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 149 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Campbell 29633Appellant did not file a direct appeal from his designation as a sexual predator in 2000. Twenty-two years later, he filed a motion in the trial court raising constitutional challenges to his sexual predator designation. The trial court did not err in concluding that the issue was barred by res judicata. Additionally, the trial court did not err in retroactively applying Megan’s Law at appellant’s sex offender determination hearing, as Megan’s Law could be applied retroactively and was not an ex post facto law. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 6/2/2023 6/2/2023 2023-Ohio-1831
State v. Clemmons 29638The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial. Appellant did not establish that he had been unavoidably prevented from discovering evidence regarding the grand jury foreperson’s signature. Even if the motion were allowed, the trial court could not grant a new trial based on the alleged defect in the indictment. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 6/2/2023 6/2/2023 2023-Ohio-1832
State v. Frantz 2022-CA-61The trial court did not err by considering appellant’s dismissed aggravated robbery charges at sentencing; the trial court is permitted to consider evidence at sentencing that does not strictly relate to the convicted offense. In addition, the trial court did not offend the constitution by applying the indefinite sentencing scheme established under the Reagan Tokes Law. This court has consistently rejected arguments claiming that the Reagan Tokes Law violates the separation-of-powers doctrine and the right to due process and that the law is unconstitutionally vague. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumClark 6/2/2023 6/2/2023 2023-Ohio-1833
State v. Humphrey 29479; 29480Appellant’s convictions for murder and other offenses were supported by legally sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. No prosecutorial misconduct deprived appellant of a fair trial. Appellant’s warrantless arrest outside his home was lawful, and a search warrant for his home was supported by probable cause. The record does not reflect that appellant received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Judgments affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 6/2/2023 6/2/2023 2023-Ohio-1834
State v. Midkiff 2022-CA-62Appellant’s guilty plea waived any alleged error committed by the trial court in denying his motions for continuance of the trial. The State concedes error in the trial court’s failure to properly advise appellant at sentencing of the notifications set forth in R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c). Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.LewisClark 6/2/2023 6/2/2023 2023-Ohio-1835
Planchak v. Ladd 29703The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s untimely Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate judgment, which was filed 15 years after the judgment was entered. Appellant could not rely upon the grounds for relief in Civ.R. 60(B)(3) due to the untimeliness of his motion, and he did not demonstrate substantial grounds warranting relief under Civ.R. 60(B)(5) due to a fraud upon the court. Appellee’s motion for attorney fees is not properly before us. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 6/2/2023 6/2/2023 2023-Ohio-1836
Thomas v. Servicemaster Absolute Cleaning Restoration, Inc. 29651The trial court did not err in entering summary judgment for appellee on appellant’s negligence complaint involving injuries sustained when a basement staircase collapsed. The record reveals no genuine issue of material fact as to whether appellee breached a duty of care by removing structural supports from the staircase when remediating water damage or whether appellee proximately caused appellant’s injury when the staircase fell two months after the remediation work. The trial court also correctly found no genuine issue of material fact as to whether appellee breached a duty of care by failing to conduct a post-work inspection of the staircase’s structural integrity. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 6/2/2023 6/2/2023 2023-Ohio-1837
State v. Crowley 2022-CA-59Reviewing pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we conclude that appellate counsel’s potential assignments of error are wholly frivolous. There is no suggestion that appellant was unaware of his right to testify at trial, counsel represented that he had spoken to appellant about that right, and the trial court was not required to conduct a hearing regarding appellant’s waiver of that right. Defense counsel’s failure to move for an acquittal was not ineffective assistance; reasonable minds could conclude that the State had proven all the elements of kidnapping and assault on a peace officer. While counsel’s failure to renew his claim of prejudicial joinder arguably constituted deficient performance, on this record it would be wholly frivolous to argue that the failure to renew prejudiced appellant; in separate trials, the State could have introduced other acts evidence pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B), and the evidence of each crime was simple and direct. It would be wholly frivolous to argue that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling the severance motion. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanClark 5/26/2023 5/26/2023 2023-Ohio-1764
State v. Morris 29555Appellant did not object to the trial court’s failure to merge his convictions for carrying a concealed weapon and having a weapon under disability. A plain error analysis, therefore, applies. Under applicable case law and the record, the offenses were committed with a separate animus, merger was not warranted, and no plain error occurred. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 5/26/2023 5/26/2023 2023-Ohio-1765
State v. Taylor 29443Appellant’s felonious assault convictions were supported by sufficient evidence because the State established that appellant had used deadly force and that his victims had suffered serious physical harm. The trial court did not err in captioning the jury verdict forms with the words “serious harm” rather than “serious physical harm.” Using captions to identify offenses is a rational way to identify the verdict for each offense, particularly where, as here, many offenses were involved. The trial court did err in calculating the proper sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law, as the State concedes. However, the court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences. Under State v. Gwynne, Ohio Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4607, __ N.E.3d __, a trial court must consider each sentence on individual counts that it intends to impose consecutively on the defendant and the aggregate prison term that will result. Nonetheless, we are unable to reach a firm conviction or belief that “the record does not support the trial court's necessity or proportionality findings in light of the actual number of consecutive terms that it imposed and the resulting aggregate sentence.” Id. at ¶ 17. The trial court did not err in ordering appellant to pay restitution. Appellant failed to object to the amount or to ask for a hearing in the trial court, the trial court considered appellant’s ability to pay, and the amount of restitution was minimal. Finally, no error occurred in imposing court costs, because appellant failed to file a motion in the trial court seeking waiver of court costs based on his alleged indigent status. Appellant has also not lost his ability to make such a request, since R.C. 2947.23(C) allows defendants to make such requests at the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part (as to the error in calculating the sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law), and remanded.WelbaumMontgomery 5/26/2023 5/26/2023 2023-Ohio-1766
Wortham v. Dayton 29578The trial court did not err in finding that the Civil Service Board’s order was supported by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. The Civil Service Board was not required to listen to the recorded statement upon remand from the trial court. Dayton Police Department Rules of Conduct Rule 8.2, which requires termination for making false statements, is not unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconstitutional. Appellant’s termination from employment was not unlawful, arbitrary, unreasonable, unconstitutional, or a violation of his due process rights. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 5/26/2023 5/26/2023 2023-Ohio-1767
State v. Braun 2022-CA-12During a valid traffic stop for fictitious plates, and after appellant exited his vehicle, the officer initiating the traffic stop had probable cause to search appellant’s person after he voluntarily handed the officer a jar of marijuana retrieved from his overalls prior to a pat down search for weapons. The court did not err in overruling parts of appellant's motion to suppress. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanDarke 5/19/2023 5/19/2023 2023-Ohio-1683
State v. Duncan 2022-CA-82The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for specific performance of a plea agreement where the trial court’s written judgment entry mirrored the terms of the plea agreement. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas where appellant failed to file a direct appeal challenging his voidable sentence. Judgment affirmed.LewisClark 5/19/2023 5/19/2023 2023-Ohio-1684
State v. Garner 2022-CA-3Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to seek dismissal of the charges on speedy trial grounds where the speedy trial deadline had expired one day before trial. Judgment vacated.EpleyMiami 5/19/2023 5/19/2023 2023-Ohio-1685
State v. Johnson 29659The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider appellant’s motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the issues raised in appellant’s third motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial were barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 5/19/2023 5/19/2023 2023-Ohio-1686
State v. Loftis 2022-CA-13Appellant pleaded guilty to sexual battery. The trial court’s religious comments at the sentencing hearing were not the basis for appellant’s 36-month prison term. As such, the comments did not affect the fundamental fairness of the sentencing proceedings. The comments also did not violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Judgment affirmed.TuckerDarke 5/19/2023 5/19/2023 2023-Ohio-1687
State v. Tomlinson 2022-CA-51Appellant’s conviction for domestic violence was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.EpleyGreene 5/19/2023 5/19/2023 2023-Ohio-1688
Velocity Invests., L.L.C. v. Kunzler 2022-CA-56The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to a creditor’s assignee where the debtor did not answer the complaint and did not respond to the motion for summary judgment. Judgment affirmed.LewisGreene 5/19/2023 5/19/2023 2023-Ohio-1689
State v. Bell 2022-CA-11The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress drug evidence found in the course of a traffic stop. After making a valid stop for failure to display a required license-plate county sticker, an officer approached appellant’s car and smelled raw marijuana. This fact entitled the officer to conduct a brief investigation to determine whether a drug offense had been committed. During that investigation, which lasted just minutes, appellant produced a Tupperware container of marijuana. Although appellant held a medical-marijuana card, the raw marijuana was being stored in violation of Ohio’s medical-marijuana regulations. Appellant then consented to a full search of his car, which resulted in the discovery of methamphetamine and other contraband. Under these circumstances, the trial court correctly found no constitutional violation and overruled appellant’s suppression motion. Judgment affirmed.TuckerDarke 5/12/2023 5/12/2023 2023-Ohio-1588
Betz v. Gist 29536 & 29679In separate appeals, appellants appeal from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee and its denial of their subsequent motion for relief from that judgment. The trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment on a note and foreclosure of a mortgage. Construing the evidence most strongly in favor of appellants, genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether appellants’ obligation to commence payments on the note had been triggered by the alleged completion of the restoration of their home due to fire damage. As it conducts further proceedings in this case, the trial court must determine whether the late fee provision in the note is in the nature of a penalty, rather than to compensate appellee for her alleged loss. Judgment entering summary judgment is reversed and remanded. Appeal from judgment denying relief from judgment is dismissed as moot.HuffmanMontgomery 5/12/2023 5/12/2023 2023-Ohio-1589
State v. Chatman 29630The trial court erred in imposing a driver’s-license suspension pursuant to R.C. 2921.331 as part of appellant’s sentence following his guilty plea to attempted failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer. The suspension is authorized as a sanction for a felony violation of R.C. 2921.331, the failure-to-comply statute. But the appellant was not convicted of violating R.C. 2921.331. He was convicted of committing the substantive offense of attempt to commit an offense in violation of R.C. 2923.02. The license-suspension sanction in R.C. 2921.331 does not apply to the offense of attempted failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), appellant’s three-year driver’s-license suspension is vacated. Judgment affirmed as modified.TuckerMontgomery 5/12/2023 5/12/2023 2023-Ohio-1590
State v. Hampton 29612Appellant pleaded guilty to several offenses in two cases and was sentenced to a term of community control sanctions (CCS); the alternative sentence was an aggregate 48-month prison term. Thereafter, appellant was alleged to have violated the CCS condition to successfully complete drug treatment. At the CCS revocation hearing, upon learning that the trial court intended to impose a 36-month prison term, appellant admitted to the CCS violation, and the trial court then imposed a 36-month prison term. Appellant’s admission was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The record reflects the trial court’s consideration of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when it imposed the prison term. Judgments affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 5/12/2023 5/12/2023 2023-Ohio-1591
State v. Hein 29668State’s appeal. The trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion to suppress evidence. The court made no factual findings to which an appellate court could defer and also erroneously held the State to a probable cause standard for investigatory detention. The State was only required to demonstrate that the police had a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Furthermore, evidence elicited during the suppression hearing revealed that the police did have reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain appellee and to administer a field sobriety test. The test was administered in substantial compliance with applicable standards, and it indicated that appellee was intoxicated. Finally, even without the sobriety test results, the police had probable cause to arrest appellee based on the totality of the circumstances. Judgment reversed and remanded.WelbaumMontgomery 5/12/2023 5/12/2023 2023-Ohio-1592
Dayton v. Parson 29353The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to employer on employee’s workers’ compensation claim. The undisputed facts established that the injury arose out of a personal dispute between the employee and a co-worker that was entirely unrelated to the performance of any duty related to her employment. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 5/5/2023 5/5/2023 2023-Ohio-1509
State v. Good 2022-CA-39The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the court found, after a hearing, that appellant had simply had a change of heart. Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 5/5/2023 5/5/2023 2023-Ohio-1510
In re J.C.S. 29690There was competent, credible evidence from which the trial court could have clearly and convincingly found that all statutory elements for the termination of Mother’s parental rights under R.C. 2151.414(B)(1) had been satisfied. Therefore, the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights and granting permanent custody of her child to a children services agency was not an abuse of discretion. Father’s claim in an “appellee brief” that he had not been sufficiently notified of the permanent custody proceedings is not properly before this court, as Father did not appeal from the trial court’s judgment. Also, Father waived any argument regarding notice of the permanent custody proceedings; his trial counsel appeared at all the proceedings, advised the trial court that he had communicated with Father, and stated that Father waived any defects in service and did not wish to participate in the proceedings. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 5/5/2023 5/5/2023 2023-Ohio-1511
State v. Jones 2022-CA-47 & 2022-CA-48Appellant’s valid guilty plea waived his right to challenge the trial court’s decisions overruling his motions to suppress. Also, appellant did not establish ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Judgments affirmed.LewisClark 5/5/2023 5/5/2023 2023-Ohio-1512
State v. Kocevar 29483The trial court correctly found that the sexual assault charges against appellant should not have been severed for trial because the evidence was simple and direct. The State did not unjustifiably delay in prosecuting appellant; any delay was the result of the victims’ delay in reporting sexual assaults to the police. Appellant was not deprived of any constitutional rights by being tried and sentenced as an adult. Under R.C. 2152.02(C)(3), R.C. 2152.12((J), and R.C. 2151.23(I), the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over appellant because he was 22 years old when the indictment was filed. These statutes remove juvenile jurisdiction over persons who are not taken into custody or apprehended until after they attain 21 years of age. Thus, no equal protection violation exists because appellant was not similarly situated to persons who are still subject to the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. Appellant was also not subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Both before and after appellant’s alleged crimes, there was no change in any relevant statutes defining children over whom a juvenile court could exercise jurisdiction. As a result, when appellant allegedly committed the crimes, he had notice that he could be tried in adult court rather than remaining in juvenile court. Appellant’s sentence also did not shock the conscience. Moreover, because no pertinent statutory changes occurred after the alleged crimes were committed, no laws imposed additional punishment on appellant for purposes of ex post facto prohibitions against increased punishment. Finally, because no error occurred, no cumulative error existed. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 5/5/2023 5/5/2023 2023-Ohio-1513
Saunders v. Greater Dayton Regional Transit Auth. 29573The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing an action with prejudice where the trial court’s final pretrial orders warned that failure to attend the trial would result in dismissal of the action, appellant and her counsel left the courtroom early during the second day of the jury trial and failed to appear on the third day, appellant’s counsel sent an email to the court’s bailiff stating he would not be back for the remainder of the trial that week, and neither appellant nor her counsel requested a continuance of the trial. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 5/5/2023 5/5/2023 2023-Ohio-1514
State v. Stanford 29544Appellant’s conviction for aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(B) was based on sufficient evidence. The trial court’s rejection of appellant’s affirmative defense of not guilty by reason of insanity was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by, among other things, moving to withdraw appellant’s prior no contest plea. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s motion for a continuance of the trial. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 5/5/2023 5/5/2023 2023-Ohio-1515
State v. Turner 29397Appellant’s convictions for aggravated burglary, aggravated murder, and having a weapon while under disability were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court’s decision to remove appellant from the courtroom following a repeated pattern of disruptive conduct during trial was reasonable and did not violate appellant’s constitutional right to be present at trial. The trial court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences was also proper, as it made all the required consecutive-sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and incorporated those findings into its judgment entry, and the findings were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 5/5/2023 5/5/2023 2023-Ohio-1516
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Lawson 29594The trial court did not abuse its discretion in confirming the sale of appellant’s foreclosed property. Any issues related to the judgment and decree of foreclosure should have been raised in a separate prior appeal. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 5/5/2023 5/5/2023 2023-Ohio-1517
State v. Deckard 29611The trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress drug evidence found in his possession. University police officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify stopping appellant as he was walking across a university-owned parking lot carrying a guitar. Judgment reversed and remanded.TuckerMontgomery 4/28/2023 4/28/2023 2023-Ohio-1398
State v. DeVaughns 29654Appellant’s claims of deficiencies in his resentencing hearing were barred by res judicata. Further, appellant was not entitled to appointed counsel to raise these barred claims. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 4/28/2023 4/28/2023 2023-Ohio-1399
State v. Martin 29579Anders appeal. Appellate counsel found no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, and our examination of the record reveals no non-frivolous issues having arguable merit. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 4/28/2023 4/28/2023 2023-Ohio-1400
Miller v. AutoZone Stores, L.L.C. 2022-CA-83Appellant, a business invitee, fell and sustained injuries as she was walking from a vehicle toward the front door of appellee’s business. Appellant identified a parking stop located immediately in front of the vehicle she had exited as the cause of the fall. The trial court granted summary judgment to appellee under the open and obvious doctrine. On this record, the parking stop, as a matter of law, was open and obvious, and there was no factual basis to support a conclusion that an attendant circumstance contributed to the fall. Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 4/28/2023 4/28/2023 2023-Ohio-1402
Piqua Store & Lock, L.L.C. v. Miami Cty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals 2022-CA-30The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the BZA’s denial of appellant’s application for a conditional-use permit to be supported by a preponderance of the substantial, reliable, and probative evidence. The trial court did not err in failing to take additional evidence where the BZA did not refuse to permit cross-examination during an administrative hearing. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMiami 4/28/2023 4/28/2023 2023-Ohio-1403
State v. Thornton 29653The trial court erred in finding that there was no reasonable articulable suspicion to justify a Terry stop and in granting defendant-appellee’s motion to suppress. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the officers initially had reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry stop. Additionally, appellee failed to submit to a show of authority by the police and was not seized until after he had fled on foot and had been observed holding and then discarding a firearm; by that time, the officers had additional reasonable articulable suspicion to justify a Terry stop. Finally, appellee abandoned the firearm in his possession when he threw it to the ground while being pursued by police, thereby relinquishing any reasonable expectation of privacy in it. Judgment reversed.HuffmanMontgomery 4/28/2023 4/28/2023 2023-Ohio-1404
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Bass 29686The trial court did not err in sustaining appellee-bank’s motion for summary judgment on its complaint for foreclosure. The bank filed its complaint for foreclosure following the death of the decedent-borrower, after which payments on the note ceased, and it did not seek personal judgment on the note but sought foreclosure of the mortgage to enforce its security interest. Appellant, an heir to the decedent-borrower, was a necessary party to this action following the decedent-borrower’s death and did not oppose the bank’s motion for summary judgment. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 4/28/2023 4/28/2023 2023-Ohio-1405
State v. Watts 2022-CA-49Anders appeal. Appellate counsel found no issues with arguable merit to advance on appeal. Pursuant to our independent review, we also find no potentially meritorious issues. The trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C) in accepting appellant’s guilty pleas to two counts of rape, and the agreed consecutive sentence is not reviewable on appeal. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanClark 4/21/2023 4/21/2023 2023-Ohio-1297
Peterson v. Booth 29504The trial court erred by granting judgment against appellant as to a replevin claim and in granting appellant personal items as a matter of equity. The trial court did not err in ruling against appellant on a conversion claim; the trial court’s finding that the disputed joint property belonged to the parties’ business was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment reversed and remanded with respect to the replevin claim, and judgment affirmed with respect to the conversion claim.EpleyMontgomery 4/21/2023 4/21/2023 2023-Ohio-1301
Pandey v. Piqua Bd. of Zoning Appeals 2022-CA-24Appellant did not exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a complaint for an injunction. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees, finding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction on the matter of appellant’s complaint for injunction, as appellant’s failure to file an administrative appeal was fatal to his claim. Appellant argued that the right to effective assistance of counsel applied in a civil action related to an administrative determination, and thus the summary judgment granted by the trial court must be reversed. However, the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel has not been extended beyond criminal and permanent custody proceedings and, thus, did not attach to appellant’s civil action. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMiami 4/21/2023 4/21/2023 2023-Ohio-1302
State v. McCormick 29607Appellant failed to challenge the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law in the trial court and forfeited her argument on appeal for all but plain error. The trial court’s imposition of sentence did not rise to the level of plain error as the relevant statute is constitutional. Furthermore, the sentence imposed by the trial court was not contrary to law. Judgments affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 4/21/2023 4/21/2023 2023-Ohio-1303
Matthews v. Springfield-Clark CTC Bd. of Edn. 2022-CA-64The trial court erred in finding that appellant-board of education violated due process and fundamental fairness when it terminated appellee from a nonteaching custodial position. The trial court also erred in failing to accord any deference to appellant’s findings and in blatantly substituting its judgment for that of appellant. Given these conclusions, appellant’s other assignments of error concerning the court’s damages award are moot. Judgment reversed and remanded, with instructions for the trial court to affirm appellant’s decision to terminate appellee’s employment.WelbaumClark 4/21/2023 4/21/2023 2023-Ohio-1304
State v. Hammer 29454The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s motion to suppress where the warrantless seizure of appellant’s person was based on probable cause. Although the officer who detained appellant did not have personal knowledge of the facts on which the probable cause was based, those facts were imputed to the officer via the collective knowledge doctrine. State v. Armstead, 2015-Ohio-5010, 50 N.E.3d 1073 (2d Dist.), overruled. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 4/21/2023 4/21/2023 2023-Ohio-1307
State v. Cencebaugh 29531Conceded error. The trial court failed to properly provide the notifications required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c). Judgment reversed and remanded for resentencing.EpleyMontgomery 4/21/2023 4/21/2023 2023-Ohio-1309
Beavers v. State 29618The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to appellee on his claim that he was a wrongfully imprisoned individual under R.C. 2743.48. Appellee did not establish, as a matter of law, that there was an error in procedure. Genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether he was actually innocent of the offenses. Judgment reversed and remanded.EpleyMontgomery 4/21/2023 4/21/2023 2023-Ohio-1310
Barclay Square Condo. Owners Assn. v. Ruble 29613The trial court did not commit plain error in denying appellant’s motion to intervene in a foreclosure action or in finding that appellant was not entitled to excess proceeds resulting from a sale of the premises. Appellant failed to object to the magistrate’s decision and also failed to file a transcript of the magistrate’s hearing in the trial court. Review, therefore, is limited to plain error, and there was no plain error. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 4/21/2023 4/21/2023 2023-Ohio-1311
State v. Dugan 29255The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress statements he made in the back of a police cruiser, because he did not unequivocally invoke of his right to remain silent and voluntarily answered questions posed to him. Appellant did not show ineffective assistance of trial counsel due to counsel’s not requesting a mistrial when it became apparent before the jury was impaneled that five of the prospective jurors had read some information about the case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State’s DNA expert to testify where the State identified the dates when it disclosed the expert’s report to defendant’s trial counsel and the record provided support for the State’s dates. No plain error was shown in the trial court’s decision to allow the testimony of appellant’s girlfriend as to statements appellant made to her shortly after a murder. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 4/18/2023 4/24/2023 2023-Ohio-1157
Sowry v. Todd 2022-CA-22Sisters’ settlement of their mother’s estate’s claim against one of the sisters was not supported by consideration. Judgment reversed and remanded.EpleyMiami 4/18/2023 4/24/2023 2023-Ohio-1162