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 55 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re B.R. 28095The trial court granted Appellant’s motion seeking custody of the parties’ minor child. The trial court’s judgment did not, however, order Appellee to pay child support, with the judgment noting that Appellant could at any time file a motion to establish child support. Since the record includes no information concerning either parties’ income, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not ordering Appellee to pay child support, despite the R.C. 3119.06 mandate of at least a $50.00 per month child support order. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 2/15/2019 2/15/2019 2019-Ohio-565
State v. Creachbaum 2018-CA-16Appellant’s convictions for burglary and receiving stolen property were not allied offenses of similar import and therefore not subject to merger. The record supports the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences. Judgment affirmed.DonovanClark 2/15/2019 2/15/2019 2019-Ohio-566
In re N.C. & A.C. 28105; 28117In these permanent custody cases, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the father’s motion for a continuance the day of the permanent custody hearing, and trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court also did not err in granting permanent custody of the children to the children services agency. Mother’s counsel filed an Anders brief, and after conducting an independent review of the record, we found no issues that are not wholly frivolous. As a final matter, this appellate district will no longer accept Anders briefs in cases involving termination of parental rights. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 2/15/2019 2/15/2019 2019-Ohio-567
State v. Olsen 28011Defendant-appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, and improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle. Thus, Appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is limited to an examination of whether counsel’s purported errors prevented him from entering the plea in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary fashion. Appellant has failed to establish that trial counsel’s representation was ineffective or that counsel’s asserted errors made the plea less than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Further, Appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law and we cannot find by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is not supported by the record. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 2/15/2019 2/15/2019 2019-Ohio-568
State v. Peltier 2018-CA-21After 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), this court finds no issues with arguable merit for appeal. Counsel’s potential assignment of error arguing that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to assert immunity under R.C. 2925.11(B)(2)(b) lacks merit because: (1) Appellant is not qualified under the statute to receive said immunity; and (2) Appellant’s appeal is from the revocation of his community control—the only matter this court has jurisdiction to consider. Appellant cannot collaterally attack his un-appealed conviction through the instant appeal. Although it could be argued that the trial court erred by failing to give its reasons for recommending Appellant’s placement in intensive program prison as required by R.C. 2929.19(D), such an error did not result in any prejudice to Appellant. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumChampaign 2/15/2019 2/15/2019 2019-Ohio-569
In re R.G. 2018-CA-22The trial court’s judgment awarding permanent custody of the Appellant’s child to a children services agency was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, the trial court’s determinations that the child could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent, that an award of permanent custody to the agency was in the child’s best interests, and that the agency had made reasonable efforts at reunification were supported by the record, and, thus, not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMiami 2/15/2019 2/15/2019 2019-Ohio-570
State v. Schaefer 2018-CA-6Absent a trial transcript, the appellant has failed to demonstrate error in his convictions for failure to display license plates in violation of R.C. 4503.21 and driving on a closed highway in violation of R.C. 4511.71. Judgment affirmed.HallDarke 2/15/2019 2/15/2019 2019-Ohio-571
Schaffer v. Wietzel 2018-CA-28The trial court did not err in awarding Appellees title by adverse possession to a portion of land where the driveway to Appellees’ residence is located. Since there is competent, credible evidence in the record establishing that the prior owners of Appellee’s residence adversely used the driveway for a period of 22 years, the trial court properly tacked on that period of time for purposes of establishing the 21-year possession element of adverse possession. There is also competent, credible evidence in the record establishing that Appellees sufficiently proved all the other elements of adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court’s adverse possession ruling was therefore not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumGreene 2/15/2019 2/15/2019 2019-Ohio-572
State v. Sexton 2018-CA-50; 2018-CA-51Appellant’s guilty pleas to aggravated possession of drugs and attempted escape were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, and the trial court did not err in failing to “clear-up” any purported “confusion” on the part of Appellant regarding her pleas. The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring in judgment only.)DonovanClark 2/15/2019 2/15/2019 2019-Ohio-573
State v. Tucker 2017-CA-87Anders appeal. No non-frivolous issues for appellate review. There is no arguable merit in challenges to the trial court’s denial of a continuance, defense counsel’s failure to file a suppression motion and failure to object to evidence of an arrest warrant, or the trial court’s imposition of a three-year prison sentence to be served consecutively to another sentence. The appellant’s assignments of error related to the alleged admission of “tainted/adulterated evidence” also lack arguable merit. Judgment affirmed.HallClark 2/15/2019 2/15/2019 2019-Ohio-574