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 129 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Belcher 2018-CA-70The 10-month prison sentence imposed by the trial court for appellant’s nonviolent, fifth-degree-felony offense of failure to stop after an accident is clearly and convincingly contrary to law. There is no evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding that the physical injury exception under R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b)(ii) applied so as to permit the imposition of a prison term. Judgment vacated, and the matter is remanded for resentencing.WelbaumClark 4/19/2019 4/19/2019 2019-Ohio-1468
State v. Moten 2018-CA-19 & 2018-CA-20The trial court did not err by failing to merge the defendant’s drug trafficking offenses with his offense of illegally conveying drugs onto a governmental facility for purposes of sentencing. Defendant’s act of carrying concealed drugs into the county jail was separate conduct committed with a separate animus from his trafficking of those drugs. Defendant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by acknowledging that defendant would be sentenced to prison for his multiple felonies or by failing to offer stronger arguments in mitigation. Additionally, the record contains information that supported the imposition of consecutive and maximum sentences for Defendant’s offenses, and the sentences imposed were not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.FroelichClark 4/19/2019 4/19/2019 2019-Ohio-1473
Natl. Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3 v. Demers 2018-CA-93The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee based on admissions obtained as a result of appellants' faiure to timely answer appellee’s request for admissions. Contrary to appellants’ claim otherwise, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellants failed to timely answer appellee’s request for admissions. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumClark 4/19/2019 4/19/2019 2019-Ohio-1475
State v. Starling 2018-CA-34Appellant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance at his probable cause hearing in juvenile court by failing to file a motion to suppress, because a probable cause hearing is a non-adjudicatory proceeding for which constitutional questions concerning the admissibility of evidence need not be addressed. Additionally, for purposes of having appellant’s case transferred to adult court, the State presented sufficient evidence of probable cause to believe that appellant committed the criminal acts charged in juvenile court. Furthermore, neither appellant’s right to due process nor appellant’s right to effective assistance of counsel were violated as a result of the juvenile court’s delaying appellant’s amenability hearing until the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its opinion in State v. Aalim, 150 Ohio St.3d 489, 2017-Ohio-2956, 83 N.E.3d 883. Lastly, appellant’s claim that the mandatory sentencing scheme in R.C. 2929.02(B)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to juveniles lacks merit because appellant did not raise this issue before the sentencing court and failed to establish plain error arising from the application of that statute. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring.) (Donovan, J., concurring in both the majority opinion and the concurrence.)WelbaumClark 4/19/2019 4/19/2019 2019-Ohio-1478
State v. Namaky 2018-CA-32Trial court erred in concluding that it lacked authority to consider an application to seal the record of conviction filed by deceased-offender’s father, who was administrator of offender’s estate. Judgment reversed and case remanded for further proceedings. (Hall, J., dissenting.)FroelichGreene 4/19/2019 4/19/2019 2019-Ohio-1474
State v. Jefferies 27942Appellant’s conviction for misdemeanor sexual imposition was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The municipal court did not abuse its discretion in ordering appellant’s sentence to be served consecutively to a sentence in another matter, and the factors in R.C. 2929.14(C) do not apply to consecutive misdemeanor sentences. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 4/19/2019 4/19/2019 2019-Ohio-1469
In re A.W. 28159The trial court did not abuse its discretion in calculating appellant’s monthly child support obligation. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, it was not unreasonable for the trial court to upwardly deviate from the baseline amount of child support provided in R.C. 3119.04(B). Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 4/19/2019 4/19/2019 2019-Ohio-1472
State v. Singleton 27916Res judicata prevents appellant from challenging the validity of the trial court’s verdict on the aggravating circumstance specifications to his conviction for aggravated murder. Additionally, his sentence for aggravated murder - life with parole eligibility after 30 years - was not contrary to law; the record as a whole supports the conclusion that the trial court found appellant guilty of the aggravating circumstance specifications that he was the principal offender in the aggravated murder, and not just the principal offender in the underlying aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary. Judgment affirmed. (Donovan, J., dissenting.)HallMontgomery 4/19/2019 4/19/2019 2019-Ohio-1477
State v. Houston 28330Appellant’s second motion for a delayed, direct appeal was barred by res judicata, where he made the same arguments as in his first motion. Motion overruled; appeal dismissed.Per CuriamMontgomery 4/15/2019 4/19/2019 2019-Ohio-1479
State v. Taylor 28166The trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s “motion to correct allied offenses” based on lack of jurisdiction. If the trial court had ruled on Appellant’s motion, it would have been inconsistent with the appellate court’s ability to reverse, affirm, or modify another ruling that Appellant had appealed, which was then pending on appeal. In addition, Appellant’s motion seeking merger of offenses was barred by res judicata, as Appellant failed to raise this issue during his direct appeal. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 4/12/2019 4/12/2019 2019-Ohio-1376
12345678910...>>