|
|
State v. Fay
| 115904 | Consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); plea agreement; ineffective assistance of counsel; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). This court affirmed the trial court’s judgment because the agreed sentencing range was a recommendation and not a binding term of the plea, trial counsel was not ineffective for how she presented that recommendation at sentencing, and the record supported the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings justifying consecutive sentences. | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
11/5/2026
|
11/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4370 |
|
In re J.L.L.
| 116186 | R.C. 2717.01; R.C. 2717.02; R.C. 2717.13; name change; best interest of the child; reasonable and proper cause; sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence. The probate court’s judgment granting father’s application to add his surname to his child’s existing surname was affirmed. The probate court did not abuse its discretion in determining that reasonable and proper cause had been established for the name change and that the requested name change was in the best interests of the child. The court’s decision was also supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
11/5/2026
|
11/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4373 |
|
State v. Terrell
| 116190 | Aggravated trafficking; aggravated possession; cumulative error; curative instruction. Defendant-appellant was not denied a fair trial due to cumulative error where the trial court did not give a curative instruction where no instruction was requested by trial counsel and the issue was waived. | Clary | Cuyahoga |
11/5/2026
|
11/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4374 |
|
Strongsville v. Smith
| 115942 | Resisting arrest; reckless resistance; passive resistance; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; character evidence; other-acts evidence; notice requirement; plain error; jury instructions; definition of resist; First Amendment; freedom of speech; protected speech; due process; ineffective assistance of counsel; trial strategy; prejudice; R.C. 2921.33(A); Evid.R. 404(A); Evid.R. 404(B); Crim.R. 30(A); Crim.R. 52(B); App.R. 12(A)(2); App.R. 16(A)(7). Judgment affirmed. Arresting officer’s testimony concerning a warrant notation describing the defendant as having “violent tendencies” did not constitute other-acts evidence requiring advance notice and was not offered to prove conduct conforming to character. Defendant did not object to the testimony at trial and did not establish plain error. Jury instructions defining “resist” to include “oppose” did not improperly criminalize protected speech. Sufficient evidence supported the resisting-arrest conviction because the defendant moved away from the officer while stepping backwards over a gas hose, braced himself against his vehicle, and failed to comply with commands to place his hands behind his back. Defendant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and counsel’s failure to object to the challenged testimony and jury instructions did not constitute ineffective assistance. | Calabrese | Cuyahoga |
11/5/2026
|
11/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4371 |
|
State v. Halley
| 116257 | R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; presentence-investigation report; prison term; appellate review. Affirmed. A trial court is not required to obtain a presentence-investigation report before imposing a term of imprisonment under R.C. 2929.14, and appellate review of the sentencing factors and considerations is limited to reviewing whether the trial court considered all that is required by law; appellate courts cannot review the weight given to any one factor. | S. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
11/5/2026
|
11/5/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4378 |
|