convictions and bindover should be reversed and remanded to the juvenile court because the juvenile court (1) abused its discretion when it determined that he was not amenable to treatment in the juvenile court system and (2) committed plain error when it transferred misdemeanor offenses for adult criminal prosecution and accepted waivers premised on a misstatement of law. Because the record provides a rational and factual basis to support the juvenile court’s amenability decision, we cannot say that the juvenile court abused its discretion by transferring the defendant’s cases to the general division. Assuming arguendo that the juvenile court erred in transferring the defendant’s misdemeanor charges and/or failing to distinguish them from his felony charges in its colloquy, the defendant has not demonstrated how those errors impacted his convictions. Therefore, we decline to find plain error.GrovesCuyahoga 10/24/2024 10/24/2024 2024-Ohio-5094
State v. Williams 113141Ineffective assistance of counsel; restitution; R.C. 2929.19(B)(5); Marsy’s Law; sufficiency. Appellant’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. Sufficiency tests the adequacy of the evidence. Where the victim testified defining the items that were stolen, that testimony itself was sufficient, if believed, to establish the element of the value of the items stolen. Appellant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to counsel’s failure to object to the introduction of evidence in violation of the best evidence rule, because the victim’s testimony was sufficient to establish the fact. The best evidence rule did not apply, and the admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to counsel’s failure to object to the amount of restitution and the failure to consider his ability to pay. The amount of restitution was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, additionally, counsel’s may not have objected to avoid the imposition of a greater fine based on the testimony presented at trial. Secondly, Marsy’s Law supersedes consideration of a defendant’s ability to pay, accordingly, counsel did not err when he failed to object.GrovesCuyahoga 10/24/2024 10/24/2024 2024-Ohio-5092
State v. Finklea 113566Mistrial; juror misconduct; abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s motion for a mistrial. The court did not find that there had been juror misconduct when one juror allegedly overheard another juror make a comment that she had already made her mind up about appellant’s guilt or innocence but that person denied making the comment and the other jurors in her presence denied hearing the comment. Moreover, that juror was excused mid-trial for personal reasons and did not take part in deliberations. Therefore, appellant cannot show that any alleged statement materially affected his substantial rights.RyanCuyahoga 10/24/2024 10/24/2024 2024-Ohio-5096
Francati v. Fuentes 113507Civ.R. 12(B)(1), subject-matter jurisdiction, probate court, definition and creation of trust within deed. Plaintiffs, members of a homeowners association, filed declaratory judgment action over dispute with actions taken by the members and of the board of directors of the homeowners association. Plaintiffs did not provide evidence the probate court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims where they claimed a trust was created by a series of deeds and other documents spanning decades or provide evidence the claims concerned the administration of an estate. As such, the probate court correctly determined it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the action.Laster MaysCuyahoga 10/24/2024 10/24/2024 2024-Ohio-5095
In re J.H. 113855Permanent custody; best interest; clear and convincing evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; continuance; case plan; reunification. Juvenile court’s judgment granting permanent custody of child to Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services ("CCDCFS") was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence where Mother made no effort to comply with the agency’s case plan for reunification. Juvenile court’s denial of Mother’s day-of-trial motion for continuance was not an abuse of discretion where Mother failed to provide a legitimate reason for the requested continuance, Mother had not engaged in agency services, and the continuance would have inconvenienced many other individuals and the court.E.T. GallagherCuyahoga 10/24/2024 10/24/2024 2024-Ohio-5102
State v. Hodges 113568Petition for postconviction relief; jurisdiction; timeliness; res judicata. The trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider defendant’s postconviction-relief petition because it was untimely and did not meet the criteria in R.C. 2953.23(A)(1). Furthermore, the arguments raised in the petition were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised in the defendant’s direct appeal.ForbesCuyahoga 10/24/2024 10/24/2024 2024-Ohio-5097
Wells Fargo Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Doberdruk 113637Foreclosure; supersedeas bond; motion for stay; mootness doctrine; R.C. 2329.45. The foreclosure appeal was dismissed as moot. The appellant failed to obtain a stay because she did not post the required bond set by the trial court. Therefore, the property was sold, the sale was confirmed, and the proceeds were distributed. The appellant’s argument that the appeal was not moot because R.C. 2329.45 provides a remedy when the property has been sold is without merit because R.C. 2329.45 applies only to appeals that were taken from the order confirming the sale, not from a decree of foreclosure and when an appellant successfully obtains a stay.SheehanCuyahoga 10/17/2024 10/17/2024 2024-Ohio-5007
State v. Malone 113495Attempted murder; felonious assault; self-defense; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; admissibility of evidence; body-camera video; App.R. 16(A)(7); jury instruction on flight; consecutive sentences for firearm specifications. Defendant’s convictions for attempted murder and felonious assault are affirmed. The relevant issue in this case, which went to a jury trial, was whether the defendant acted in self-defense when he shot the victim five times. After reviewing the record, we determine that defendant’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. This is not the exceptional case where the jury lost its way in convicting defendant of attempted murder and felonious assault. Defendant failed to show reversible error in the admission of evidence, jury instruction and consecutive sentences for firearm specifications.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 10/17/2024 10/17/2024 2024-Ohio-5004
In re R.H. 113939Permanent custody; continuance; Juv.R. 23; Juv.Loc.R. 35; reasonable efforts; R.C. 2151.419(A). Juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother’s oral motion for continuance at the permanent custody hearing, where mother requested a continuance to allow the agency to evaluate a family friend as a possible placement for the child. Mother did not comply with Juv.Loc.R. 35 and did not show that a continuance was “imperative to secure fair treatment for the parties” as required under Juv.R. 23. No one filed a motion for legal custody and no one appeared at the permanent custody hearing to testify that they were willing and able to be a caregiver or legal custodian for the child. Mother did not show that the juvenile court failed to comply with its obligations under R.C. 2151.419(A). Where the juvenile court made reasonable-efforts findings before placing child in the permanent custody of the agency, it was not required to do so again in its judgment entry granting the agency’s motion for permanent custody. Although it was not required to make such findings on the agency’s motion for permanent custody, the juvenile court’s reasonable-efforts findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The record reflected that the agency developed a reasonable case plan and worked with mother for more one-and-one-half years, offering numerous referrals and services to mother, in an attempt to reunite her with her daughter. Mother, however, consistently failed to follow through with agency referrals, missing appointments, failing to comply with program requirements and ignoring recommendations for services.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 10/17/2024 10/17/2024 2024-Ohio-5009
State v. Lenard 113878Motion to vacate forfeiture order; subject-matter jurisdiction; forfeiture as part of guilty plea; res judicata. In December 2005, the defendant pled guilty to various offenses and, as part of the plea, agreed to forfeit several items. The defendant did not file a direct appeal. The defendant was sentenced to a lengthy prison term in various other cases in Ohio. The defendant filed multiple appeals, writs, and motions in the trial court. Related to this appeal, in March 2024, the defendant filed a motion to vacate the forfeiture order from 2005. Because the defendant agreed to forfeiture as part of his plea, the prosecutor’s failure to file a petition for forfeiture did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the defendant’s arguments challenging forfeiture are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.ForbesCuyahoga 10/17/2024 10/17/2024 2024-Ohio-5008
State v. Wilborn 113289Murder; drive-by shooting; planned; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight; involuntary manslaughter; having weapons while under disability; use of firearm by a violent career criminal; complicity; aiding; abetting; accomplice; inference stacking. - The State’s use of inference stacking to prove that the defendant possessed or used a firearm was improper. Defendant’s convictions upheld under a complicity theory because the evidence proved that the defendant aided and abetted in the murder and subsequent drive-by shooting at a residence. Defendant was not merely present but rather intended to participate in the armed robbery that pivoted to murder and a drive-by shooting once they believed they were being set up by the murder victim.KeoughCuyahoga 10/17/2024 10/17/2024 2024-Ohio-5003
Schleich v. Penn Cent. Corp. 113632Toxic tort, Federal Employers’ Liability Act, necessity of expert testimony, reliability of expert testimony, summary judgment. In a Federal Employers’ Liability Act lawsuit, plaintiff alleged that while working for defendants, he was exposed to diesel exhaust fumes that was a cause of plaintiff's developing a type of leukemia. In order to support his claim, plaintiff was required to produce expert medical testimony on both general and specific causation. Plaintiff produced medical expert on the issue of causation who opined that benzene is contained in diesel exhaust and because benzene is a known cause of cancers to include leukemia, the exposure to diesel exhaust was a cause of plaintiff’s condition. The trial court granted defendants’ motions to exclude plaintiff’s expert’s testimony on the grounds that it was unreliable. The trial court determined that the expert’s testimony as to general causation was unreliable because the expert’s method for finding and analyzing the scientific literature was unreliable and the expert did not support his opinion with scientific literature or explain the contradictory scientific literature that diesel exposure did not support an effect as to cancers such as leukemia. The trial court’s grant of the motion to exclude the expert testimony was not an abuse of discretion. After the expert testimony was excluded, plaintiff did not have evidence of general causation and summary judgment was properly granted in favor of defendants.SheehanCuyahoga 10/17/2024 10/17/2024 2024-Ohio-5005
Cleveland Mun. School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision 113498; 113499Administrative appeal; board of revision; R.C. 5717.01; school board; appeal to common pleas court; R.C. 5717.05; R.C. Ch. 2506; standing. The trial court did not err in dismissing the school board’s administrative appeal. The school board did not have standing under R.C. 2506.01 to appeal a decision of a board of revision to the common pleas court.ForbesCuyahoga 10/10/2024 10/10/2024 2024-Ohio-4902
State v. Cottrell 113453Motion for new trial; motion for leave to file a motion for new trial; Crim.R. 33; unavoidably prevented; res judicata; ineffective assistance of counsel. - Ineffective assistance of counsel — due to defense counsel’s failure to communicate a plea offer to defendant-appellant — was the basis of a motion for leave to file a motion for new trial. Defendant-appellant provided only a self-serving affidavit in support of the motion, arguing that he was unavoidably prevented from filing his motion because he was not present when the offer was made in court and he did not learn of the alleged offer until he received a private investigator’s report almost 20 years later. A review of the record demonstrates the alleged plea offer was contained in the appellate record at the time of defendant-appellant’s direct appeal. Defendant-appellant was not unavoidably prevented from obtaining the information about the alleged plea offer that was part of the trial transcript, and res judicata precluded defendant-appellant from arguing ineffective assistance of counsel that could have been raised during the direct appeal. For the foregoing reasons, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant-appellant’s motion for leave to file a motion for new trial or opting not to conduct a hearing on the motion.KeoughCuyahoga 10/10/2024 10/10/2024 2024-Ohio-4900
L.W. v. A.B. 113397Motion to seal; supplemental journal entry. The trial court retained jurisdiction to vacate its original order granting the appellant’s motion to seal because it stated that a supplemental journal entry was to follow, and an appeal had not been filed.Laster MaysCuyahoga 10/10/2024 10/10/2024 2024-Ohio-4913
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Coil 113633Civ.R. 24 motion to intervene; foreclosure; purported contract to purchase subject property; abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed. For the following reasons, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to intervene: (1) the motion, which was filed over three and one-half years after the trial court issued its foreclosure judgment and days before the foreclosure sale, was untimely; (2) the proposed intervenor did not have a recorded interest in the property; (3) the proposed intervenor’s interest in the property was subject to the doctrine of lis pendens, and (4) intervention was not the only way the proposed intervenor could have protected his interest — he could have performed under his purported contract, under which the seller (the defendant homeowner) would have been deemed sufficiently aligned with the proposed intervenor so as to protect his interest. There was no requirement that the trial court automatically hold a hearing on the motion to intervene or that it issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.RyanCuyahoga 10/10/2024 10/10/2024 2024-Ohio-4908
State v. Karr 113130Drug trafficking; drug possession; manifest weight of the evidence; ineffective assistance of counsel; affidavit of indigency; fines. Defendant’s convictions for drug trafficking and drug possession are supported by the manifest weight of the evidence in the record. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to file an affidavit of indigency when the court imposed fines against defendant as part of his sentence for drug-related offenses. The court erred by finding defendant indigent, determining that he was unable to pay the fine and then imposing the fine.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 10/10/2024 10/10/2024 2024-Ohio-4895
McGrady v. Camara 113502Contempt; divorce decree; division of property order; reconciliation. Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found Husband in contempt of court for failing to assist in preparation and submission of division of property order. Parties were initially divorced in 2006 at which point the trial court gave Husband the marital home and Wife 50 percent of Husband’s pension. Husband and Wife remarried a few months after the divorce was finalized and filed for divorce again 7 years later with an agreed separation agreement. The parties’ reconciliation did not void the prior divorce decree’s property divisions. Further, the later separation agreement that included language claiming to settle all claims and release the parties of the interest in the property of the other did not change the terms of the 2006 divorce decree where the 2015 agreement did not mention the pension or expressly indicate that both parties consented or agreed to change the earlier division of property.GrovesCuyahoga 10/10/2024 10/10/2024 2024-Ohio-4903
State v. T.S. 113404Discretionary transfer; R.C. 2152.12(B); waiver of appealable errors by guilty plea; amenable to care or rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system; preponderance of the evidence; abuse of discretion; meaningful review. Juvenile court erred and abused its discretion in transferring case to the general division for criminal prosecution where it did not make the findings required R.C. 2152.12(B)(3) and the record lacked sufficient evidence to support a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that juvenile offender was not amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system.E.A. GallagherCuyahoga 10/10/2024 10/10/2024 2024-Ohio-4898
12345678910...>>