|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Brown
| 2024-CA-53 | In 2020, appellant was found incompetent to stand trial for several sex offenses, and the trial court placed him on conditional release. Appellant appeals from a 2024 order that required him to complete a mandatory bi-annual psychological evaluation. Pursuant to R.C. 2945.401(C), the trial court is required to order such an evaluation and to hold a hearing on the resulting report every two years during appellant’s commitment. Although this constitutes a special proceeding, the trial court’s order that the evaluation be conducted did not affect a substantial right, and therefore it was not a final order pursuant to R.C. 2505.02 from which appellant could appeal. Appeal dismissed. | Huffman | Greene |
4/25/2025
|
4/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1480 |
|
State v. Price
| 2024-CA-69 | We lack jurisdiction to review whether the trial court erred by failing to recuse itself due to alleged judicial bias, and we otherwise find nothing in the record supporting appellant’s claim of judicial bias. Because there was no indication of judicial bias, appellant’s claim that her trial counsel was ineffective in failing to move for a recusal lacks merit. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing conditions of community control that required appellant to complete a drug and alcohol assessment and a mental health evaluation, as those conditions were reasonably related to the offense and the purposes and principles of misdemeanor sentencing, and they were not overly broad. The trial court’s acceptance of appellant’s guilty plea without calling for an explanation of circumstances as required by R.C. 2937.07 was harmless error. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Greene |
4/25/2025
|
4/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1487 |
|
State v. Holden
| 30270 | Appellant’s convictions for two murders and tampering with evidence were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Although appellant produced evidence that he acted in self-defense, the State’s evidence undermined his version of events, and the jury reasonably credited the State’s evidence disproving the self-defense claim. Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance in choosing not to cross-examine some witnesses or in failing to move for acquittal under Crim.R. 29(A). The trial court did not commit plain error by not asking appellant to speak after victim impact statements were made during sentencing; the statements did not introduce any new material facts, and the court did not consider them when it sentenced appellant. The record contained evidence from which it can be inferred that the court considered appellant’s present and future ability to pay. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
4/25/2025
|
4/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1481 |
|
In re C.S.H.-B.
| 30284 | The trial court’s order was not a final, appealable order. The order found appellant in contempt but failed to impose a specific sanction, and it contemplated future action to determine the specific amount to be imposed as a sanction. It also did not provide an opportunity for appellant to purge his contempt if the court intended for the proceedings to be civil contempt. Appeal dismissed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
4/25/2025
|
4/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1482 |
|
Montgomery Cty. Treasurer v. Rush Plaza Corp.
| 30247 | The trial court did not err in finding by clear and convincing evidence that a 2012 quitclaim deed had been forged and was null and void. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
4/25/2025
|
4/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1484 |
|
State v. Murray
| 30254 | Appellant’s conviction for murder was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the State disproved beyond a reasonable doubt his claim of defense of another. The trial court did not err in convicting appellant of murder rather than voluntary manslaughter where he did not present any evidence that he acted in a sudden passion or sudden fit of rage. The trial court did not commit plain error when it allowed a witness to wear a mask while testifying. Pursuant to the Ohio Supreme Court’s recent decision in State v. Beatty, 2024-Ohio-5684, the trial court erred in imposing a consecutive sentence on a discretionary prison term for a firearm specification. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing. | Lewis | Montgomery |
4/25/2025
|
4/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1485 |
|
State v. Perry
| 30158 | The trial court erred in transposing offenses when imposing appellant’s sentence for two convictions. Appellant’s convictions on five counts of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles was time barred by the applicable statute of limitations. As for other charges, appellant’s attorney did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to raise a statute-of-limitations argument. The record also does not portray ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the jury’s verdict being read in appellant’s absence, and the trial court’s taking of the verdict was not plain error. Appellant’s convictions on two undifferentiated counts of gross sexual imposition did not violate due process. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing. | Tucker | Montgomery |
4/25/2025
|
4/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1486 |
|
Thevenin v. Day-Air Credit Union, Inc.
| 30220 | The trial court erred in finding appellant-credit union guilty of concealing assets of an estate under R.C. 2109.50. The credit union was entitled to employ its extrajudicial right to setoff against the estate’s checking account to pay the decedent’s credit card account balance and did not have to follow the statutory procedures in R.C. Chapter 2117. Judgment reversed. | Epley | Montgomery |
4/25/2025
|
4/25/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1488 |
|
360 N. Main St., L.L.C. v. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn.
| 30274 | The trial court granted summary judgment to lessee-bank and against landlord-property owner on landlord’s claims arising out of bank’s successful appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals from the Board of Revision’s denial of landlord’s complaint against the county’s tax valuation of the property. Landlord’s breach of contract claim failed due to lack of evidence of a breach by the bank or of damages suffered by the landlord, and landlord’s emails to the bank authorized the bank to pursue the appeal. Landlord was not entitled to a declaratory judgment that bank had breached the lease or that the lease required “faithfully and punctual” performance by the bank to renew the lease. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
4/18/2025
|
4/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1389 |
|
State v. Brown
| 30209 | Appellant’s conviction for obstructing official business was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
4/18/2025
|
4/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1391 |
|
M.E.H. v. C.K.H.
| 30298 | Appellant’s firearms were seized by the police department when an ex parte domestic violence civil protection order was issued against him. The petition seeking the protection order was subsequently dismissed and the ex parte order dissolved, and the trial court filed an order stating appellant “may” retrieve his firearms by presenting the court’s order to the police department. When the police department refused to return the weapons to him, appellant filed a motion to have the police department and a particular police officer held in contempt for failure to return the firearms to him. The trial court overruled the motion on the basis that neither the department nor the officer had been a party to the protection order and neither had acted in concert with or represented the interests of the parties to the protection order, as in other cases cited by appellant in which non-parties were held in contempt. The order also had not included an express or affirmative directive requiring the department to return the firearms to appellant. The trial court did not err in overruling the contempt motion. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
4/18/2025
|
4/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1394 |
|
State v. Stewart
| 30278 | The record reflects that appellant understood the effect of her guilty pleas to felonious assault, vehicular assault, and operating a vehicle under the influence. She was also clearly and repeatedly advised that the trial court had the discretion to impose prison sentences or community control sanctions. Although the court advised appellant at the plea hearing that it would impose a one-year driver’s license suspension retroactive to the date of the offense, appellant was not prejudiced by the three-year suspension imposed in the judgment entry, because it overlapped with her prison sentence, and there was no suggestion that appellant would not have entered her plea if properly advised. The trial court was not required to advise appellant that there was a presumption of a prison term on the felonious assault offense. The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences. The court imposed an indefinite sentence of four to six years for felonious assault at the sentencing hearing and gave the advisements required under the Reagan Tokes Act, but the judgment entry erroneously stated that the sentence for felonious assault was four years. Judgment reversed as to the sentence on the felonious assault and remanded for the trial court to issue a corrected judgment entry nunc pro tunc. In all other respects, judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
4/18/2025
|
4/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1397 |
|
State v. Williams
| 30245 | Appellant’s conviction for failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer was based on insufficient evidence; his exiting the parked vehicle and fleeing from the scene on foot did not involve operation of the vehicle. Appellant’s allied-offense argument is moot. Conviction for failure to comply is vacated; conviction for obstructing official business is affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
4/18/2025
|
4/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1398 |
|
Prestige Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Baldwin
| 2024-CA-30 | The trial court did not err when it granted a default judgment in favor of appellee. as the record shows appellant was properly served. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Miami |
4/18/2025
|
4/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1395 |
|
State v. Prince
| 2024-CA-23 | The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant’s second or successive petition for postconviction relief, as it was barred by R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a)-(b) and res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Champaign |
4/18/2025
|
4/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1396 |
|
Botello v. Gonzalez
| 2024-CA-78 | Following our prior remand, the trial court failed to comply with our appellate mandate when it considered appellant’s immigration status and English-language skills in determining whether she had established residency under R.C. 3105.03 for purposes of a divorce. Because the trial court’s credibility finding was based on appellant’s failure to respond to questions regarding her immigration status, the trial court’s findings that appellant was not credible and did not establish that her domiciliary residence was in Ohio were clearly erroneous and an abuse of discretion. The trial court further abused its discretion in concluding that grounds for divorce were not established. Judgment reversed; remanded for issuance of a final judgment and decree of divorce. | Epley | Clark |
4/18/2025
|
4/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1390 |
|
State v. Davis
| 2024-CA-30 | The trial court did not properly impose jail-time credit, and it made seemingly inconsistent findings regarding appellant’s ability to pay a mandatory fine. Considering that there were no forfeiture specifications in the indictment, the trial court’s order disposing of property held by law enforcement was vague and did not give appellant notice of the property subject to disposal or a means of recovering the property not subject to forfeiture. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s last-minute motion for a continuance, which sought resolution of his untimely motion to suppress; moreover, appellant withdrew his motion to suppress on the day of trial when he entered his guilty plea. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. | Huffman | Clark |
4/18/2025
|
4/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1392 |
|
State v. Howard
| 2024-CA-13 | In the absence of a transcript of the proceedings before the municipal court for our review, we must presume the validity of those proceedings. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Darke |
4/18/2025
|
4/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1393 |
|
State v. Bowen
| 2024-CA-43 | Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law; it was within the statutory range for fourth-degree felonies, and the trial court stated in its judgment entry that it had considered the principles and purposes of felony sentencing and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
4/11/2025
|
4/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1273 |
|
State v. Deere
| 2024-CA-15 | Appellant’s felonious assault conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Champaign |
4/11/2025
|
4/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1275 |
|
State v. Bakos
| 2024-CA-40 | The record does not support appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel affecting the validity of his guilty plea. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Greene |
4/11/2025
|
4/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1272 |
|
State v. Cobb
| 30170 | Appellant’s convictions for murder and having a weapon while under disability were not against the manifest weight of the evidence and were supported by sufficient evidence. Because the State’s challenge to an African-American prospective juror was for cause, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was not implicated. The trial court did not commit plain error in admitting Evid.R. 404(B) other acts evidence. The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s motion to suppress statements he made to police officers or in failing to merge the murder and having a weapon while under disability convictions. Under the authority of State v. Bollar, 2022-Ohio-4370, the trial court did not err by imposing a three-year sentence for a firearm specification attached to a felonious assault conviction that was merged at sentencing with the murder conviction. Finally, we cannot clearly and convincingly conclude that the record did not support the trial court’s consecutive sentence findings. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
4/11/2025
|
4/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1274 |
|
State v. Smith
| 30263 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s post-conviction motion for a “plain error analysis.” The trial court did not modify his sentence without his presence in violation of Crim.R. 43. Instead, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction administratively recalculated appellant’s sentences and parole hearing date based on State ex rel. Fraley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2020-Ohio-4410. The administrative recalculation resulted in a three-year reduction in appellant’s sentences, consistent with the sentences the trial court originally imposed. Appellant was not entitled to have counsel appointed. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
4/11/2025
|
4/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1277 |
|
State v. Trent
| 30281 | The trial court violated four of the victim’s constitutional rights under Marsy’s Law, a notice requirement under R.C. 2930.161(A)(1), and the victim’s statutory rights to be present and heard at proceedings under R.C. 2930.09 when it failed to notify the victim of a review hearing at which it terminated appellee’s community control sanctions. Judgment terminating community control sanctions vacated; remanded for a new community control review hearing that complies with Marsy’s Law and R.C. Chap. 2930. | Hanseman | Montgomery |
4/11/2025
|
4/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1278 |
|
State v. Wilkerson
| 30196 | Appellant’s conviction for failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer was based on sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the evidence demonstrated that appellant was the driver of the vehicle that fled from law enforcement during an attempted traffic stop. Appellant’s leaving the vehicle and hurrying into his aunt’s home after fleeing from law enforcement did not constitute obstructing official business. The record does not support a conclusion that the trial court failed to consider the factors in R.C. 2129.331(C)(5)(b) at sentencing. Judgment affirmed as to the conviction for failure to comply and vacated as to the conviction for obstructing official business. | Epley | Montgomery |
4/11/2025
|
4/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1279 |
|
In re Adoption of G.A.J.-K.
| 2024-CA-24 | The probate court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of Father on the issue of whether Father’s consent to Stepfather’s adoption of the child was required. We are unable to review Stepfather’s assertions that the probate court erred in failing to correct the written transcript, because the audio recording of the proceedings is not part of the record. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Miami |
4/11/2025
|
4/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1276 |
|
Northridge Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Murphy
| 30300 | Appellant did not comply with the requirements set forth in App.R. 9(A) or App.R. 16(A) in her pro se appeal. No transcript of the trial court’s proceedings was submitted for review; as such, even if she had set forth any assignments of error, we would have to presume the regularity of the trial court proceedings. Appeal dismissed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
4/4/2025
|
4/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1199 |
|
State v. Hepp
| 30213 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request for new counsel in the middle of trial. Appellant did not demonstrate a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship of such magnitude as to jeopardize his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
4/4/2025
|
4/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1202 |
|
Reese v. Deuer
| 30273 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellees’ motion for appointment of a receiver without first holding a separate hearing, because appellant consented to the appointment of a receiver during a default judgment hearing. The trial court abused its discretion by including a provision in its order appointing a receiver that required the receiver, at the time of termination of the receivership, to turn over to appellees all the receivership property despite the undisputed fact that appellant had a one-third ownership interest in the receivership property. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. | Lewis | Montgomery |
4/4/2025
|
4/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1205 |
|
In re K.C.
| 2024-CA-31 | Although part of the endangering children statute, R.C. 2919.22(A), imposes criminal liability for crimes committed by persons like parents and persons having custody of a child, R.C. 2919.22(B) refers more broadly to “all persons,” which includes persons who are not adult caretakers or babysitters. As such, the trial court did not err in adjudicating appellant delinquent under R.C. 2919.22(B)(5). Appellant’s adjudication as a delinquent for committing extortion was supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for mistrial; the State provided all relevant information to appellant, and there was no discovery violation. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Miami |
4/4/2025
|
4/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1203 |
|
State v. Gonzalez
| 2024-CA-42 | The record does not portray ineffective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s failure to file an interlocutory appeal from an adverse suppression ruling or failure to seek appointment of a translator. Appellant’s rape and gross-sexual-imposition convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
4/4/2025
|
4/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1201 |
|
State v. Joseph
| 2024-CA-34 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled appellant’s motion to change venue; there was no evidence in the record that pretrial publicity was so pervasive and prejudicial that an attempt to seat a jury would be a vain act or that any juror was actually biased. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to use the peremptory challenges differently, as how they were used was a matter of trial strategy. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
4/4/2025
|
4/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1204 |
|
State v. Carlson
| 2024-CA-20 | Appellant has served his entire prison term and is not under post-release supervision. Therefore, there is no relief that we can grant him. Appeal dismissed as moot. | Epley | Champaign |
4/4/2025
|
4/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1200 |
|
State v. Savage
| 2024-CA-12 | The jury’s findings of guilty on several drug offenses were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a defense exhibit which purportedly showed that appellant had purchased legal hemp and not illegal marijuana; the document was hearsay, it was not self-authenticating, and there was no witness to authenticate it. There was also no evidence that the drugs in appellant's possession at the time of his arrest were the same substances reflected on the purchase documents. The court imposed fines within the statutory limits and properly considered appellant’s ability to pay financial sanctions. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Champaign |
4/4/2025
|
4/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1206 |
|
Badra-Muniz v. Vinyl Carpet Serv., Inc.
| 29942 | Appellant’s application for en banc consideration fails to establish an intradistrict conflict between our 2024 opinion and prior decisions of this court, where an intervening Ohio Supreme Court decision required us to forego a line of reasoning we had followed in our prior decisions. Application for en banc consideration denied. | Per Curiam | Montgomery |
4/2/2025
|
4/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1280 |
|
Badra-Muniz v. Vinyl Carpet Serv., Inc.
| 29942 | R.C. 2307.241, which became effective during the pendency of this appeal, cannot be applied retroactively. Appellant has failed to call to our attention an obvious error in our opinion or to raise an issue for our consideration that was either not considered at all or not fully considered by us when it should have been. Application for reconsideration denied. | Per Curiam | Montgomery |
4/2/2025
|
4/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1281 |
|
State v. Brown
| 30127 | Appellant has not established a due-process violation based on the State’s failure to preserve bloody items recovered from the scene of the victim’s kidnapping. The record does not reflect prosecutorial misconduct based on a failure to disclose the victim’s cell-phone records or the identity of her cell-phone service provider. The trial court did not err in admitting testimony about the victim’s bloody wallet and cell phone being found near the scene of her kidnapping. The record does not portray ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Appellant’s convictions were supported by legally sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1079 |
|
State v. Irvin
| 30152 | The trial court did not err in allowing the jury to consider the agreed-upon exhibits during deliberations; the trial court’s statements to counsel and the jury reflected that it had deemed those exhibits admitted. Appellant did not demonstrate that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to cite Evid.R. 616(A) in seeking to ask a State’s witness about her pending indictment on drug charges and motion for intervention in lieu of conviction. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1082 |
|
In re Estate of Taylor
| 30224 | Because appellant’s pro se brief does not comply with the requirements of App.R. 16(A), including setting forth assignments of error or arguments supported by references to the record, we cannot address the merits of his appeal. Appeal dismissed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1084 |
|
State v. Letts
| 30143; 30147 | The trial court did not err in determining that a Five Rivers Metroparks ranger possessed territorial jurisdiction to initiate a traffic stop of the appellant’s vehicle on a public road adjacent to Metroparks property and adjacent to Miami Conservancy District property that Five Rivers Metroparks policed under a memorandum of understanding. Judgments affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1085 |
|
Nationstar Mtge., L.L.C. v. Thompson
| 30312 | The trial court erred in dismissing defendant-appellant’s counterclaim for breach of contract under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). The trial court did not err, however, in entering summary judgment for plaintiff-appellee on its foreclosure complaint. As for the trial court’s overruling of a motion for disqualification, appellant lacks standing to raise the issue, as the motion was filed by a non-appellant co-defendant. In addition, a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over disqualification and recusal issues involving common pleas court judges. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1088 |
|
State v. Sawitke
| 30179 | Appellant’s conviction for loitering to engage in solicitation was not against the manifest weight of the evidence even though the witnesses presented conflicting testimony. The credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony were matters for the trier of fact to resolve. In addition, the evidence presented, viewed in a light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to demonstrate that appellant acted purposely in engaging another in a conversation to solicit sexual activity for hire while in a public place. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1089 |
|
State v. Cline
| 2024-CA-14 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s untimely and successive Civ.R. 60(B) motion. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Champaign |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1080 |
|
State v. Isa
| 2024-CA-22 | Appellant’s argument that his 24.5-year sentence should actually be 23 years is barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Champaign |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1083 |
|
Meddock v. Meddock
| 2024-CA-11 | The trial court erred in dismissing a partition action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, where the land was located within the trial court’s jurisdiction and the action was not a collateral attack on the parties’ prior divorce decree. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Lewis | Darke |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1087 |
|
State v. Mason
| 2024-CA-20 | Appellant’s objection to the trial court’s finding as to his lack of remorse is precluded by res judicata; this issue could have been raised on direct appeal, and our remand was limited to a different, specific issue. The trial court did not err by failing to give notice under Crim.R. 43(A)(2) of appellant’s appearance for resentencing by video. Appellant waived his appearance in person during the resentencing hearing and did not object to any lack of notice. Appellant concedes that the trial court did not err in imposing court costs without considering his ability to pay. Judgment affirmed. | Hanseman | Miami |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1086 |
|
State v. Frost
| 2024-CA-24 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress; the search warrant was supported by probable cause, and appellant was properly advised of all Miranda warnings prior to being interrogated. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss based on venue where the indictment sufficiently identified the element of venue. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Greene |
3/28/2025
|
3/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1081 |
|
State ex rel. Reid v. Altenburger
| 2025-CA-9 | Respondent, a probate court judge, is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on relator’s mandamus claim. Relator, who was previously appointed administrator of a decedent’s estate by magistrate’s order, sought to compel the judge to issue an order making the appointment. After relator filed a complaint in the court of appeals, the judge issued an order appointing relator as administrator of the decedent’s estate. Because the relator’s objective in bringing the action was effectively achieved and there is no more than a theoretical possibility of relator being subjected to the same action again, the matter is moot. Writ denied. | Per Curiam | Miami |
3/26/2025
|
4/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-1207 |
|
State v. Jeffers
| 2024-CA-28 | Appellant’s convictions on three counts of felonious assault, with attendant firearm specifications, were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on the element of knowingly. Appellant’s sentences on the felonious assault offenses were not contrary to law. Pursuant to State v. Beatty, 2024-Ohio-5684, only two of the three prison terms on the firearm specifications could be imposed consecutively; the imposition of the third consecutive firearm specification was contrary to law. Judgment reversed as to the third firearm specification and remanded for resentencing on that specification. In all other respects, judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-989 |
|
State v. Boyd
| 30098 | Appellant’s convictions for having weapons while under disability and a firearm specification were supported by sufficient evidence. The court had jurisdiction to try appellant on the firearm specification, collateral estoppel did not bar the prosecution for having weapons while under disability, and defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to move for dismissal. The trial court did not violate Evid.R. 404(B); the court was free to consider evidence from the jury trial at the bench trial. Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law and was supported by the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/21/2025
|
3/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-984 |
|