|
|
State v. Gray
| 25AP-556 | The first assignment of error is overruled because appellant failed to show that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel for not seeking to disqualify the trial judge for bias. The second assignment of error is overruled because the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant a continuance to seek an expert on PTSD. Appellant’s third assignment of error is overruled because appellant demonstrated no error regarding two of the trial court’s jury instructions on the elements of self-defense. Because the trial court did not err by returning an incomplete verdict to the jury for a further finding on the inducing panic count, the fourth assignment of error is overruled. Finally, the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and, therefore, the fifth assignment of error is overruled. The trial court’s judgment of conviction is affirmed. | Dorrian | Franklin |
9/15/2026
|
9/15/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3601 |
|
Ryan v. Ryan
| 25AP-346 | The court of appeals will not consider appellant’s assignments of error that (1) challenge orders and decisions made after appellant filed his notice of appeal, (2) seek relief that exceeds the parameters of the court of appeal’s jurisdiction, and (3) relate to a matter that is not yet ripe for appeal. The trial court had jurisdiction to decide issues regarding property classification and division on remand because those issues were not directly related to the legal issues on appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Because the trial court based its valuation of the marital property on competent, credible evidence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the value of the marital property. Given appellant’s failure to file an affidavit of disqualification, he cannot complain on appeal that the trial judge’s alleged bias deprived him of due process. | Mentel | Franklin |
9/15/2026
|
9/15/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3600 |
|
State v. Wade
| 26AP-78 | As appellant failed to timely appeal from the sentencing entry or obtain leave to file an appeal under App.R. 5(A), we lack jurisdiction to consider his second and third assignments of error, which are derived from his original sentencing entry. While appellant fashioned his motion as a request to “correct its sentence entry,” the motion, in fact, asked the trial court to find his underlying sentence was contrary to law. Because appellant’s motion was not proper under Crim.R. 36, the trial court rightly denied it. Appeal dismissed in part; judgment affirmed. | Mentel | Franklin |
9/15/2026
|
9/15/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3602 |
|
State v. Houser
| 24AP-651 | Appellant timely filed an application to reopen his direct appeal pursuant to App.R. 26(b) alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Appellant argues that appellate counsel was deficient in failing to communicate with appellant, failing to appear at mandatory oral argument, abandoning his client at a critical state of the appeal, oral argument; failing to raise conflict of interest of the trial judge; and failing to raise an assignment of error for sufficiency of the evidence and manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant failed to show how counsel abandoned him as a client when he filed a brief. Appellant is incarcerated but he provided no affidavit or copies of certified mail receipts to prove that he attempted to contact counsel or how he was prejudiced when counsel fulfilled his obligation to file a brief challenging ineffective assistance of the trial counsel, which appellant also raises in this application to reopen. Appellate counsel failed to raise sufficiency of the evidence and manifest weight of the evidence. Sufficiency does not challenge credibility but assumes the testimony to be correct. Manifest weight challenges credibility but allows the finder of fact to observe the demeanor of the witness and resolve credibility issues. The jury found the testimony of the three victims to be credible and sufficient evidence when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution to find appellant guilty. The jury did not lose its way or create a manifest injustice. Each assignment of error is overruled. Application to reopen denied. | Jamison | Franklin |
9/15/2026
|
9/15/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3599 |
|
State ex rel. Weaver v. Aveni
| 26AP-311 | Relator seeks a writ of procedendo ordering respondent, Judge Carl A. Aveni of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, to issue a decision on a motion filed on March 5, 2026. Respondent moved for dismissal. Respondent has performed the requested action. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted. Case dismissed as moot. | Jamison | Franklin |
9/10/2026
|
9/10/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3532 |
|