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?
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 155 rows. Rows per page: 
1234
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Olson-Graf 29988Appellant pleaded guilty to violating a protection order by committing a felony, telecommunications harassment, and violating a protection order. Appellant’s argument that her guilty pleas were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary is without merit. But the trial court erred by failing to merge the three counts as allied offenses of similar import, which the State concedes. Judgment affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and remanded.TuckerMontgomery 6/14/2024 6/14/2024 2024-Ohio-2291
State v. Dzekunskas 2023-CA-69Appellant’s conviction for domestic violence was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; his mother testified that he pushed her onto her bed, struck her with a closed fist, and briefly put his hands around her neck. Judgment affirmed.LewisGreene 6/14/2024 6/14/2024 2024-Ohio-2287
R.L.R. Invests., L.L.C. v. Cross Street Partners, L.L.C. 30034The trial court erred in granting defendant-appellee a preliminary injunction to prevent plaintiff-appellant from arbitrating against a third party. Defendant, an agent performing construction work on behalf of its principal, lacked standing to enjoin plaintiff from arbitrating against the principal. Judgment reversed; preliminary injunction dissolved.TuckerMontgomery 6/14/2024 6/14/2024 2024-Ohio-2292
In re Adoption of B.M.M. 2024-CA-5Putative father did not register with the putative father registry or otherwise establish a legal relationship with the child prior to petitioner-appellant’s filing of a petition for adoption. Although putative father’s paternity was subsequently established by DNA testing, he had not attained the status of one whose consent to the adoption was required at the time the petition was filed. The trial court erred in concluding that the contact and support provisions of R.C. 3107.07(A) applied to putative father. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that putative father’s consent to the adoption was not required. Judgment reversed and remanded.HuffmanChampaign 6/14/2024 6/14/2024 2024-Ohio-2288
State v. Mason 2023-CA-27Appellant was convicted of reckless homicide with a firearm specification; he was sentenced to a mandatory three-year prison term on the firearm specification to be served prior and consecutive to a 36-month “mandatory” prison term on the reckless homicide. Although the trial court was required to impose a prison term on the reckless homicide because of the firearm specification, the sentence on the reckless homicide was not otherwise a statutorily-mandated prison sentence. Thus, the trial court erred by designating the reckless homicide prison sentence as a mandatory sentence, which would preclude appellant’s consideration for judicial release and other potential sentence reductions. The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal of the reckless homicide; the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence several autopsy photographs used by a pathologist during her testimony regarding the cause of the victim’s death. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.TuckerMiami 6/14/2024 6/14/2024 2024-Ohio-2290
State v. Apple 2023-CA-21The trial court did not err by failing to suppress firearms and methamphetamine found in a locked safe by probation officers during a probationer search. The search in question was authorized under R.C. 2951.02(A)(1)(a), which is a valid statute that meets the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. Accordingly, the search of the safe was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and suppression of the evidence found therein was not required. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumDarke 6/14/2024 6/14/2024 2024-Ohio-2286
State v. Cuffie 2023-CA-61Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law, and the court’s findings in imposing consecutive sentences were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanClark 6/7/2024 6/7/2024 2024-Ohio-2193
State v. S.R.S. 2023-CA-43The trial court erred in granting appellee’s application to seal his conviction. Appellee pled guilty to failure to comply with the order of a police officer, a third-degree felony. Although convictions for certain felony offenses may be sealed, R.C. 2953.32(A)(2) precludes sealing convictions for felony offenses of violence. Under R.C. 2901.01(A)(9)(c), appellee’s conviction is classified as an offense of violence. Judgment reversed.WelbaumChampaign 6/7/2024 6/7/2024 2024-Ohio-2195
State v. Turner 2023-CA-51Appellant’s conviction for leaving the scene of an accident was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanGreene 6/7/2024 6/7/2024 2024-Ohio-2196
State v. Anderson 2023-CA-49The trial court did not violate Crim.R. 11 by failing to advise appellant of the potential for consecutive sentences or about his eligibility for community-control sanctions. The record does not affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’s failure to consider the youth sentencing factors found in R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b). The trial court did err, however, in its award of jail-time credit. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for recalculation of jail-time credit.TuckerClark 6/7/2024 6/7/2024 2024-Ohio-2191
State v. Knott 2023-CA-54The trial court erred by failing to dismiss appellant’s aggravated trafficking in drugs charge on grounds that her statutory right to a speedy trial was violated. Judgment vacated.WelbaumClark 6/7/2024 6/14/2024 2024-Ohio-2289
State v. Compston 2023-CA-47The jury verdicts in three consolidated cases, which found appellant guilty of felony violations of a protection order, were not based on insufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgments affirmed.WelbaumClark 6/7/2024 6/7/2024 2024-Ohio-2192
State v. Quinn 29981State’s appeal. Appellee’s vehicle and its license plates were seized when he was arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs (OVI); the trial court subsequently released the vehicle and ordered the Ohio State Highway Patrol (“OSHP”) to pay the costs associated with its towing and storage. The State’s argument that the trial court erred in releasing appellee’s vehicle is moot; the OVI charge was dismissed and, as such, the trial court would have been required to order the release of the vehicle if it had not already done so. However, because the OSHP properly seized and retained appellee’s vehicle and license plates pursuant to R.C. 4511.195, the trial court erred in ordering the OSHP to pay all costs associated with the towing, storage, and return of appellee’s vehicle. Judgment reversed.WelbaumMontgomery 6/7/2024 6/7/2024 2024-Ohio-2194
State v. Litteral 2022-CA-80 & 2022-CA-81The trial court committed plain error in its calculation of jail-time credit in two cases. The judgments of conviction are reversed only as to the jail-time credit calculations and remanded for the trial court to 1) issue nunc pro tunc judgment entries that credit appellant with proper amounts of jail-time credit and 2) notify the appropriate prison officials of the nunc pro tunc judgment entries. In all other respects, judgments affirmed.LewisClark 5/31/2024 5/31/2024 2024-Ohio-2092
State v. Bierma 29912Appellant’s aggravated burglary and felony murder offenses were dissimilar in import because they resulted in separate, identifiable harms and were also committed separately. Accordingly, those offenses were not allied offenses that should have been merged at sentencing. The trial court’s conclusion that the State had satisfied its burden to disprove appellant’s self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. (Tucker, J., concurring.)WelbaumMontgomery 5/31/2024 5/31/2024 2024-Ohio-2089
In re Adoption of O.S.R. 2024-CA-2The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that adoption petitioners, the child’s maternal aunt and uncle, failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the child’s father had failed to have more than de minimis contact with the child or to provide for the maintenance and support of the child for the relevant period of time. Therefore, the trial court reasonably concluded that father’s consent to the adoption was required. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanDarke 5/31/2024 5/31/2024 2024-Ohio-2090
State v. Jackson 29944The trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider appellant’s successive petition for postconviction relief because appellant failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A). Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 5/31/2024 5/31/2024 2024-Ohio-2091
McManus v. Stump 30041Appellants failed to challenge the validity of the trial court’s foreclosure order, instead asking to be permitted to redeem the foreclosed property. Because a foreclosure order is final and appealable and is separate from confirmation proceedings, there is no basis for reversing the judgment of the trial court. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 5/31/2024 5/31/2024 2024-Ohio-2093
State v. Kelly 29896Conceded error. The trial court did not make all the necessary findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when it ordered the imposition of consecutive sentences, and therefore its sentences are contrary to law. Judgments reversed and remanded for resentencing.TuckerMontgomery 5/24/2024 5/24/2024 2024-Ohio-2007
State v. McPeek 29959The trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. The police officers did not lawfully enter the property based on an arrest warrant, because they did not know if the wanted men were present. They also did not have an “implied license” to enter the curtilage, because they went where a “reasonably respectful citizen” would not be permitted to go. Finally, the seizure of contraband was not justified by the “plain view doctrine,” because the contraband was discovered in a place where the officers did not have a right to be. Judgment reversed and remanded.EpleyMontgomery 5/24/2024 5/24/2024 2024-Ohio-2008
Edwards v. Galluzzo 2023-CA-21The trial court did not err in granting the county treasurer’s motion for summary judgment in a delinquent tax foreclosure case against a landowner who had failed to pay his property taxes. Appellant, a non-lawyer, could not defend the action on behalf of other parties who did not answer or otherwise respond to the county treasurer’s complaint. Judgment affirmed.LewisChampaign 5/24/2024 5/24/2024 2024-Ohio-2005
FabMetals, Inc. v. Stratacache, Inc. 29666The trial court awarded more than $3 million in damages to appellee, a manufacturer and provider of digital menu boards, because of defective painting performed by appellant, a company that fabricates and paints metal parts. Portions of the trial court’s damages award were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court must conduct a new trial solely to determine the amount of damages that 1) were already incurred to replace defective menu boards, 2) will actually be incurred to replace defective menu boards during their ten-year design life, and 3) were already incurred to investigate the cause of the defective menu boards. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.LewisMontgomery 5/24/2024 5/24/2024 2024-Ohio-2006
State v. Brown 29810Appellant failed to establish that the trial court committed plain error when it imposed restitution. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 5/24/2024 5/24/2024 2024-Ohio-2004
State v. Anderson 29990Appellant’s conviction for aggravated menacing was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, where the complaining witness testified that appellant had followed him and threatened to kill him during what appellant admitted was an episode of road rage. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 5/24/2024 5/24/2024 2024-Ohio-2003
State v. Miller 2023-CA-22Appellant’s conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OVI) was supported by legally sufficient evidence. However, the trial court erred in relying on an uncertified printout of a Law Enforcement Automatic Data System driving record as sufficient evidence to prove that appellant had at least five prior OVI convictions within a 20-year period. Judgment affirmed as modified; remanded for resentencing.HuffmanDarke 5/24/2024 5/24/2024 2024-Ohio-2009
State v. Carter 29919The trial court did not err in its jury instructions regarding self-defense and defense of another. The instructions accurately stated the law and were unlikely to have confused the jury. Appellant’s felonious-assault convictions were not against the weight of the evidence. Based on the evidence presented, the jury reasonably concluded that the State had disproven self-defense and defense of another beyond a reasonable doubt. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 5/17/2024 5/17/2024 2024-Ohio-1908
State v. Flint 2023-CA-16The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion or when it found him guilty of failure to provide notice of change of address. Appellant registered an invalid address twice, and when he became homeless, he failed to provide written notice that gave a detailed description of the place or places at which he intended to stay. Judgment affirmed.EpleyDarke 5/17/2024 5/17/2024 2024-Ohio-1904
State v. Conard 2024-CA-1Appellant did not validly waive his right to counsel before pleading guilty to one count of theft, a petty offense. The remedy for the invalid waiver is to vacate appellant’s term of incarceration. Judgment affirmed as modified.EpleyMiami 5/17/2024 5/17/2024 2024-Ohio-1906
McCloskey v. McCloskey 29940The domestic relations court erred in failing to clarify an ambiguous term in the divorce decree. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to hold a third-party defendant (the administrator of the husband’s estate) in contempt of court. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.LewisMontgomery 5/17/2024 5/17/2024 2024-Ohio-1900
State v. Van Voorhis 29844Appellant’s conviction for murder was not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence supported a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant did not act in self defense when he shot and killed the victim. The trial court did not err in denying a mistrial based on the State’s introduction of suppressed evidence; the State properly used the evidence when cross-examining appellant to impeach his trial testimony. The trial court properly denied appellant’s request for a voluntary-manslaughter instruction where the evidence did not support a finding that his shooting of the victim was attributable to sudden passion or a fit of rage. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 5/17/2024 5/17/2024 2024-Ohio-1898
State v. Guy 29920The trial court did not completely fail to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a), and appellant has not established that he suffered prejudice from the trial court’s failure to fully cover nonconstitutional aspects of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) during the plea colloquy. Thus, appellant is not entitled to have his pleas vacated. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 5/17/2024 5/17/2024 2024-Ohio-1902
Regeneration Schools of Ohio v. Mangen1, L.L.C. 29870The trial court erred in striking appellant’s amended third-party complaint as untimely when it was filed within 28 days of appellee’s motion to dismiss the original third-party complaint. Judgment reversed and remanded.LewisMontgomery 5/17/2024 5/17/2024 2024-Ohio-1899
State v. Cobbins 29963Appellant’s convictions for assault and disorderly conduct were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Additionally, the trial court properly rejected appellant’s self-defense claim. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 5/17/2024 5/17/2024 2024-Ohio-1907
In re Adoption of F.F.L. 2023-CA-61The probate court did not err in finding that petitioners-appellants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the putative father’s consent to an adoption was not required. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanGreene 5/16/2024 5/17/2024 2024-Ohio-1901
Etter v. Etter 2024-CA-2The trial court did not err in adopting the magistrate’s decision finding that service of process was perfected when appellee received the service packet for appellant from a commercial carrier at the parties’ shared address and credibly testified that she provided the packet to appellant, who waited more than 20 months to seek relief from judgment for improper service. Additionally, the trial court did not err in giving deference to the magistrate’s credibility determinations while also independently considering the evidence before it. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMiami 5/10/2024 5/10/2024 2024-Ohio-1805
State v. Lee 29796Appellant was retried within a reasonable time following our prior reversal of his convictions and remand for retrial; his constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated. Appellant was not prejudiced by the trial court’s ruling that the State could present the video testimony of a deceased witness from the first trial in the second trial, because the State ultimately did not present that testimony at the second trial. Appellant was repeatedly advised of his constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of his trial, but he knowingly and voluntarily waived that right when he adamantly refused to leave his cell to attend the trial. The trial court erred by relying on appellant’s jury waiver executed prior to the first trial on having weapons under disability counts in deciding to try those counts to the court in the second trial. Judgment reversed and remanded with respect to the weapons under disability counts; judgment affirmed in all other respects.TuckerMontgomery 5/10/2024 5/10/2024 2024-Ohio-1802
Herron v. Herron 2023-CA-38After a hearing, a magistrate granted a domestic violence civil protection order, and the trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision under Civ.R. 65.1(F)(3)(c)(ii). Appellant appealed the order without first filing objections with the trial court as required by Civ.R. 65.1(G). Because the filing of objections was required prior to filing an appeal, appellant cannot challenge the protection order on appeal. Judgment affirmed.TuckerChampaign 5/10/2024 5/10/2024 2024-Ohio-1803
Clack v. Clack 2023-CA-27The trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion to reduce or terminate a spousal support obligation without considering the factors in R.C. 3105.18(C)(1), where the undisputed evidence showed a substantial change in circumstances due to the fact the spousal support obligor was no longer able to be employed. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.LewisDarke 5/10/2024 5/10/2024 2024-Ohio-1807
McManus v. Clements 29999Appellant failed to challenge the validity of the trial court’s foreclosure order. Instead, appellant asked that she be permitted to redeem the foreclosed property. Because a foreclosure order is final and appealable and is separate from confirmation proceedings, there is no basis for reversing the trial court. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 5/10/2024 5/10/2024 2024-Ohio-1800
State v. Mayes 2023-CA-18The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to merge appellant’s convictions for robbery and theft at sentencing because the record indicates that those offenses were committed separately and thus were not allied offenses. Appellant’s robbery and theft convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; there was an abundance of evidence establishing that appellant was the shoplifter in question, and the jury was free to believe witness testimony indicating that appellant threatened a store employee while fleeing the scene. Appellant waived his claim challenging the composition of the jury array given that appellant raises the claim for the first time on appeal. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumDarke 5/10/2024 5/10/2024 2024-Ohio-1801
Casey v. Casey 2023-CA-71Neither the parties’ separation agreement, which was incorporated into their divorce decree, nor a subsequent agreed order resolving a motion for contempt gave the trial court the authority to modify the parties’ agreed-upon property division, which contemplated that appellant would receive the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence. When appellant failed to refinance the marital residence within the five-year period specified in the decree or within the 60 days provided in the agreed order and also did not list the home for sale, the trial court acted reasonably in granting appellee possession of the home to effectuate its sale and make any repairs necessary for the sale, for which she would be reimbursed. However, the trial court’s order included language that seemed to give appellee the option to retain the home and required appellant to litigate his right to receive any of the sale proceeds by motion and proof of his entitlement to the proceeds; such language was an improper, unauthorized modification to the divorce decree and the agreed order. Judgment reversed and remanded.TuckerGreene 5/10/2024 5/10/2024 2024-Ohio-1808
State v. Vargas 2023-CA-46The trial court did not err in revoking community control based on appellant’s positive drug test. The trial court did not err in imposing a 30-month prison sentence upon revoking community control because appellant’s violation, methamphetamine use, was not a “technical” one. Judgment affirmed.TuckerGreene 5/10/2024 5/10/2024 2024-Ohio-1797
State v. Williams 2022-CA-29The trial court did not err when it imposed consecutive sentences on appellant. The trial court’s findings with respect to consecutive sentences were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgment affirmed.EpleyChampaign 5/3/2024 5/3/2024 2024-Ohio-1707
Estate of Rismiller 2023-CA-29The probate court did not err in overruling appellant’s exceptions and adopting the coexecutors’ final and distributive account. Judgment affirmed.EpleyDarke 5/3/2024 5/3/2024 2024-Ohio-1704
State v. Snowden 29932The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s “motion to vacate illegal sentence.” Res judicata precluded appellant from obtaining postconviction relief based on allegedly defective jury verdict forms or based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise that issue. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 5/3/2024 5/3/2024 2024-Ohio-1706
Northwest Ctr. Holdings, L.L.C. v. Simon 29953Appellant vacated the commercial property following an eviction action, rendering its appeal on the forcible entry and detainer claim moot. Appeal dismissed.HuffmanMontgomery 5/3/2024 5/3/2024 2024-Ohio-1705
State v. Hurley 2023-CA-28The trial court did not err in its award of jail-time credit. Appellant was not entitled to jail-time credit for time he served in prison on an unrelated case. The trial court erred, however, in imposing a consecutive sentence upon revoking appellant’s community control. The trial court lacked authority to order consecutive service because it did not notify appellant of that possibility when placing him on community control. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for imposition of a concurrent sentence.TuckerGreene 4/26/2024 4/26/2024 2024-Ohio-1610
State v. Kelly 29774Appellant was convicted after a bench trial of gross sexual imposition and public indecency based on conduct that occurred in 2018 with a four-year-old child. He was separately convicted after a jury trial of three counts of rape, one count of attempted rape, and six counts of gross sexual imposition stemming from his conduct with two sisters between 1987 and 1993. At the bench trial, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s Crim.R. 29(A) motion regarding gross sexual imposition. The trial court did not err in declaring the then seven-year-old victim unavailable to testify at trial pursuant to Evid.R. 807. The trial court did not err in allowing two witnesses to review police reports, which they did not prepare, to refresh their recollections. Even if the trial court should have granted appellant’s motion in limine regarding prior bad acts, the trial court did not err in allowing the State to play a disputed portion of appellant’s police interview during the bench trial, because the court indicated that it would disregard the evidence if it determined, upon hearing all the evidence, that the evidence should have been excluded. Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance when he withdrew a motion to suppress appellant’s statements to the police. With respect to the counts concerning the two sisters, the trial court properly denied the motion to dismiss the charges concerning the younger sister. However, the rape charges concerning the older sister were brought outside of the statute of limitations. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion in limine seeking to use statements and information from the sisters’ medical records for cross-examination. Judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part.LewisMontgomery 4/26/2024 4/26/2024 2024-Ohio-1612
In re P.M.A. 30002The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Mother’s objection to the magistrate’s decision to grant permanent custody of her child to a children services agency. Mother’s objection was based solely on the magistrate’s denial of a continuance when Mother failed to appear at the permanent custody hearing unexpectedly and without communication with her counsel or the court. The court reasonably weighed the competing factors of the child’s best interest and the inconvenience to the parties and the court. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 4/26/2024 4/26/2024 2024-Ohio-1611
RSS WFCM2019-C50 - OH WG2, L.L.C. v. Welcome Group 2, L.L.C. 29869Appellant-borrower was in default on a loan secured by several hotel properties it owned. The trial court granted appellee-lender’s request to appoint a receiver to manage the hotels. Considering R.C. 2735.01(A)(2)(b), appellee’s default, and appellee’s consent in the mortgage to appointment of a receiver, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by appointing a receiver. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 4/26/2024 4/26/2024 2024-Ohio-1613
1234