|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Rasheed
| 29917 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motions to dismiss for speedy trial violations where 1) accounting for tolling events, the first trial began within 90 days of his arrest and 2) the second trial occurred within a reasonable time after a mistrial was declared in the first trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial after the jury was sworn when appellant decided to proceed pro se, requested new standby counsel, and was unprepared to go forward without a continuance. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a competency evaluation after appellant requested a competency hearing. The trial court did not commit plain error when it admitted two 911 phone calls at trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting appellant’s ability to cross-examine the victim about any prior arrests or “run-ins” with police. Appellant’s conviction for felonious assault was supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court properly informed appellant of the Reagan Tokes requirements at the sentencing hearing; the notifications were not also required in the sentencing entry. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
9/6/2024
|
9/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3424 |
|
State v. Sweeney
| 2023-CA-58 | Appellant’s statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy-trial were not violated. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a trial continuance as opposed to dismissing appellant’s case as a consequence of the State’s discovery violations. Appellant’s conviction for aggravated possession of drugs was supported by sufficient evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Clark |
9/6/2024
|
9/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3425 |
|
State v. Dyer
| 2023-CA-34 | Defense counsel’s joint representation of appellant and his co-defendant, who were jointly indicted for the same incident, did not deny appellant his right to effective assistance of counsel. The interests of appellant and his co-defendant were not incompatible, the trial court reviewed the waiver of conflict of interest with appellant prior to trial, and the record does not demonstrate an actual conflict of interest. Defense counsel’s alleged egregious conduct in voir dire, opening statement, and cross-examination of the State’s witnesses was a matter of trial strategy, and prejudice is not demonstrated. Moreover, the jury is presumed to have followed the court’s instructions to disregard “editorializing” by defense counsel and that counsel’s statements and arguments were not evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit irrelevant evidence of the victim’s prior speeding record. Appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in not admitting the victim’s Facebook video discussing the shooting is without merit because defense counsel did not seek to admit the video. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury on aggravated assault as an inferior-degree offense of felonious assault, because there was no evidence of serious provocation. Appellant’s conviction for attempted murder was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
9/6/2024
|
9/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3421 |
|
State v. Bond
| 30035 | The trial court did not err in failing to advise appellant of his post-release control obligations at his third sentencing hearing, as appellant had previously been advised of those obligations during his initial sentencing hearing and in his original and amended judgment entries. The trial court’s failure to advise appellant of his appellate rights at resentencing was harmless error because appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and demonstrated his understanding of his appellate rights. Appellant’s other arguments are barred by res judicata because he failed to raise them in his direct appeal. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
9/6/2024
|
9/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3419 |
|
Pollock v. Mullins
| 30057 | Following the settler’s death, the beneficiaries of a trust filed a motion to remove appellant as trustee, and the probate court granted the motion. The probate court reasonably concluded that appellant had not complied with his duties as trustee, and it did not abuse its discretion in removing him as trustee. Appellant’s due process rights were not violated by presentation of new arguments at the hearing. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
9/6/2024
|
9/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3423 |
|
State v. Hicks
| 30046 | State’s appeal. The trial court properly granted appellee’s motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court granted the State’s motion for a mistrial after the jury was impaneled and sworn, but there was no manifest necessity requiring the mistrial, and the trial court did not consider reasonable alternatives before declaring the mistrial. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
9/6/2024
|
9/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3422 |
|
Curtis v. Edsell
| 29994 | Decedent’s son appeals from the probate court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of decedent’s grandchildren (son’s nieces and nephew) and the denial of his motion for judgment on the pleadings on their claims regarding the interpretation of decedent’s trust. The probate court correctly found that son’s ability to sell residential property in which he was granted a life estate was not unlimited, but it erred in concluding that he could only sell his life tenancy. The probate court correctly determined that grandchildren were beneficiaries of decedent’s trust with respect to the residential property but erred in concluding that they were vested beneficiaries; under R.C. 5808.19, the trust antilapse statute, grandchildren’s remainder interest was contingent upon surviving the termination of the life estate by 120 days. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. | Tucker | Montgomery |
9/6/2024
|
9/6/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3420 |
|
State v. Hill
| 30048 | The trial court did not err by imposing consecutive sentences for appellant’s two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Montgomery |
8/30/2024
|
8/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3330 |
|
State v. Fields
| 29620 | The trial court did not completely fail to comply with Crim.R. 11(C) in designating appellant a Tier I sex offender, and prejudice is not demonstrated. Appellant’s guilty pleas waived his right to challenge the trial court’s ruling on his motion to suppress. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
8/30/2024
|
8/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3328 |
|
State v. Persinger
| 2024-CA-10 | The trial court did not err by imposing an 18-month sentence on appellant, as the sentence was not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Miami |
8/30/2024
|
8/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3331 |
|
State v. Washington
| 2020-CA-18 | The trial court did not err in failing to amend the record to reflect that a prospective juror was an African-American individual. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the only African-American prospective juror for cause, as appellant claims, because (1) the record does not show that there were any African-American individuals in the jury pool and (2) the record establishes that the prospective juror at issue was dismissed for cause due to COVID-19 concerns without objection. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Miami |
8/30/2024
|
8/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3333 |
|
Wyatt v. Springfield
| 2024-CA-3 | The trial court did not err in entering summary judgment for appellees based on the city’s statutory immunity from liability on appellants’ wrongful-death claim. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
8/30/2024
|
8/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3334 |
|
State v. Dingman
| 2024-CA-14 | Appellant’s constitutional right to counsel was violated when the trial court did not make a sufficient inquiry as to whether he fully understood and relinquished his right to counsel. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request for a continuance where the case had been pending for several months, the facts of the case were simple and straightforward, appellant waited until a week before trial to request the continuance, he did not state how much additional time he needed, and he did not adequately explain his need for additional time. The judgment is modified to remove the jail sentence and probation. Judgment affirmed as modified. | Lewis | Greene |
8/30/2024
|
8/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3327 |
|
Aegis, L.L.C. v. Schlorman
| 2024-CA-6 | The trial court did not err in granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment. In its claim for tortious interference with business relationships, appellant did not create a genuine issue of material fact that there had been a breach or termination of a contractual relationship. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Greene |
8/30/2024
|
8/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3325 |
|
Reid v. Williams
| 29971 | The probate court erred by denying the estate’s motion for default judgment against the unknown heirs of the decedent where the estate had served the unknown heirs by publication for six consecutive weeks pursuant to R.C. 2703.24, and the unknown heirs had not filed an answer to the estate’s complaint to determine heirship. Judgment reversed in part and remanded for the probate court to enter a default judgment against the unknown heirs. Judgment affirmed in all other respects. | Lewis | Montgomery |
8/30/2024
|
8/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3332 |
|
State v. Harris
| 29903 | The trial court did not err by overruling two motions to suppress evidence. With respect to pretrial identifications of appellant, one identification was based on a single photograph, but it was made by a person who had known appellant for years; the trial court reasonably concluded that it was reliable. The second identification resulted from the presentation of a photo array to a witness by a blind administrator; the trial court reasonably concluded that the identification procedure was not suggestive. The search of a backpack in appellant’s possession when he was arrested was incident to his arrest, and the trial court did not err in overruling the motion to suppress the evidence found therein. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Finally, the trial court’s findings in support of consecutive sentences were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
8/30/2024
|
8/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3329 |
|
Bierly v. Kettering Health Network
| 30043 | The trial court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings on appellants’ medical negligence claims. Appellants’ claims were barred by the statute of repose as extended by the foreign object exception set forth in R.C. 2305.113(D)(2). The statute of repose does not violate the right to remedy provision in the Ohio Constitution. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
8/30/2024
|
8/30/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3326 |
|
State v. Weaver
| 29992 | Appellant was not eligible for the sealing of his criminal record because he had not satisfied the community control sanction of paying restitution. The trial court did not err in denying the application to seal the record. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Montgomery |
8/23/2024
|
8/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3215 |
|
State v. Cantu
| 2023-CA-32 | State’s appeal. The trial court erred by excluding evidence obtained through a traffic stop. Officers lawfully stopped the car driven by appellant because it had a fictitious license plate. Additionally, there was probable cause to search the vehicle due to information gathered from the passenger indicating that appellant had just purchased $440 worth of drugs. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Epley | Darke |
8/23/2024
|
8/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3211 |
|
Botello v. Gonzalez
| 2024-CA-20 | The trial court erred in concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over appellant’s divorce complaint based solely on her refusal to submit documentation regarding her immigration status. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Lewis | Clark |
8/23/2024
|
8/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3210 |
|
State v. Alvarez
| 30092 | State’s appeal. The trial court erred in suppressing appellant’s statements implicating himself in domestic violence against his wife. Appellant was not subjected to custodial interrogation or entitled to Miranda warnings when the statements were made; appellant was at home, his freedom of movement had not been restricted in any way, and he had not been handcuffed or told he was under arrest. Police officers did not threaten or intimidate appellant during the conversational encounter. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Montgomery |
8/23/2024
|
8/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3208 |
|
State v. Ranta
| 29974 | Appellant’s conviction for aggravated menacing was not against the manifest weight of the evidence despite 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. The evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that appellant acted knowingly in causing the victim to believe that he would cause her serious physical harm and to persuade a reasonable trier of fact that the elements of aggravated menacing had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
8/23/2024
|
8/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3213 |
|
Aubrey-Dean v. CareSource
| 30078 | Appellant filed a complaint asserting causes of action for racial discrimination, retaliation, and creating a hostile workplace after appellee terminated appellant’s employment. The trial court did not err by rendering summary judgment in appellee’s favor on each cause of action. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
8/23/2024
|
8/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3209 |
|
State v. Fader
| 30047 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s case-in-chief. The State presented legally sufficient evidence to support appellant’s conviction on a misdemeanor charge of voyeurism. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
8/23/2024
|
8/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3212 |
|
State v. Sain-Dunham
| 29955 | Appellant’s convictions for violating a protection order and disorderly conduct were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to demonstrate that appellant acted recklessly in violating the terms of a protection order by living on the back patio at the protected person’s residence and by causing inconvenience and annoyance to the arresting officers by yelling rude and offensive language toward them. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
8/23/2024
|
8/23/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3214 |
|
State v. Ruggles
| 2024-CA-2 | The trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s motion dismiss the complaint charging her with five counts of contributing to the unruliness of a child; the complaint contained all the essential elements of the charged offense. Appellant’s convictions for contributing to the unruliness of a child were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting certain testimony concerning appellants’ niece, because such testimony was irrelevant and could have confused the jury. Judgment affirmed. | Webaum | Greene |
8/16/2024
|
8/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3128 |
|
Plus Mgt. Servs., Inc. v. Liberty Healthcare Corp.
| 29858 | The trial court erred in entering summary judgment for appellees in the amount of $280,000 and later entering final judgment on two jury verdicts (breach of contract and conversion) that involved the same $280,000 in damages. Appellees had no viable conversion claim; the asserted conversion claim did not exist separately from a breach-of-contract claim. The trial court properly entered judgment for appellees on a jury verdict for $540,000 based on appellant-cross-appellee’s breach of an interim operating agreement. The trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest because appellees failed to seek it within the time provided by Civ.R. 59(B). The trial court correctly directed a defense verdict on appellees’ request for punitive damages. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for filing of a new final judgment entry. | Tucker | Montgomery |
8/16/2024
|
8/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3127 |
|
State v. George
| 29954 | The confrontation clause was not implicated in surveillance video of an assault involving appellant and another inmate at a jail. The video was without audio, and it contained no testimonial statements or hearsay. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
8/16/2024
|
8/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3123 |
|
Estate of Price v. Kidney Care Specialist, L.L.C.
| 29951 | A jury found in favor of the medical providers in this medical negligence case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling challenges to four perspective jurors. After the jury had been selected but before the selection of alternate jurors, two jurors were excused for medical reasons and replaced with the next jurors in line. At this point, appellant had exercised all of its non-alternate peremptory challenges. The trial court did not commit plain error when it did not allow appellant to exercise further peremptory challenges to the two replacement jurors. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
8/16/2024
|
8/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3122 |
|
State v. Melton
| 29877 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the charge of involuntary manslaughter in violation of R.C. 2903.04(A). The predicate offense of endangering children was a felony, not a misdemeanor, because it resulted in the death of the child; “serious physical harm,” which was required to elevate the offense to a felony, includes death. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
8/16/2024
|
8/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3125 |
|
State v. Monfort
| 2023-CA-33 | Appellant’s claim that his guilty pleas were invalid because he did not realize the trial court could impose a sentence that exceeded the maximum recommended prison term for his two drug possession offenses lacks merit. The trial court advised appellant at the plea hearing that, in addition to the maximum prison term, appellant could receive 578 days in prison as a sanction for committing his offenses while on post-release control. In addition, appellant’s claim that the 578-day sanction imposed at sentencing is contrary to law lacks merit, as it complies with R.C. 2929.141(A)(1). Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Champaign |
8/16/2024
|
8/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3126 |
|
In re A.J.W.
| 30042 | The trial court did not err in finding that Father’s consent to the adoption of his minor child was not required; petitioners established by clear and convincing evidence that Father had failed, without justifiable cause, to have more than de minimis contact with the child in the year preceding the filing of the petition for adoption. The probate court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s oral request for a continuance on the day of the consent hearing. Father failed to establish ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
8/16/2024
|
8/16/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3124 |
|
State v. Jones
| 2023-CA-59 | The trial court did not err in accepting appellant’s guilty plea to receiving stolen property. The court determined that appellant understood the nature of the charge to which he was pleading guilty, as required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a). The court also substantially complied with its obligations under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b). Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
8/9/2024
|
8/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3034 |
|
State v. Harrell
| 2024-CA-23 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the State’s motion for appellant to be held without bond pending trial. The State proved by clear and convincing evidence that appellant had committed the offenses, that he posed a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or to the community, and that no release condition would reasonably assure the safety of the community. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
8/9/2024
|
8/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3029 |
|
In re B.B.W.
| 2021-CA-10 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the magistrate’s decision to grant visitation to child’s maternal grandmother. The magistrate did not give special weight and sufficient deference to mother’s wishes and concerns regarding the child’s having visitation with the maternal grandmother. Mother was entitled to the presumption that she acted in the best interest of her child, and grandmother did not satisfy her burden to prove that her visitation request was in the best interest of the child. The trial court did not clearly lose its way and create a manifest miscarriage of justice in reaching its decision. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Greene |
8/9/2024
|
8/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3030 |
|
State v. Simmons
| 29941 | Appellant’s conviction for forcible rape, into which aggravated burglary and sexual battery offenses had been merged, was not supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court did not commit reversible error by excluding certain lay witness opinion testimony at trial; the testimony at issue would have resulted in speculation, and its exclusion did not prejudice appellant. Judgment vacated as to the forcible rape and remanded to the trial court for it to: (1) consider whether the vacation of the forcible rape conviction affects the aggravated burglary offense for which appellant was found guilty and, if necessary, whether the guilty verdict for sexual battery supports a conviction on the lesser-included offense of aggravated burglary; and (2) sentence appellant for the offenses that merged into his forcible rape conviction. | Welbaum | Montgomery |
8/9/2024
|
8/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3036 |
|
Desai v. CareSource, Inc.
| 29965 | The trial court abused its discretion by granting a motion to strike appellants’ class allegations. The court failed to consider any evidence in concluding that the class definition was overbroad and ambiguous and failed to conduct the rigorous analysis that is used to evaluate class certification under Civ.R. 23. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Welbaum | Montgomery |
8/9/2024
|
8/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3028 |
|
In re C.W.
| 2024-CA-18 | The trial court properly allowed the State to amend a delinquency complaint alleging robbery to comply with Juv.R. 10(B). The record reveals no violation of Juv.R. 16. In addition, the State’s objection to an admonishment for assault became moot after it obtained dismissal of the assault complaint and filed a new complaint alleging robbery. Finally, appellant’s delinquency adjudication for robbery was not against the weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Clark |
8/9/2024
|
8/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3031 |
|
In re D.L.W.
| 30109 | The trial court’s decision to terminate appellant’s parental rights and grant custody of her minor child to a children services agency was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and was supported by sufficient evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Montgomery |
8/9/2024
|
8/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3032 |
|
Meyer v. Lucas
| 2023-CA-21 | The trial court’s judgment awarded appellee one-half of the increase in value of the house of appellant, her ex-fiancé, on her claim of unjust enrichment. The trial court’s judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; appellee contributed to mortgage payments, household expenses, and the substantial improvements to the house while the parties were engaged to be married. The trial court’s refusal to enter judgment in favor of appellant on his conversion claim also was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; appellant failed to establish the value of his personal property at the time it was allegedly converted. Judgment affirmed. (Tucker, J., dissenting.) | Lewis | Miami |
8/9/2024
|
8/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3035 |
|
In re L.S.F.
| 2023-CA-44 | The juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody of appellant’s minor child to a children services agency was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Greene |
8/9/2024
|
8/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-3033 |
|
State v. Terry
| 29972 | Appellant’s conviction for operating a vehicle while under the influence was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The evidence established that she drove erratically, struck a guardrail and another vehicle, was belligerent, failed or did not complete field sobriety tests, and exhibited other signs of intoxication. The state trooper did not testify as an expert about damage to appellant’s vehicle; therefore Crim.R. 16 did not apply. Because forensic evaluations found appellant to have been sane at the time of the offenses and competent to stand trial, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding as irrelevant evidence related to prior injuries appellant had suffered. After appellant attempted to subvert the trial court’s ruling by asserting that her belligerent conduct was a result of her prior diagnoses, the State’s limited follow-up questioning did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct. The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s post-trial motion for acquittal, which was based on the trooper’s failure to preserve a bottle of liquor that was in appellant’s car and the receipt for its purchase. Appellant asserted that these items would have been exculpatory based on her claim that she only drank from the bottle after the accident, but she was not charged with an open container violation, and therefore the bottle was not contraband subject to seizure. Defense counsel did not act ineffectively in failing to request a psychological expert. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
8/2/2024
|
8/2/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2935 |
|
State v. Humphrey
| 29879 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s petitions for postconviction relief where he failed to set forth substantive grounds for relief or his claims were barred by res judicata. Judgments affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
8/2/2024
|
8/2/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2934 |
|
State v. Harwell
| 30004 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s second post-conviction application for DNA testing under R.C. 2953.72(A)(7), because his first application was denied due to his failure to satisfy at least one of the criteria in R.C. 2953.74(C). Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
8/2/2024
|
8/2/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2932 |
|
Thiery v. Thiery
| 29936 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding appellant in contempt for failing to pay spousal support. Appellant’s argument that the trial court should not have included his federal disability income in the spousal support calculation was barred by res judicata, because he did not appeal from the final judgment and decree of divorce. The trial court did not violate appellant’s right to due process by ruling on his objections to a magistrate’s decision without waiting for a transcript, when appellant had not paid the requisite deposit for the transcript. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
8/2/2024
|
8/2/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2936 |
|
State v. Stewart
| 2023-CA-59 | State’s appeal. The trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion to return money seized pursuant to a drug offense. Appellee was ordered to pay financial sanctions following his conviction in a separate murder case, and the clerk of courts issued a writ of execution against appellee’s assets to satisfy that judgment. The State was entitled to keep the seized money pursuant to the writ of execution, without seeking forfeiture of the money in the drug offense case. Judgment reversed. | Huffman | Greene |
7/26/2024
|
7/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2831 |
|
T.W. v. D.H.
| 30011 | The trial court did not err in issuing a civil stalking protection order against respondent-appellant. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
7/26/2024
|
7/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2832 |
|
Gulf Equity Invests., L.L.C. v. Clifton
| 2023-CA-74 | Appeal from judgment granting restitution of the premises is moot because appellants have vacated the premises, and appellants have not identified any collateral legal consequences that would preclude application of the doctrine. Appeal dismissed. | Tucker | Clark |
7/26/2024
|
7/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2829 |
|
State v. Snodgrass
| 2023-CA-62 | The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motions to void his conviction and to issue a single judgment entry in compliance with Crim.R. 32(C). Judgments affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
7/26/2024
|
7/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2830 |
|
State v. Wampler
| 29889 | Following the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Patrick, 2020-Ohio-6803, the trial court conducted a resentencing hearing to consider appellant’s youth as a mitigating sentencing factor; he had committed an aggravated murder and other offenses when he was 15 years old. After the hearing, the trial court resentenced appellant to the same sentence it had originally imposed. The transcript of the resentencing hearing contains numerous notations that appellant’s statements were “indiscernible,” indicating that the transcriber could not understand what appellant had said. Appellant asserts that the “indiscernible” notations render the transcript incomplete and prevent appellate review. However, the gist of appellant’s statements to the court can be discerned, despite the indiscernible notations, and his statements did not relate to his youth at the time the offenses were committed. As such, the indiscernible portions of the transcript do not prevent full appellate review, and appellant cannot establish prejudice. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
7/26/2024
|
7/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-2833 |
|