|
|
State v. Allen
| CA2026-01-002 | Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. The defendant's escape conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence because a curfew with electronic monitoring—unlike house arrest—does not result in "detention," a necessary element of escape. The defendant's theft conviction was supported by sufficient evidence because the defendant's removal of his monitor without authorization exceeded the scope of the consent form he signed with community corrections, regardless of whether defendant agreed to pay costs associated with the breach. | Siebert | Warren |
10/19/2026
|
10/19/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4097 |
|
Ehlers v. Petrey
| CA2025-09-079 | The trial court did not err in denying an appellant's Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion to vacate a civil stalking protection order where the motion was untimely, did not establish entitlement to relief, and the doctrine of res judicata barred consideration of issues that could have and should have been raised in a prior appeal. | Hendrickson | Warren |
10/19/2026
|
10/19/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4096 |
|
State v. Baker
| CA2026-03-028 | Appellant's guilty plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily where the trial court was not required to advise appellant of the consequences of committing a future felony while on postrelease control because appellant was not on postrelease control at the time of the plea. In addition, the trial court discussed the mandatory fine during the plea colloquy, appellant understood that defense counsel intended to seek a waiver of that fine, the fine was ultimately waived, no driver's license suspension was imposed, and appellant failed to establish prejudice from any alleged omission. In addition, the trial court properly concluded that appellant's offense carried a mandatory 11-year prison term. Although the major-drug-offender specification attached to another count was dismissed as part of the plea agreement, appellant pled guilty to trafficking in heroin in an amount that subjected him to the mandatory sentencing provisions of R.C. 2925.03(C)(6)(g), and the resulting sentence was not contrary to law. | Siebert | Butler |
10/13/2026
|
10/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4003 |
|
State v. Collins
| CA2025-12-103 | Trial counsel's failure to bring to trial the recording of the police officer's body camera footage of his interaction with appellant and which he intended to use for impeachment did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Trial court's imposition of the fine did not constitute plain error where the trial court had before it some evidence of appellant's ability to pay the fine. | M. Powell | Clermont |
10/13/2026
|
10/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4005 |
|
State v. Massey
| CA2026-03-035 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant's request for a self-defense jury instruction where the record established that appellant failed to satisfy the burden of production on the second element of nondeadly self-defense, and thereby was not entitled to such jury instruction. | Piper | Butler |
10/13/2026
|
10/13/2026
| 2026-Ohio-4004 |
|