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 269 rows. Rows per page: 
123456
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Bocock 29421Conceded error. The trial court erred in imposing a 36-month sentence after inducing appellant’s guilty pleas with a promise of community control sanctions. Judgment reversed and remanded.DonovanMontgomery 9/23/2022 9/23/2022 2022-Ohio-3344
State v. Everett 29304The trial court imposed a jointly-recommended prison sentence. As such, under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), this court is without jurisdiction to consider appellant’s assignment of error challenging the sentence. Further, based upon the parties’ sentencing agreement, appellant knew that the sentences were not subject to merger. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 9/23/2022 9/23/2022 2022-Ohio-3345
State v. Ford-Delay 29310Appellant’s conviction for possessing drug abuse instruments in violation of R.C. 2925.12(A) was not supported by sufficient evidence, as the State failed to present evidence establishing that appellant used the drug abuse instruments in question to unlawfully administer or use a dangerous drug or to prepare a dangerous drug for unlawful administration or use. Judgment vacated.WelbaumMontgomery 9/23/2022 9/23/2022 2022-Ohio-3346
In re A.L.M. 29472The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded legal custody to the fathers of two minor children, as doing so was in the best interest of the children. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 9/23/2022 9/23/2022 2022-Ohio-3347
In re M.S. 29441The trial court’s judgment awarding legal custody of Father’s children to the children’s paternal grandmother was not an abuse of discretion where the trial court reasonably determined that granting legal custody to paternal grandmother was in the best interest of the children. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 9/23/2022 9/23/2022 2022-Ohio-3348
State v. Jones 29362The trial court did not err by sentencing appellant to prison without making specific findings regarding whether he had rebutted the statutory presumption of incarceration that applies to a conviction for gross sexual imposition (victim under 13). Additionally, the trial court did not err in its analysis of the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 when it sentenced appellant to an aggregate prison term of 60 months. Thus, appellant cannot demonstrate that his sentence was clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 9/23/2022 9/23/2022 2022-Ohio-3349
State v. Patton 29384The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding hearsay testimony objected to by the State during trial. Further, the trial court’s exclusion of the testimony did not affect appellant’s substantial rights because the same testimony was later admitted into evidence. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 9/23/2022 9/23/2022 2022-Ohio-3350
State v. Ward 29282The trial court adequately set forth the basis for revoking appellant’s community control on the record during a revocation hearing. The fact that the plea form underlying appellant’s conviction misidentified the Ohio Revised Code section for felonious assault did not render her three-year prison sentence for felonious assault contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 9/23/2022 9/23/2022 2022-Ohio-3351
State v. Burnette 2021-CA-48Anders appeal. There are no issues with arguable merit to consider on appeal. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumChampaign 9/16/2022 9/16/2022 2022-Ohio-3251
State v. Dearmond 2022-CA-17The trial court erred by failing to specify the total number of days of jail-time credit that appellant had earned as of the date of his sentencing both at the time of sentencing and in the sentencing entry. The trial court’s failure to specify the total number of days of jail-time credit, coupled with the absence of any opportunity for appellant to be heard on that issue, warrants remanding the matter to the trial court so that it can properly address appellant’s jail-time credit. Judgment reversed in part and remanded for the trial court to specify appellant’s total number of days of jail-time credit. In all other respects, judgment affirmed.LewisClark 9/16/2022 9/16/2022 2022-Ohio-3252
State v. Hudson 29333The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to sever charges for trial. The charges were properly joined and the evidence was simple and direct such that no prejudice was demonstrated. The trial court correctly overruled appellant’s motion to suppress his statements because the interview was non-custodial and not coercive. The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress his cell phone contents because the detective had probable cause and exigent circumstances to seize the phone. Lastly, the trial court correctly found that the search warrant for the contents of the phone was valid. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 9/16/2022 9/16/2022 2022-Ohio-3253
In re K.A.W. 2022-CA-32 & 2022-CA-33The trial court’s award of permanent custody of appellants’ two minor children to a children services agency was supported by clear and convincing evidence. Judgment affirmed.TuckerGreene 9/16/2022 9/16/2022 2022-Ohio-3254
Lopez v. Lopez 29368Appellant did not object when the trial court treated custodianship of a 529 college savings plan account as a contested matter, and the trial court did not err in resolving that issue. Appellant’s circumstances caused the court to restrict her parenting time, to require supervised parenting time, and to mandate alcohol testing during the time she spent with her child. In light of the evidence before the court, appellee was an appropriate party to oversee the minor child’s college fund. The trial court also ordered that appellant receive quarterly statements for the account; therefore, she could monitor the account and take action if needed. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 9/16/2022 9/16/2022 2022-Ohio-3255
Mancz v. McHenry 2022-CA-20The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s Civ.R. 60(B)(5) motion based on alleged fraud on the court. The trial court reasonably concluded that the motion was not timely, that the alleged conduct did not constitute a fraud on the court, and that appellant did not demonstrate that he had a meritorious defense. Judgment affirmed.EpleyGreene 9/16/2022 9/16/2022 2022-Ohio-3256
Powlette v. Carlson 29437The trial court correctly granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of appellee-zoning inspector on appellant’s complaint for malicious prosecution. Although appellant’s minor misdemeanor conviction for advertising and operating a bed and breakfast in an agricultural district was reversed on appeal, appellee was entitled to statutory immunity as an employee of a political subdivision and did not act outside the scope of his employment, with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 9/16/2022 9/16/2022 2022-Ohio-3257
Ward v. Humble 29417The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to a landlord on a neighbor’s claims for injuries sustained on the neighbor’s property from a dog owned by the landlord’s tenant where the landlord was not a harborer of the dog and did not have any prior knowledge that the dog was vicious. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 9/16/2022 9/16/2022 2022-Ohio-3258
Waterfront, L.L.C. v. Shia 29377The trial court did not err in enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement that was read and assented to in open court. The trial court also did not err when it awarded attorney fees to appellee as specifically called for in the agreement. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 9/16/2022 9/16/2022 2022-Ohio-3259
State v. Biswa 29383Appellant’s conviction for sexual imposition was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a video-recording showing surveillance footage of the encounter. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 9/9/2022 9/9/2022 2022-Ohio-3156
State v. Dixon 2021-CA-29The trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the inferior-degree offenses of aggravated assault and voluntary manslaughter. The evidence did not reasonably support a finding that appellant shot the victim while acting under the influence of sudden passion or in a fit of rage brought about by serious provocation. The trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury about willful maltreatment by medical personnel as an independent intervening cause of the victim’s death. The record does not reflect that appellant sought such an instruction, which was not warranted by the evidence in any event. The trial court did not err in failing to apply Ohio’s recently-enacted “stand-your-ground” law. The law’s changes to R.C. 2901.09 did not apply retroactively to appellant, who committed her offenses prior to April 6, 2021. The jury’s guilty verdicts for murder and felonious assault were supported by legally sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence. The jury reasonably rejected appellant’s self-defense argument and her claim that gross negligence by medical personnel was an independent intervening cause of the victim’s death. Judgment affirmed.TuckerGreene 9/9/2022 9/9/2022 2022-Ohio-3157
State v. Fleming 2021-CA-61The trial court reasonably concluded that, under the facts of this case, the offenses of escape and obstructing official business were not allied offenses of similar import, and thus were not subject to merger. Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 9/9/2022 9/9/2022 2022-Ohio-3158
State v. Glenn 29235The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not admit into evidence the entire CARE House interview of the victim; the proposed exhibit was not properly authenticated, and portions would have been prohibited by State v. Arnold, 126 Ohio St.3d 290, 2010-Ohio-2742, 933 N.E.2d 775. The trial court did not err by not declaring a mistrial sua sponte as it was not a manifest necessity. Finally, appellant was not denied a fair trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel; he cannot demonstrate that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different but for the alleged deficient performance of trial counsel. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 9/9/2022 9/9/2022 2022-Ohio-3159
State v. Horr 29391The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing jail time for a fourth-degree misdemeanor. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 9/9/2022 9/9/2022 2022-Ohio-3160
In re Adoption of H.L.W.B. 2022-CA-25The trial court did not err by granting appellees’ petition to adopt a child in their care. Appellant-birthmother had had no contact with the child and had failed to provide for his support and maintenance during the year immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petition, without justifiable cause. Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 9/9/2022 9/9/2022 2022-Ohio-3161
State v. Jones 29214The trial court erred in denying appellant’s request to have the jury instructed on a presumption of self-defense under R.C. 2901.05(B). The statutory requirements for the presumption were satisfied by appellant’s trial testimony, and the trial court was required to provide the requested instruction. Judgment reversed and remanded.TuckerMontgomery 9/9/2022 9/9/2022 2022-Ohio-3162
State v. Mize 29135Appellant’s speedy trial rights under R.C. 2941.401 were not violated. Appellant’s guilty plea waived any appealable errors as to his statutory rights, and he failed to demonstrate that he was precluded from entering a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea. Furthermore, the speedy trial right in R.C. 2941.401 was never triggered because appellant failed to make the request for final disposition that the statute requires. Appellant’s constitutional speedy trial rights also were not violated. Even if appellant could assert a claim based on his constitutional right to a speedy trial, the balancing test that applies in evaluating such a claim does not weigh in his favor. Finally, there was no cumulative error that violated appellant’s right to a fair trial. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 9/9/2022 9/9/2022 2022-Ohio-3163
Roberts v. Kauffman 4 Dayton, Ltd. 29412Appellant fell on an ice patch, which caused him serious injury. On this record, the trial court did not err by concluding the icy patch was a natural ice accumulation and, on this basis, granting summary judgment in favor of appellees. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 9/9/2022 9/9/2022 2022-Ohio-3164
State v. Terrell 29408Appellant’s conviction for menacing was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did, however, deprive appellant of her right to allocution under Crim.R. 32(A)(1) during her sentencing hearing. Judgment reversed in part and remanded for a resentencing hearing that complies with Crim.R. 32(A)(1). In all other respects, judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 9/9/2022 9/9/2022 2022-Ohio-3165
State v. Waters 29346The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s pre-sentence, oral motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Appellant’s motion was based on an alleged misunderstanding of whether the two-year agreed sentence was mandatory. The written waiver form plainly stated that the sentence was mandatory, and appellant conceded that he knew there would be a minimum two-year prison sentence at the time he made his guilty pleas. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 9/9/2022 9/9/2022 2022-Ohio-3166
In re B.L. 29440The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding permanent custody of a child to a children services’ agency and terminating appellant’s parental rights. The court’s decision was supported by competent, credible evidence from which it could have formed a firm belief or conviction that the essential statutory elements for a termination of parental rights had been established. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 9/2/2022 9/2/2022 2022-Ohio-3072
State v. Inderrieden 2022-CA-2The trial court did not err in imposing an aggregate minimum prison sentence one month longer than the parties’ jointly-recommended minimum term. At a plea hearing, the trial court informed appellant of the non-binding nature of the parties’ recommendation. Appellant also reviewed and signed a plea form advising him that the trial court was not bound by the parties’ recommendation. Therefore, the trial court’s failure to impose the recommended sentence did not invalidate appellant’s guilty plea. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMiami 9/2/2022 9/2/2022 2022-Ohio-3073
Jones v. Jones 29439The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining an equitable apportionment of the civil settlement proceeds obtained during the parties’ marriage. Specifically, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it divided the amount remaining at the time of the final divorce hearing, or $403,000, instead of the original settlement amount of $750,000. The trial court acted within its discretion in utilizing the date of the final divorce hearing for valuation of the settlement proceeds. However, appellant was entitled to investment earnings accrued over the statutory interest rate, if any, on his portion of the settlement proceeds. The trial court must conduct a hearing to determine whether investment earnings or statutory interest shall be applied. The trial court did not err when it found that appellant was not entitled to an award of attorney fees from appellee’s portion of the settlement proceeds. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.DonovanMontgomery 9/2/2022 9/2/2022 2022-Ohio-3074
Masters v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid 2022-CA-9The trial court correctly dismissed this case based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. R.C. 5160.37 provides an exclusive administrative remedy for resolving disputes over amounts medical assistance recipients must pay the Ohio Department of Medicaid after obtaining a tort recovery from liable third parties. Under the statute, appellants must ask for an administrative hearing to dispute the rebuttable presumption in R.C. 5160.37(G)(2) as to the amount the Department will receive. R.C. 5160.37(N) also allows appellants to appeal to the common pleas court from the administrative decision, and they can raise their “as applied” constitutional challenges during that appeal. R.C. 2323.44(B) does allow declaratory actions to be brought to resolve disputes over the distribution of recoveries in tort actions, “[n]othwithstanding any contract or statutory provision to the contrary.” This statute applies to certain “subrogees” who are defined under R.C. 2323.44(A)(5). However, R.C. 2323.44 does not apply to the Department, which has a right of recovery granted by R.C. 5160.37(A), rather than a traditional subrogation interest, and is not, in any event, a “subrogee” as defined by R.C. 2323.44(A)(5). Judgment affirmed.WelbaumClark 9/2/2022 9/2/2022 2022-Ohio-3075
State v. McNichols 2021-CA-52Appellant’s sentence was not contrary to law, and the trial court made the necessary findings to impose consecutive sentences. Judgment affirmed.DonovanClark 9/2/2022 9/2/2022 2022-Ohio-3076
State v. Miller 2021-CA-33The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The trial court engaged in the appropriate consecutive sentencing analysis and made the requisite findings in support of consecutive sentences, both at the sentencing hearing and in its judgment entry. Further, the trial court’s findings made in support of the consecutive sentences were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgment affirmed.LewisChampaign 9/2/2022 9/2/2022 2022-Ohio-3077
State v. Muhire 29164The trial court’s denial of appellant’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea was not an abuse of discretion. Appellant failed to prove the existence of a manifest injustice warranting the withdrawal of his plea, as the testimony presented at the hearing on appellant’s motion established that: (1) there was no language barrier that prevented appellant from entering a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty plea to assault; and (2) appellant’s counsel advised appellant of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea and did not perform deficiently in that regard. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 9/2/2022 9/2/2022 2022-Ohio-3078
State v. Sutherland 2021-CA-16The trial court did not err by denying appellant’s mistrial motion after it was discovered that unadmitted material inadvertently was in the possession of the jury during deliberations. The error in sending the exhibit to the jury was harmless as appellant was not prejudiced by it. It was not reversible error that the trial court failed to preserve the jury question and the court’s response to it, because appellant assented to the response and was not prejudiced by the lack of the original. Appellant’s conviction for rape in Count 2 was supported by sufficient evidence. His conviction for rape in Count 1 was not supported by sufficient evidence and will be vacated, but there was sufficient evidence for a conviction on the lesser-included offense of gross sexual imposition on Count 1. Judgment affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for the trial court to modify its judgment entry.EpleyDarke 9/2/2022 9/2/2022 2022-Ohio-3079
Wilkes v. Wilkes 29456The trial court’s contempt ruling was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, as appellant did not comply with the court’s order to give appellee parenting time on Thanksgiving and Martin Luther King Day. Judgment affirmed.EpleyMontgomery 9/2/2022 9/2/2022 2022-Ohio-3080
State v. Woodard 29110Appellant’s claim that he was denied the right to a speedy trial lacks merit because he filed a time waiver before his speedy trial time expired. Appellant’s felonious assault and abduction offenses were not subject to merger as allied offenses of similar import because the offenses were committed separately and involved separate, identifiable harms. A jury instruction on aggravated assault as an inferior-degree offense to felonious assault was not warranted because there was no evidence of serious provocation presented at trial. Additionally, appellant failed to establish that the substitution of the trial court judge during his trial and sentencing amounted to plain error that warranted a reversal of his conviction. Appellant also failed to establish that he was prejudiced by having new defense counsel appointed to him for purposes of sentencing. Lastly, appellant’s various ineffective assistance of counsel claims lack merit because appellant failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 9/2/2022 9/2/2022 2022-Ohio-3081
Bass v. Bass 29303The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that both parties had received all of the property to which they were entitled pursuant to their divorce decree. The court’s decision was supported by the evidence, and we defer to the trial court’s finding that appellee was more credible than appellant. Judgment affirmed.LewisMontgomery 8/26/2022 8/26/2022 2022-Ohio-2970
State v. Cecil 2021-CA-39After conducting an independent review of the record as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), the court finds there are no issues with arguable merit for appeal. The trial court did not err when it sentenced appellant to a prison term of four years each on two counts of possession of drugs and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMiami 8/26/2022 8/26/2022 2022-Ohio-2971
State v. Degahson 2021-CA-35The trial court did not err when it denied appellant’s request to instruct the jury on the updated “stand your ground” law, because the change in the law was substantive and thus could not be applied retroactively. Further, appellant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.EpleyClark 8/26/2022 8/26/2022 2022-Ohio-2972
State v. Gardner 2022-CA-2Anders appeal. After the trial court denied her motion for intervention in lieu of conviction and concluded that she was both competent to stand trial and sane when the offense occurred, appellant pled guilty to aggravated possession of drugs. The trial court imposed community control sanctions. Our independent review of the record reveals no issues with arguable merit to present on appeal. Judgment affirmed. However, the matter is remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry to remove the notification that appellant can be sentenced to 180 days in prison for a technical violation of community control.EpleyGreene 8/26/2022 8/26/2022 2022-Ohio-2973
State v. Stevens 2021-CA-40The trial court did not promise to follow the parties’ joint sentencing recommendation of concurrent sentences. Therefore, the imposition of consecutive sentences did not render appellant’s guilty pleas less than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. We do not find by clear and convincing evidence that the record fails to support the trial court’s consecutive sentence findings. Judgment affirmed.LewisMiami 8/26/2022 8/26/2022 2022-Ohio-2974
Wright v. Suttles 2022-CA-33Appellant did not affirmatively show that the trial court failed to conduct an independent review of the magistrate’s decision. Further, appellant waived any improper venue defense by failing to raise the defense in his answer and by admitting the allegation in the complaint that he lived in Clark County. Judgment affirmed.LewisClark 8/26/2022 8/26/2022 2022-Ohio-2975
State v. Boyle 2022-CA-19The trial court did not err in categorizing appellant’s motion as a petition for post-conviction relief and denying it on the basis that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the untimely petition. Alternatively, the trial court did not err in considering appellant’s motion as a request for public records and denying it due to appellant’s failure to demonstrate the information he sought was necessary to support a justiciable claim or defense. Lastly, in construing a portion of appellant’s motion as a request for court records, the trial court properly instructed appellant as to how to correctly request those records. Judgment affirmed.LewisGreene 8/19/2022 8/19/2022 2022-Ohio-2887
State v. Dennis 29266The trial court did not err when it allowed testimony that appellant had been seen the night before the murder with a gun matching the description of the murder weapon. Additionally, appellant’s murder conviction was supported by the weight of the evidence. Finally, appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. Judgment affirmed. (Donovan, J., concurring.) (Tucker, P.J., concurring.)EpleyMontgomery 8/19/2022 8/19/2022 2022-Ohio-2888
State v. Eggleston 2021-CA-36Anders appeal. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 496 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious issues to present on appeal. Neither the appellant nor his counsel has raised any potential assignments of error having arguable merit for our review. After conducting an independent review of the record, we agree there are no issues with arguable merit for appeal. Judgment affirmed.TuckerChampaign 8/19/2022 8/19/2022 2022-Ohio-2889
State v. Evans 2021-CA-70Based on our independent review of the entire record, including the brief filed by appellant’s counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), there are no arguably meritorious appellate issues. Judgment affirmed.LewisClark 8/19/2022 8/19/2022 2022-Ohio-2890
Haile v. Detmer Sons, Inc. 29371The trial court abused its discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing or conducting an in camera review prior to granting the appellees’ motion to compel disclosure of the entire file of appellants’ consulting, non-testifying expert. Judgment reversed and remanded.LewisMontgomery 8/19/2022 8/19/2022 2022-Ohio-2891
State v. Jennings 29360Appellant’s convictions for cruelty against a companion animal and depriving a companion animal of necessary sustenance were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 8/19/2022 8/19/2022 2022-Ohio-2892
123456