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 244 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Tillman v. Piqua Bd. of Zoning Appeals 2023-CA-3Appellants filed an administrative appeal in the common pleas court contesting an order requiring the demolition of their fire-damaged home, but they did not file a transcript of the administrative hearing. The common pleas court did not err in dismissing the administrative appeal in light of the failure to file a transcript. Moreover, appellants did not seek a stay of the demolition order while they appealed, and the home has been razed. As such, the appeal is moot, because we cannot grant any effective relief to appellants. Appeal dismissed.TuckerMiami 9/22/2023 9/22/2023 2023-Ohio-3385
In re I.C. 2023-CA-1The trial court did not err in conducting a hearing on a collateral matter (appellee’s request for attorney fees) after the parties’ agreed voluntary dismissal of appellant’s action without prejudice. However, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees without stating its basis for awarding the fees or hearing any evidence about the reasonableness or amount of the fees. Judgment reversed with respect to the attorney fee award and remanded for further proceedings. In all other respects, judgment affirmed.HuffmanChampaign 9/22/2023 9/22/2023 2023-Ohio-3387
State v. Cenexant 2023-CA-11Appellant waived all but plain error by failing to object at trial to an interpreter’s qualifications and performance and to the trial court’s supplemental jury instruction. Appellant failed to establish that any error by the trial court affected the outcome of the trial. Judgment affirmed.LewisClark 9/22/2023 9/22/2023 2023-Ohio-3388
State v. Bradfield 29701Appellant’s conviction for disorderly conduct was not supported by sufficient evidence; the State failed to prove that appellant engaged in conduct or created a condition that presented a risk of physical harm to himself or another, or to the property of another, while intoxicated. Judgment vacated.EpleyMontgomery 9/22/2023 9/22/2023 2023-Ohio-3389
State v. Boyle 2023-CA-16The trial court properly denied appellant’s postconviction “Motion Pursuant to Criminal Rule 52(B) Plain Error” because: 1) the plain-error standard under Crim.R. 52(B) is only available on direct appeal, and thus does not apply to appellant’s motion; 2) to the extent that appellant’s motion is a petition for postconviction relief, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion due to its being an untimely and successive petition for postconviction relief; and (3) the doctrine of res judicata barred a majority of the claims raised in the motion. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumGreene 9/22/2023 9/22/2023 2023-Ohio-3390
State v. Ballard 2023-CA-8The trial court did not err in admitting as a court’s exhibit the narrative portion only of the presentence investigation report (“PSI”) of appellant’s co-defendant, which contained a “comprehensive accounting” of appellant’s offenses. Appellant’s PSI lacked information relating to his offenses, and the parties and the court were aware of all the information contained in the co-defendant’s PSI through discovery. Further, the court gave the parties an opportunity to review the exhibit prior to sentencing. Ineffective assistance of counsel is not demonstrated in counsel’s failure to object to the admission of the exhibit. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanChampaign 9/22/2023 9/22/2023 2023-Ohio-3391
State v. Armstrong-Carter 29737The trial court did not err when it found appellant guilty of having weapons while under disability; he had a previous felony drug conviction which prohibited him from having a firearm, and he had had constructive possession of a weapon. In addition, the parties stipulated that there was a transcription error as to the length of appellant’s driver’s license suspension. The court’s actual imposition of a ten-year suspension was not an error. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 9/22/2023 9/22/2023 2023-Ohio-3392
State v. Harris 2022-CA-73The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s motion to withdraw, which was filed the day before trial. The trial court did not commit plain error when it commenced appellant’s jury trial without appellant physically present; appellant invited the Crim.R. 43(A) error when he deliberately refused to leave his cell to attend jury selection, and he was present for the State’s opening statement and the remainder of the trial. Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 9/15/2023 9/15/2023 2023-Ohio-3271
In re S.D.S. 2023-CA-13Appellant, a juvenile, was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing acts which, were he an adult, would have constituted the crimes of felonious assault and aggravated menacing. The State presented sufficient evidence to support the adjudication, and the adjudication was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial or to allow reopening of appellant’s case for the presentation of additional evidence. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMiami 9/15/2023 9/15/2023 2023-Ohio-3273
State v. Irvin 28495The trial court’s misallocation of the burden of proof on appellant’s self-defense claim was not harmless error. Appellant was entitled to a self-defense instruction, and the trial court’s failure correctly to instruct the jury regarding the burden of proof affected a substantial right. Judgment reversed on the murder and felonious assault charges to which the self-defense instruction was relevant, and we remand for a new trial on those offenses. Judgment affirmed as to tampering with evidence.TuckerMontgomery 9/15/2023 9/15/2023 2023-Ohio-3274
Live Joyfully, L.L.C. v. PNC Bank, N.A. 29755The trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff-appellant’s complaint sua sponte without providing prior notice of its intention to dismiss and an opportunity to respond. Judgment reversed and remanded.LewisMontgomery 9/15/2023 9/15/2023 2023-Ohio-3275
State v. Murphy 29559The trial court did not err by failing to suppress a witness’s pretrial identification of appellant where the totality of the circumstances established that the witness’s identification was reliable despite the use of an unduly suggestive identification process. In addition, appellant’s convictions for felony murder with a firearm specification, tampering with evidence, and having weapons while under disability were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. (Tucker, J., concurring.)WelbaumMontgomery 9/15/2023 9/15/2023 2023-Ohio-3276
State v. Pulley 29501The trial court did not err in refusing to provide funds for a false confession expert. The trial court also did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress; appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily spoke with police, and there was no evidence of coercion. The trial court thoroughly explained the dangers associated with appellant’s waiver of assistance of counsel and held many status hearings to discuss appellant’s situation. Moreover, appellant abandoned his request for self-representation by asking standby counsel to assume representation after opening statements were made. The trial court did not commit error in refusing to admit text messages between appellant and the victim’s mother; appellant knew of these texts when they occurred but failed to mention them until the State had nearly finished its case. Further, trial counsel did not act ineffectively by failing to subpoena the victim’s mother or others to authenticate the text messages. Appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in its jury instructions defining “acting recklessly” lacks merit; although the court used an outdated instruction reflecting the law before amendment, the prior law actually imposed a higher burden on the prosecution, and therefore the instruction did not prejudice appellant. The trial court also did not err in refusing to merge two offenses as allied offenses of similar import. The offenses were not allied, as they were committed during separate events and the harm caused was separate and identifiable. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Finally, because no error occurred, there is no basis for finding cumulative error. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 9/15/2023 9/15/2023 2023-Ohio-3277
State v. Sheppeard 2022-CA-69Appellant’s guilty plea to operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The trial court substantially complied with its obligations under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b). The State concedes that the trial court erred in failing to properly impose post-release control and in failing to impose the required mandatory prison term. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.EpleyClark 9/15/2023 9/15/2023 2023-Ohio-3278
State v. Stewart 2022-CA-44Although appellant agreed to forfeit property pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court did not order the forfeiture of appellant’s property. Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law; the sentence fell within the range provided by statute, and the trial court stated in its judgment entry that it had considered the principles and purposes of sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12. The trial court erred in failing to calculate and notify appellant of his jail-time credit. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.LewisClark 9/15/2023 9/15/2023 2023-Ohio-3279
State v. Holbert 29704This court will no longer accept motions to withdraw or briefs filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s Anders brief is rejected on this basis and is stricken from the record. New counsel will be appointed to cause the completion of the record and to prepare a merit brief in accordance with the standards of representation set forth in this decision.Per CuriamMontgomery 9/13/2023 9/15/2023 2023-Ohio-3272
In re C.W. 2023-CA-13The record contains clear and convincing evidence supporting the trial court’s decision to grant a children services agency permanent custody of appellant’s minor child. Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 9/8/2023 9/8/2023 2023-Ohio-3182
In re J.H. 29697Father appeals from the juvenile court’s order which granted the motions of Montgomery County Children’s Services (“MCCS”) for a first and second extension of temporary custody of Father’s children to MCCS, dismissed as moot Father’s emergency motion to prevent the children’s move to Georgia to live with Paternal Grandmother, and denied Father’s motion for legal custody. Because the extensions of temporary custody had expired and the children remained in MCCS’s custody pending disposition of other motions related to their custody, any argument that the juvenile court erred in granting the extensions of temporary custody is moot. The juvenile court reasonably concluded that Father’s argument that the magistrate had erred in failing to hear his emergency motion in a timely manner was also moot. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s motion for legal custody, as he had not completed his case plan objectives. Father did not object in the trial court to the exclusion of exhibits related to a drug screen and his income and therefore waived all but plain error, which is not demonstrated. Judgments affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 9/8/2023 9/8/2023 2023-Ohio-3183
In re Adoption of M.L.K. 29748Father waived his constitutional challenges to R.C. 3107.07(K), which sets forth circumstances in which a parent’s consent to the adoption of his or her biological child is not required, by not raising them in the probate court. He also failed to object within 14 days of the notice of the petition for adoption. The notice of the petition for adoption informed Father of the requirement to file objections, and the language was not misleading. The probate court erred, however, in granting summary judgment in favor of Petitioner on his petition for adoption, because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether or not Father was properly served with notice of the hearing on the petition. Judgment reversed and remanded.HuffmanMontgomery 9/8/2023 9/8/2023 2023-Ohio-3184
State v. Johnson 2023-CA-5The trial court committed plain error by convicting appellant of criminal child enticement in violation of R.C. 2905.05(A), because the Supreme Court of Ohio declared that statute unconstitutional in State v. Romage, 138 Ohio St.3d 390, 2014-Ohio-783, 7 N.E.3d 1156. Judgment vacated.WelbaumGreene 9/8/2023 9/8/2023 2023-Ohio-3185
Nationstar Mtge., L.L.C. v. Anderson 29716The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee-mortgagee on its complaint for foreclosure where there was no genuine issue of material fact that the mortgagee had standing, and the mortgagor had defaulted on the loan. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 9/8/2023 9/8/2023 2023-Ohio-3186
State v. Newman 2023-CA-21The trial court did not err by imposing a judicial sanction as appellant’s arrest for possessing methamphetamine violated the terms of his post-release control. R.C. 2929.141 states that a consecutive 12-month prison term is appropriate for a felony post-release control violation. Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 9/8/2023 9/8/2023 2023-Ohio-3187
State v. Edmonds 29625The State’s request that this court reconsider and overrule State v. Roberts, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26431, 2015-Ohio-2716, is denied. The legal reasoning underlying Roberts is not untenable. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 9/1/2023 9/1/2023 2023-Ohio-3082
Gilliland v. Adams 29732There was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether appellant was denied the full enjoyment of a bank because of sexual harassment by a bank employee. Judgment reversed and remanded.EpleyMontgomery 9/1/2023 9/1/2023 2023-Ohio-3083
In re H.U.J. 29745The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s motion to modify visitation. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 9/1/2023 9/1/2023 2023-Ohio-3084
State v. Stapleton 29736The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress the statements he made to the police. Appellant’s waiver of his Miranda rights was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Appellant’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a competency evaluation relies on evidence outside the record and is not cognizable on direct appeal. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 9/1/2023 9/1/2023 2023-Ohio-3085
State v. Like 29731The trial court did not err in treating appellant’s motion, which was styled as a motion requesting appointed counsel, as a petition for post-conviction relief. Appellant is not entitled to postconviction relief because a post-sentence entry granting jail time credit does not constitute a resentencing. Moreover, appellant did not appeal the jail time credit entry; as such, any challenge to this entry is barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 8/25/2023 8/25/2023 2023-Ohio-2970
Townhouses of Catalpa v. Griffith 29683A condominium unit owner’s appeal from an order granting summary judgment and foreclosure to a condominium association was rendered moot by the owner’s full payment of the underlying judgment while the appeal was pending. Appeal dismissed.LewisMontgomery 8/25/2023 8/25/2023 2023-Ohio-2971
State v. Wood 2022-CA-36The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. The trial court’s findings of fact were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to conduct a lawful traffic stop where the officers had personally observed appellant, with whom they were familiar, driving a vehicle and had verified that appellant did not have a valid driver’s license prior to initiating the traffic stop. Judgment affirmed.LewisClark 8/25/2023 8/25/2023 2023-Ohio-2973
State v. Caupp 29717Appellant’s conviction for aggravated possession of drugs was supported by sufficient evidence. As such, the trial court did not err by overruling appellant’s Crim.R. 29(A) motion for acquittal. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 8/18/2023 8/18/2023 2023-Ohio-2889
Miami Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Powlette 29596The trial court erred by classifying the contempt sanction as civil in nature when it had all the hallmarks of a criminal penalty. The court thus erred in imposing that sanction upon finding that appellant had violated the injunction following a civil contempt hearing. Judgment reversed and remanded.EpleyMontgomery 8/18/2023 8/18/2023 2023-Ohio-2890
State v. Morrow 2023-CA-6The jury’s finding that appellant had obstructed official business and, in doing so, had created a risk of harm to himself or others was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. During a lengthy altercation in the jail, appellant repeatedly kicked the door to his cell and hit the windows after being told not to do so; additionally, after being pepper sprayed, he physically resisted the officers’ attempt to place him in a restraint chair. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to file a nunc pro tunc entry while this appeal was pending to correct a clerical error regarding the imposition of post-release control, but it is not prevented from doing so after this appeal is resolved. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanChampaign 8/18/2023 8/18/2023 2023-Ohio-2891
State v. Six 2023-CA-1Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), having found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. An examination of the record reveals no non-frivolous issues having arguable merit. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumClark 8/18/2023 8/18/2023 2023-Ohio-2892
State v. Stumbo 2022-CA-90The record supported appellant’s future ability to pay a $2,500 fine imposed in connection with his fifth-degree felony conviction for aggravated drug possession. Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 8/18/2023 8/18/2023 2023-Ohio-2893
State v. Tucker 2022-CA-79Appellant’s conviction for operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol (OVI), with a repeat OVI offender specification, was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err in allowing a state trooper to testify that he believed appellant had been intoxicated, in allowing the State to offer a letter written by appellant to the prosecutor approximately a week before trial, and in admitting the State’s exhibits related to appellant’s prior OVI convictions. Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 8/18/2023 8/18/2023 2023-Ohio-2894
State v. Wright 2022-CA-27The trial court erred in part in denying a hearing on appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief. First, the court failed to distinguish between standards that apply to ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal and what is required for simply obtaining a hearing on post-conviction petitions. Contrary to the trial court’s conclusions, a post-conviction petition does not have to definitively establish trial counsel’s deficiency or whether appellant was prejudiced by the deficiency to warrant a hearing. Instead, the petition must be sufficient on its face to raise issues about whether appellant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel, and the claim must depend on factual allegations that cannot be decided by examining the record from the appellant’s trial. In addition, the trial court erred in rejecting various claims on the basis that the same issues were raised on direct appeal. Where matters outside the record are presented, this is not an appropriate basis for rejecting post-conviction petitions. Furthermore, the trial court erred in categorically stating that failure to call an expert and relying instead on cross-examination did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. This is true in direct appeals, where courts are often forced to speculate, as this alone cannot overcome the strong presumption that counsel rendered reasonable assistance. However, in post-conviction situations, courts are able to consider matters outside the record and are, therefore, not confined to speculation. The trial court did not err in rejecting one expert’s affidavit, which did not concern matters outside the record. The court also correctly rejected a claim based on trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress. While this claim did involve matters outside the record, the petition was insufficient on its face as there was no possible basis for suppression. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a hearing on some issues raised in the petition.WelbaumMiami 8/18/2023 8/18/2023 2023-Ohio-2895
England v. 116 W. Main, L.L.C. 2023-CA-19 & 2023-CA-22The status order appealed from is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.04(B)(4) to the extent that it is a preliminary injunction requiring the owner of the Tavern Building in downtown Troy “to take whatever steps necessary to shore-up the exterior brick wall on the north side of the third floor of the Tavern Building.” The preliminary injunction alters the status quo and the Tavern Building’s owner may not recover the potentially significant expense of complying with the injunction if it later is determined to be improvidently granted. The status order is not final to the extent that it enjoins the immediate demolition of the Tavern Building and announces the trial court’s intention to appoint an expert witness to evaluate the condition of the Tavern Building at the parties’ expense. This court’s July 5, 2023, and July 24, 2023, show cause orders are satisfied.Per curiamMiami 8/17/2023 9/1/2023 2023-Ohio-3086
State v. Wood 2022-CA-67The trial court properly overruled appellant’s motion to suppress evidence flowing from a traffic stop. The officer who conducted the traffic stop had reasonable suspicion that warranted investigating appellant for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol (OVI) and probable cause to arrest appellant for OVI. In addition, the trial court did not err by failing to suppress appellant’s blood-alcohol test results where appellant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the delay in refrigerating his blood sample. Appellant’s constitutional right to confrontation was not violated by the admission of a laboratory report containing his blood-alcohol test results where the State presented the laboratory report through the testimony of a forensic toxicologist who had independently reviewed all the testing data, checked the data for errors, and authored the laboratory report. Appellant’s assignments of error challenging his guilty verdict for OVI under R.C. 4511.19(A)(2) as being unconstitutional and his guilty verdict for OVI under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) as being against the manifest weight of the evidence fail because those offenses merged into his OVI conviction under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(b). Judgment affirmed.WelbaumClark 8/11/2023 8/11/2023 2023-Ohio-2788
State v. Wood 2022-CA-57The judgment appealed from is not a final, appealable order, and therefore we lack jurisdiction to review it. Appeal dismissed.WelbaumClark 8/11/2023 8/11/2023 2023-Ohio-2789
Kemps v. Monday Community Corr. Institute 29751Appellant, who slipped and was injured while incarcerated at a community based correctional facility, appeals the trial court’s judgment granting appellees’ motions to dismiss his negligence claim for failure to state a claim. The trial court did not err in concluding that appellees were immune under the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, and no exceptions to immunity applied. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 8/11/2023 8/11/2023 2023-Ohio-2797
State v. Entingh 2022-CA-53Screen-recorded Snapchat videos were properly authenticated at trial where the person who made the screen recording testified that she had used her cell phone to personally view the Snapchat videos near the time they were posted by her friend, screen recorded the Snapchat videos the following day using her cell phone, and positively identified the screen-recorded Snapchat videos at trial. Appellant’s convictions for aggravated vehicular homicide under R.C. 2903.06(A)(1)(a) and aggravated vehicular assault under R.C. 2903.08(A)(1)(a) were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumGreene 8/11/2023 8/11/2023 2023-Ohio-2799
State v. Blackburn 2022-CA-30Appellant appeals from the revocation of community control sanctions (CCS). But, instead of asserting error regarding the CCS revocation, appellant asserts that trial counsel’s ineffective assistance caused his guilty plea in the underlying case to be less than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. This argument is barred by the doctrine of res judicata because it could have been raised on direct appeal of the conviction. Judgment affirmed.TuckerChampaign 8/4/2023 8/4/2023 2023-Ohio-2697
State v. Sankis 29643Based on our independent review of the entire record, including theHuffmanMontgomery 8/4/2023 8/4/2023 2023-Ohio-2698
Tax Ease Ohio IV, L.L.C. v. Unknown Heirs of Payne 29733The trial court did not err in confirming a tax-foreclosure sale of the appellant’s deceased father’s home. The appellant has not identified any abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 8/4/2023 8/4/2023 2023-Ohio-2699
State v. Walter 29614Appellant was convicted of the murder of his mother. The trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress statements he made in a police cruiser on the day of the murder, and we find no basis to revisit our prior holdings governing spontaneous statements by a suspect in custody. The trial court properly admitted evidence of numerous statements by the victim under Evid.R. 803(3) and of appellant’s prior behavior with the victim under Evid.R. 404(B). Appellant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court properly gave a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication and appropriately determined that an instruction on consciousness of guilt was warranted. Although there was error in the wording of the consciousness of guilt instruction, that error was harmless. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 8/4/2023 8/4/2023 2023-Ohio-2700
State v. Walters 29603Appellant, who was charged with murder and felonious assault, filed a motion in limine seeking to introduce evidence of the victim’s alleged prior bad acts to support a claim of self-defense. After viewing surveillance videos of the shooting, the court denied the motion, finding that the videos clearly showed that appellant had not acted in self-defense. Appellant then pled no contest to multiple counts. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion in limine. Trial counsel did not act ineffectively in: (1) failing to timely file a notice of appellant’s intent to argue self-defense; (2) waiving appellant’s appearance at the pretrial conference where the court determined that the self-defense was not viable; (3) failing to object to the court’s viewing of the surveillance videos of the shooting; (4) failing to proffer evidence of the victim’s alleged prior bad acts in support of his claim of self-defense; or (5) advising appellant that his no contest pleas preserved his right to challenge the trial court’s liminal ruling. The court did not err in accepting appellant’s no contest pleas, as they were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences for the 54-month firearm specifications attendant to appellant’s convictions for murder and having weapons while under disability. Judgment affirmed.HuffmanMontgomery 8/4/2023 8/4/2023 2023-Ohio-2701
State v. Arrington 29676The trial court abused its discretion in entering a forfeiture judgment against appellant, a bail bond surety agent. Under R.C. 2937.36(C), production of the body of the defendant on the date or dates specified in the notice of default and adjudication of forfeiture constitutes a showing of good cause why judgment should not be entered against each surety of the defendant. Here, before the show cause hearing occurred, the defendant appeared in court, and entry of a forfeiture judgment when the defendant had appeared prior to the noticed show cause date constituted an abuse of discretion. Judgment reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment and award against appellant.WelbaumMontgomery 7/28/2023 7/28/2023 2023-Ohio-2606
State v. Connelly 29730Appellant failed to establish that the trial court had committed plain error by not merging two offenses at sentencing, where appellant failed to raise the issue in the trial court and did not point to any evidence demonstrating a reasonable probability that his two convictions were for allied offenses of similar import committed with the same conduct and without a separate animus. The fact that appellant smoked marijuana on the same day as the plea hearing was insufficient, by itself, to demonstrate that his guilty pleas were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 7/28/2023 7/28/2023 2023-Ohio-2607
State v. Hunt 2022-CA-84Appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to waive court costs. The decision could have been trial strategy, and appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court would have granted the motion had it been filed. Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 7/28/2023 7/28/2023 2023-Ohio-2608
In re Adoption of A.J.W. 29712The probate court erred by overruling a motion to vacate a judgment of adoption where the biological father had not received notice of the adoption petition and hearing and the petitioners failed to show that they had exercised reasonable diligence in trying to locate the biological father before resorting to notice by publication. Judgment reversed and remanded.LewisMontgomery 7/28/2023 7/28/2023 2023-Ohio-2609