Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

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?
Search Truncation Warning:
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 201 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Johnson 2020-CA-41Appellant’s conviction following a jury trial for trespass in a habitation when a person is present or likely to be present was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The jury clearly credited the testimony of appellant’s ex-wife and children that appellant trespassed in their home and discredited appellant’s testimony that, out of immediate concern for the safety of his children, a privilege growing out of necessity allowed him to enter the home. Judgment affirmed.DonovanGreene 6/11/2021 6/11/2021 2021-Ohio-1974
State v. Fisk 28798The trial court abused its discretion in appellant’s trial for attempted murder and felonious assault when it disallowed evidence of the victim’s alleged past violent acts that could have supported appellant’s self-defense claim. The error was harmless, however, because the evidence clearly demonstrated that appellant’s attack was not in self-defense. As to the State’s cross-appeal, the State did not have standing to challenge the trial court’s failure to award restitution. Judgment affirmed. (Tucker, P.J., concurring.)EpleyMontgomery 6/11/2021 6/11/2021 2021-Ohio-1973
State v. Maston 28956Appellant pled guilty to attempted breaking and entering after entering the home of the mother of his child to demand the return of money. The trial court did not effectively deny appellant’s right of allocution at sentencing by refusing to permit him to offer additional justifications for his behavior after he directly addressed the court. Appellant’s community control sentence was supported by the record and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The trial court improperly ordered appellant to pay appointed counsel fees as part of his criminal sentence. The portion of the judgment ordering payment of counsel fees is vacated; in all other respects, judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 6/11/2021 6/11/2021 2021-Ohio-1975
Tellis v. Tellis 29020The trial court did not err when it found that it was in the best interest of the parties’ children to have a shared parenting plan. The trial court did not err when it ordered Father to pay child support to Mother for the care of the parties’ two minor children. Additionally, the trial court did not err when it awarded Father a 15% downward deviation in his support obligation for the parties' children, and its findings and the record sufficiently supported its determination. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 6/11/2021 6/11/2021 2021-Ohio-1976
State v. Webb 28886Appellant’s conviction for assault, a first-degree misdemeanor, was neither based on insufficient evidence nor against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 6/11/2021 6/11/2021 2021-Ohio-1977
State v. Hall 28882Appellant’s guilty pleas were made in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary fashion. The trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 when it orally informed appellant of the correct three-year term of post-release control for his kidnapping offense. Appellant was not prejudiced when the trial court advised him that his term of imprisonment could be reduced by good behavior earned credit, and the advisement did not render his guilty pleas unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary. The trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 when it informed appellant of his duty to register as violent offender at the plea hearing. The record establishes that the trial court considered the principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. Thus, the sentence imposed by the trial court was not contrary to law. The Reagan Tokes Act does not violate the separation of powers doctrine or a defendant's right to procedural due process, and the trial court did not err when it sentenced the appellant pursuant to the statute. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 6/4/2021 6/4/2021 2021-Ohio-1894
State v. Lewis 28962Appellant’s statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial were not violated. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 6/4/2021 6/4/2021 2021-Ohio-1895
State v. Byrd 2020-CA-30After conducting an independent review of the record as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the court finds the appeal is frivolous and there are no issues with arguable merit for appeal. The record reflects the appellant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily pled guilty to possession of fentanyl, failure to appear after being released on recognizance, possession of cocaine, and aggravated possession of drugs, in exchange for which five other charges were dismissed. Appellant was informed, and he acknowledged, that he could be additionally sentenced to the time remaining on his active post-release control and that that time would be consecutive to his new sentence. He was sentenced to an aggregate 35 months in prison, to be served consecutively with 731 days of incarceration remaining on the prior post-release control supervision. Appellant’s record included several prior felony convictions, two prior prison terms, multiple misdemeanor violations and failures at prior drug abuse programming and supervisions. Any claim that the sentence was contrary to law or that the sentence was clearly and convincingly contrary to the record is frivolous. Judgment affirmed.HallChampaign 6/4/2021 6/4/2021 2021-Ohio-1893
State v. Karns 2020-CA-35Appellant stipulated to a prior conviction for domestic battery under Ind.Code 35-42-2-1.3, which was used to enhance his domestic violence charge to a third-degree felony. Under a plain error review, there was no error in using the prior conviction because the Indiana statute and R.C. 2919.25(A) are substantially equivalent. Appellant’s conviction was also not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumGreene 5/28/2021 5/28/2021 2021-Ohio-1836
Summit Ridge Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Ewing 2020-CA-26The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request to release an order of garnishment obtained by appellee on a judgment entered in a foreclosure action. The collection of the judgment is not barred by R.C. 2329.08, because the judgment was not entered on debt secured by a mortgage or “other instrument in the nature of a mortgage.” Judgment affirmed.HallGreene 5/28/2021 5/28/2021 2021-Ohio-1839