|
|
State v. Upchurch
| 24AP-320 | Appellant’s convictions for kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01 and domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) are affirmed. The trial court did not err by elevating the domestic violence conviction from a first-degree misdemeanor to a fourth-degree felony based his previous conviction under Columbus City Code 2319.25(D) for intimate partner violence because the offenses are substantially similar, as R.C. 2919.25(D)(3) requires. The prosecutor did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct based on a single reference to appellant’s “perverse sexual desires” during the opening statement. The trial court did not err by failing to sua sponte grant a mistrial based on a witness’s reference to appellant’s prior incarceration. The statement was merely duplicative of the inevitable inference the jury had to make about the fact of his incarceration because the witness was appellant’s probation officer. Nor did the trial court err by overruling the objection that a detective’s testimony amounted to unqualified expert testimony because the challenged statements arose from his personal observations of victims he had interviewed and were based on his experience as an investigator of sexual assault crimes. The detective did not assert any specialized psychological knowledge, posit a scientific theory, or express an opinion based on knowledge that would have required the trial court to certify him as an expert under Evid.R. 702. Judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
9/8/2026
|
9/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3515 |
|
State ex rel. Chavis v. Bur. of Sentence Computation
| 25AP-161 | Magistrate properly determined relator failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to have respondent adjust his records to reflect a sentence of 30 years without the “full” designation, or a clear legal duty of respondent to provide such relief. Objection overruled; writ of mandamus denied. | Leland | Franklin |
9/8/2026
|
9/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3516 |
|
State ex rel. Muhammad v. Holbrook
| 26AP-81 | Relator requested that this court issue a writ of procedendo ordering respondent to issue decisions on various pending motions. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss. Because none of relator’s motions had been pending for 120 days or more at the time of the relator’s complaint, the magistrate correctly concluded that the writ of procedendo was premature. Because the complaint on its face indicated that there was not yet a justiciable claim allowing relator to invoke this court’s jurisdiction, the magistrate did not err in failing to consider the additional days that had passed after the filing of the complaint. Objections overruled, motion to dismiss granted, complaint for writ of procedendo dismissed. | Dingus | Franklin |
9/8/2026
|
9/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3517 |
|
State v. Justice
| 25AP-657 | Appellant’s first assignment of error challenging the lack of service of an amended sentencing entry is overruled for the lack of reversible error. Appellant’s second assignment of error challenging the original sentence following a limited remand for resentencing is overruled on res judicata grounds. | Dorrian | Franklin |
9/3/2026
|
9/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3454 |
|
Beverly v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol
| 25AP-735 | On appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing plaintiff’s complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and (6). The complaint appeared to state claims for defamation and malicious prosecution, both of which were barred by the one-year statute of limitations based on the dates provided in the complaint. The complaint failed to articulate any other cognizable tort claim, including negligent infliction of emotional distress and abuse of process. To the extent that plaintiff attempted to recast his claims as constitutional violations, the claims were outside the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. Judgment affirmed. | Dingus | Franklin |
9/3/2026
|
9/3/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3455 |
|