|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Smith
| 1-24-53 | Engaging in a Pattern of Corrupt Activity; R.C. 2923.32; Sufficiency of the evidence; Proof of "association with an enterprise"; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Consecutive sentences; Speedy trial; R.C. 2945.71; Crim.R. 45. The judgment of conviction and sentence entered in the trial court is affirmed. | Waldick | Allen |
8/18/2025
|
8/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2939 |
|
State v. Austin
| 1-24-66 | Mandatory prison time; Firearm specification. Pursuant to State v. Logan, 2025-Ohio-1772, the trial court did not err in imposing a mandatory prison term for a felony conviction that has a corresponding firearm specification. | Waldick | Allen |
8/18/2025
|
8/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2940 |
|
State v. Pitts
| 1-24-72 | Post-release control; R.C. 2929.141(A); Presentence Motion to Withdraw. Defendant-appellant failed to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the prison term the trial court imposed for his violation of post-release control supervision was not reduced by the prison term administratively imposed by the parole board. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-appellant's presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. | Miller | Allen |
8/18/2025
|
8/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2941 |
|
State v. Foster
| 1-25-01 | Supplemental Discovery; Motion to Compel Discovery; Motion to Quash Subpoena; Crim.R.17(C); Motion to Continue; Motion in Limine; Waiver; No Contest Plea. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by partially granting the State's motion to quash the defendant-appellant’s subpoenas because he failed to satisfy the requirements for their issuance. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-appellant’s supplementary discovery request and motion to compel because his claims were speculative and he failed to demonstrate that the evidence was material. Based on the determination that the defendant-appellant was not entitled to the supplemental discovery, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to continue trial. The defendant-appellant waived his right to appeal the trial court's decision on his motion in limine regarding other-acts evidence by entering a no contest plea. | Zimmerman | Allen |
8/18/2025
|
8/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2942 |
|
State v. Richard
| 9-24-62 | Postconviction Relief; Res Judicata; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Res judicata can operate to bar claims in a petition for postconviction relief where the claims could have been raised on direct appeal. However, res judcata does not bar a petition for postconviction relief if the petition had the same attorney at trial and on direct appeal or if the petitioner must rely on evidence outside the trial record to establish his claim. Appellate courts review a decision to deny a petition for postconviction relief under an abuse of discretion standard. | Willamowski | Marion |
8/18/2025
|
8/18/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2943 |
|
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Ohio Logistics, Ltd.
| 13-25-05 | Personal Jurisdiction; R.C. 2307.382; Civ. R. 4.3; Minimum Contacts. Trial court did not err by dismissing complaint against two of eight defendants where insurance company did not establish personal jurisdiction over two out-of-state defendants in Ohio. | Waldick | Seneca |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2830 |
|
Basford v. Butler
| 9-24-64 | Summary Judgment; Unjust Enrichment; Promissory Estoppel. The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee and dismissing defendant-appellant’s counterclaims. The defendant-appellant failed to meet his burden to produce evidence to show that a genuine issue of material fact remains for trial. When viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the defendant-appellant, reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the defendant-appellant. The evidence shows that plaintiff-appellant was not unjustly enriched by the work performed and improvements made to her property when the defendant-appellant lived rent free on the property for 20 years and was able to enjoy the improvements himself. The evidence further shows that the parties agreed that the plaintiff-appellee would provide the materials for the maintenance and improvements to the property, and the defendant-appellant would provide the labor. | Zimmerman | Marion |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2829 |
|
State v. Mollett
| 1-24-35 | Felonious Assault; R.C. 2903.11(A)(2); Jury Instructions; Harmless Error; R.C. 2929.19(B)(2); Proportionate Consecutive Sentences. Any error in the jury instructions concerning the "knowingly" element of felonious assault was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court failed to provide all the required notifications under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2) when it imposed indefinite sentences. The record does not clearly and convincingly fail to support the trial court's consecutive sentence findings. | Miller | Allen |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2826 |
|
State v. Caldwell
| 3-24-17 | Venue; Text Messages; R.C. 2945.75; Verdict Forms. Venue in Crawford County was properly established when the State established a significant nexus with the jurisdiction in which it was tried. The verdict forms did not properly identify the level of the offense or the elevating factors which would raise the level of the offense. As such, the defendant can only be found guilty of the least degree of the offense charged. | Willamowski | Crawford |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2827 |
|
Hubbard v. Hubbard
| 4-24-27 | Prenuptial Agreement; Overreaching; Spousal Support Waiver; Mootness. In addition to the general requirements for contracts, prenuptial agreements must satisfy three additional "special conditions." The prenuptial agreement (1) must be entered into freely and cannot be the product of fraud, duress, coercion, or overreaching; (2) must be accompanied by full disclosure or full understanding of the parties' assets; and (3) does not encourage or profit from divorce. Before a spousal support waiver in a prenuptial agreement can be enforced, the trial court must examine the conscionability of the provision at the time of the divorce. | Willamowski | Defiance |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2828 |
|
State v. Sowards
| 14-24-43 | Ineffective Assistance. Appellant did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel in bench trial on domestic violence charge. | Waldick | Union |
8/11/2025
|
8/11/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2831 |
|
In re X.F.
| 5-25-01 | Juvenile Adjudication; Sufficiency; Manifest Weight; Allied Offenses; Juvenile Disposition; R.C. 2152.01. The adjudicated delinquent child-appellant’s kidnapping delinquency adjudication is based on sufficient evidence and the adjudicated delinquent child-appellant’s kidnapping and rape adjudications are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by failing to merge the adjudicated delinquent child-appellant’s kidnapping and rape convictions. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by committing the adjudicated delinquent child-appellant to the legal care and custody of the Department of Youth Services for a minimum period of two years and a maximum period not to exceed his attainment of 21 years of age as to each of his rape adjudications. | Zimmerman | Hancock |
8/4/2025
|
8/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2730 |
|
State v. Allen
| 1-23-73 | Sufficiency of Evidence; Manifest weight; Aggravated Robbery; Firearm Specification. Defendant-appellant’s convictions for aggravated robbery and its attendant firearm specification are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Miller | Allen |
8/4/2025
|
8/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2728 |
|
State v. Bowman
| 1-24-47 | Admission and Exclusion of Evidence at Trial; Witness Vouching; Evid.R. 701; Harmless Error. Even if the case worker's testimony constituted improper witness vouching, any such error was harmless because the victim testified at trial and was available for cross-examination. | Zimmerman | Allen |
8/4/2025
|
8/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2729 |
|
State v. Stinson
| 9-24-37 | Brady Violations; Sanctions; Dismissing Criminal Indictment; Double Jeopardy. The trial court erred in deciding that the State committed a Brady violation. The trial court erred in deciding to dismiss the case on the basis of double jeopardy. The sanctions imposed by the trial court must be vacated. | Miller | Marion |
8/4/2025
|
8/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2731 |
|
State v. Toney
| 13-24-43 | Pre-indictment delay; ineffective assistance of counsel; manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court did not err in finding no actual prejudice due to pre-indictment delay when appellant provided no specific claims of prejudice. Counsel was not ineffective for not providing evidence of prejudice resulting from delay when appellant points to no specific instances of prejudice. Verdict that appellant was guilty of involuntary manslaughter is not against the manifest weight of the evidence when the testimony shows defendant sold the victim the drugs which resulted in her death. | Willamowski | Seneca |
8/4/2025
|
8/4/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2732 |
|
State v. Pullom
| 13-24-35 | R.C. 2937.29; R.C. 2937.99; FAILURE TO APPEAR; RECKLESSLY; CRIM.R. 29 MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL AT CLOSE OF STATE’S CASE-IN-CHIEF; SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE; MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; ABUSE OF DISCRETION; FELONY SENTENCING; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. To prove failure to appear, the State must show that the defendant-appellant was released on his own recognizance, and recklessly failed to appear as required by the court. The State presented sufficient evidence during its case-in-chief to support the defendant-appellant’s failure-to-appear conviction, and the trial court did not err by denying the defendant-appellant’s Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal. The defendant-appellant’s failure-to-appear conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The defendant-appellant testified on direct examination that he was not notified of the hearing date. By voluntarily testifying on the subject of notice, the defendant-appellant waived the attorney-client privilege and opened the door for the State to cross-examine him on whether his trial counsel notified him of the hearing date. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to cross-examine the defendant-appellant accordingly. The defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law because the sentence is within the permissible statutory range and the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. | Zimmerman | Seneca |
7/28/2025
|
7/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2640 |
|
State v. Shurelds
| 1-24-39 | SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE; MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; AGGRAVATED BURGLARY; R.C. 2911.11(A)(1); TRESPASS. The defendant-appellant’s aggravated-burglary conviction is based on sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The State presented sufficient evidence to show that the defendant-appellant did not have permission to enter the home on the morning of the incident and that the defendant-appellant was a trespasser. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that the defendant-appellant did not have permission to enter the home on the morning of the incident. | Zimmerman | Allen |
7/28/2025
|
7/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2638 |
|
State v. Nicholson
| 5-24-24 | EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES; EVID.R. 609(B); REVERSIBLE ERROR; SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE. The trial court committed reversible error when it admitted evidence of defendant-appellant’s prior convictions—wherein more than ten years has elapsed since the date of each conviction, the release from confinement, or the termination of community control sanctions—without first making a determination as required under Evid.R. 609(B). The defendant-appellant was materially prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to make a determination as required under Evid.R. 609(B) because he was denied a fair trial. The State presented sufficient evidence during its case-in-chief to support a possession-of-cocaine conviction such that remand for a new trial is warranted. | Zimmerman | Hancock |
7/28/2025
|
7/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2639 |
|
In re K.S.
| 15-25-01 | Delinquency; Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Disposition Entry Inconsistent. The finding of delinquency was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. The judgment entry was inconsistent with what was stated at the hearing. As a result, the matter needs to be remanded. | Willamowski | Van Wert |
7/28/2025
|
7/28/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2641 |
|
In re Estate of Means v. Means
| 14-24-47 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ESTATE SETTLEMENT; WILL VALIDITY; UNDUE INFLUENCE; FRAUD, FAKE, FORGERY; R.C. 2109.50; WRONGFUL CONCEALMENT, EMBEZZLEMENT, WRONGFUL CONCEALMENT, EMBEZZLEMENT, CONVEYANCE OF ESTATE ASSETS. The probate court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellee on two key claims: first, his claim challenging the validity of the 2020 will on the grounds of undue influence, and second, his claim that the defendants-appellants wrongfully concealed, embezzled, or conveyed estate assets under R.C. 2109.50. | Zimmerman | Union |
7/21/2025
|
7/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2564 |
|
In re A.W.
| 5-24-30 | Legal Custody; Reasonable Efforts. The trial court did not err by finding that the Agency made reasonable efforts to avoid the continued removal of the child from appellant's home. | Miller | Hancock |
7/21/2025
|
7/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2563 |
|
State v. Carpenter
| 1-24-64 | Voluntariness of guilty plea; Crim.R. 11; Felony sentencing review; R.C. 2953.08; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. The record did not demonstrate that the defendant-appellant's guilty plea was involuntary as the result of coercion and the prison sentence imposed by the trial court was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Waldick | Allen |
7/21/2025
|
7/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2561 |
|
McCreary v. Taylor Cadillac, Inc.
| 1-24-67 | Arbitration Agreement; Motion to Compel Arbitration; Scope of Arbitration Agreement; Nonsignatories. Ohio law generally favors arbitration as a means to increase the efficiency of dispute resolution. A party generally cannot be compelled to submit to arbitration unless that party has agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration. An arbitration agreement may be incorporated into a contract by reference. For the doctrine of incorporation by reference to apply, the contract must clearly indicate that the separate arbitration agreement is incorporated. Further, a party cannot be required to submit a claim to arbitration if that claim falls outside of the scope of the arbitration agreement. In determining the scope of the arbitration agreement, courts look to the language of the relevant contractual provisions. If an action over the claim could be maintained without reference to the contract at issue, then the claim may fall outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. | Willamowski | Allen |
7/21/2025
|
7/21/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2562 |
|
State v. Hayes
| 1-24-42 | Motion to Suppress Evidence. The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant's motion to suppress evidence. | Miller | Allen |
7/14/2025
|
7/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2483 |
|
State v. Risch
| 2-24-04 | Cumulative Error. Attempted gross sexual imposition ("GSI") is not an enhancing offense under the plain language of R.C. 2907.05(C)(2). Prior GSI convictions improperly were presented to the jury. The errors deprived defendant of a fair trial. | Waldick | Auglaize |
7/14/2025
|
7/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2484 |
|
State v. Sutton
| 13-24-12 | Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant's petition for postconviction relief without a hearing. | Miller | Seneca |
7/14/2025
|
7/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2487 |
|
State v. Sims
| 13-24-31 | Consecutive Sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); Proportionality Finding; Necessity Finding. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), appellate courts have the authority to reverse, vacate, or modify a sentence if the required consecutive sentence findings listed in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) are clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. | Willamowski | Seneca |
7/14/2025
|
7/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2488 |
|
State v. Lewis
| 9-24-52 | Drug Trafficking; R.C. 2925.03(A). Defendant-appellant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Miller | Marion |
7/14/2025
|
7/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2486 |
|
State v. Bell
| 14-24-30 | Felony Sentencing; R.C. 2929.12; Consecutive Sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The record shows the trial court considered the statutory factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12 in sentencing defendant-appellant. However, the trial court did not verbally state all of the findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing concerning consecutive sentencing, so the consecutive sentences with respect to the prison terms for two of the offenses are vacated and the case is remanded for the limited purpose of resentencing defendant-appellant only with respect to the issue of whether those two sentences should be served consecutively. Defendant-appellant's convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Miller | Union |
7/14/2025
|
7/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2489 |
|
State v. Hughes
| 14-24-38 | Felony Sentencing; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; Consecutive Sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c). Defendant-appellant's prison sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. The trial court's decision to run the sentences for the convictions consecutively was not contrary to law. | Miller | Union |
7/14/2025
|
7/14/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2490 |
|
State v. Perkins
| 16-24-11 | Felonious assault; aggravated assault; jury instruction on inferior degree offense. The trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on the inferior degree offense of aggravated assault in a trial where the defendant-appellant was charged with felonious assault. | Waldick | Wyandot |
7/7/2025
|
7/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2390 |
|
State v. Topp
| 7-24-11 | R.C. 2913.61; Aggregation of theft offenses; Sufficiency of indictment. As the prosecution failed to allege in the indictment, or otherwise provide notice, of its intention to aggregate multiple theft offenses into a single count for purposes of establishing the value alleged in the indictment, the prosecution failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2913.61 and reversible error occurred in trying the offenses at issue as a single offense. | Waldick | Henry |
7/7/2025
|
7/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2388 |
|
State v. Yelton
| 17-24-11 | Sufficiency of the evidence; Manifest weight of the evidence; Resisting Arrest; Violating Protection Order; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Closing Arguments; Plain error. The judgment of conviction and sentence entered against the defendant-appellant is affirmed. | Waldick | Shelby |
7/7/2025
|
7/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2391 |
|
State v. Selhorst
| 17-24-13 | R.C. 2953.08(D)(1); Felony Sentencing; Consecutive Sentences. Under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), a sentence is not subject to appellate review where the trial court imposed a jointly recommended sentence that was authorized by law. "Authorized by law" means that a sentence comports with all of the mandatory sentencing provisions. If the imposition of consecutive sentences is discretionary pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and a sentence is jointly recommended, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) prevents review of the imposition of consecutive sentences. | Willamowski | Shelby |
7/7/2025
|
7/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2392 |
|
State v. Richmond
| 17-24-15 | Felony sentencing review; R.C. 2953.08; Consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The consecutive prison sentences imposed by the trial court were not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Waldick | Shelby |
7/7/2025
|
7/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2393 |
|
State v. Kendall
| 17-24-17 | Sentencing; Competency. Maximum sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. Appellant did not demonstrate that he was incompetent such that his counsel was ineffective for failing to request an evaluation. | Waldick | Shelby |
7/7/2025
|
7/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2394 |
|
Lunar Lagoons, L.L.C. v. Stephens
| 10-24-11 | Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; Pre-judgment interest; R.C. 1343.03; Consumer Sales Practices Act ("CSPA"); Home Solicitation Sales Act ("HSSA"); Attorney fees; R.C. 1345.09(F). The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to plaintiff-appellee on the issue of defendant-appellant's liability, nor did the trial court err in finding that defendant-appellant's counterclaim under the CSPA and HSSA was groundless and brought in bad faith, justifying an award of attorney fees to plaintiff-appellee pursuant to R.C. 1345.09(F). However, the trial court did err in the sum of damages awarded to plaintiff-appellee. | Waldick | Mercer |
7/7/2025
|
7/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2389 |
|
State v. Glaeser
| 3-24-03 | Manifest Weight; Sufficient Evidence; Rebuttal Witness; Cross-Examination; Simple and Direct Test; Other Acts Test. Crim.R. 13 permits two or more indictments to be tried together if the offenses could have been joined in a single indictment. Crim.R. 8 describes the standards for deciding whether charges can be joined in a single indictment. However, if joinder of the indictments would prejudice the defendant, joinder is not permissible. Prejudice is determined by application of the simple and direct test or the other acts test. Prejudice cannot be demonstrated under the simple and direct test where the offenses are simple and direct such that the jury would be capable of segregating the proof required for each offense. Prejudice cannot be demonstrated under the other acts test if the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible as other acts evidence pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B). These tests are disjunctive. | Willamowski | Crawford |
7/7/2025
|
7/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2386 |
|
State v. Eckenrode
| 3-25-01 | Manifest Weight; Prosecutorial Misconduct; Hearsay. Conviction for Domestic Violence was not against the weight of the evidence. Appellant did not establish plain error related to prosecutor's closing arguments. | Waldick | Crawford |
7/7/2025
|
7/7/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2387 |
|
State v. Poth
| 3-24-08 | Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a); Plea Colloquy. Defendant-appellant did not show he was prejudiced by the trial court's alleged failure to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a), so he is not entitled to have his guilty plea vacated for the alleged failure to comply. | Miller | Crawford |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2294 |
|
State v. Woods
| 3-24-31 | Jail Uniform; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Although the best practice is to place on the record an explanation for why a defendant is appearing in the jail uniform for trial, the failure to do so is not reversible error. Counsel was not ineffective for allowing the defendant to wear the jail uniform because a review of the evidence shows that the overwhelming weight of the evidence supported conviction. As a result, the outcome of the trial was unlikely to be different if the defendant was wearing street clothes rather than the jail uniform. | Willamowski | Crawford |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2295 |
|
State v. Wilson
| 6-24-12 | KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY PLEA; CRIM.R. 11; R.C. 2941.25; MERGER. The defendant-appellant’s guilty pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The trial court strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) and advised the defendant-appellant of the privilege against self-incrimination prior to accepting her guilty pleas. The trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b) when it informed the defendant-appellant of and determined that she understood the effect of her guilty pleas. The trial court erred by not merging the defendant-appellant’s convictions for strangulation and domestic violence as allied offenses of similar import. | Zimmerman | Hardin |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2296 |
|
In re G.D.S.
| 7-24-10 | ABUSE OF DISCRETION; TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by adopting the magistrate’s decision. In ruling on the appellant’s objections to the magistrate’s decision, the juvenile court properly relied on the magistrate’s factual findings in the absence of a transcript of the proceedings before the magistrate for review. | Zimmerman | Henry |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2297 |
|
State v. Seffernick
| 1-24-41 | CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); MANDATORY PRISON TERMS FOR UNDERLYING FELONY OFFENSES WITH FIREARM SPECIFICATIONS; R.C. 2929.13(F)(8). The trial court made the appropriate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings necessary to impose consecutive sentences and the record supports the trial court’s findings. The trial court correctly applied R.C. 2929.13(F)(8) and imposed mandatory prison terms on the underlying felonious-assault offenses that included firearm specifications. | Zimmerman | Allen |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2292 |
|
State v. Worthen
| 1-24-71 | Obstructing Official Business; R.C. 2921.31(A); No-Contest Plea; Explanation of the Circumstances; Crim.R. 11(E). Defendant-appellant's conviction for obstructing official business, following his no-contest plea, was supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court did not fail to comply with the relevant provision of Crim.R. 11 in accepting defendant-appellant's no-contest plea. The trial court did not err by imposing both jail time and a fine for a misdemeanor. | Miller | Allen |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2293 |
|
In re A.B.
| 10-24-08 | Permanent Custody; Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Legal Custody. Trial court's decision to grant the Agency's motion for permanent custody was not against the weight of the evidence when the child had been in the temporary custody of the Agency for more than 12 out of a consecutive 22 month period and the evidence showed it was in the child's best interest. Trial court did not err in denying the motion to grant legal custody to the paternal grandmother when the foster family, who wished to adopt were maternal relatives. | Willamowski | Mercer |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2298 |
|
Frankart v. Phillips
| 13-24-36 | CHILD CUSTODY; PARENT-NONPARENT CUSTODY DISPUTE; LEGAL CUSTODY; R.C. 2151.23(A)(2); PARENTAL FITNESS AND SUITABILITY; DETRIMENT TO THE CHILD; WELFARE OF THE CHILD. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the grandfather’s motion for legal custody and by designating the mother as the child’s residential parent and legal custodian. | Waldick | Seneca |
6/30/2025
|
6/30/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2299 |
|
State v. Baker
| 13-24-42 | NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY DEFENSE; MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; WITNESS CREDIBILITY; COMPETING EXPERTS; INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; CALLING A WITNESS TO TESTIFY. The defendant-appellant’s aggravated murder and kidnapping convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the jury did not lose its way in concluding that the defendant-appellant was capable of understanding the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the offenses at issue in this case. The defendant-appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call his treating physician to testify at trial. | Zimmerman | Seneca |
6/16/2025
|
6/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2107 |
|
State v. Smith
| 8-24-26; 8-24-27 | Because the defendant-appellant failed to assign any error as to case number CR23 07 0173, assigned appellate case number 8-24-26, or case number CR23 09 0211, assigned appellate case number 8-24-27, those appellate cases were dismissed. | Zimmerman | Logan |
6/16/2025
|
6/16/2025
| 2025-Ohio-2104 |
|