Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

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 103 rows. Rows per page: 
123
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Baucom L-21-1108 & L-21-1109Plea agreement. Assistance of counsel.DuhartLucas 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 2022-Ohio-2284
State v. Brown WD-21-060Appellant’s due process rights were not violated because he was properly served with notice of the alleged community control violation before his term of community control expired. Thus, the trial court had authority to conduct proceedings on the alleged community control violation after appellant’s term of community control was originally set to expire.MayleWood 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 2022-Ohio-2285
State v. Covey L-21-1043Appellant’s trespass conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and was supported by sufficient evidence. Judgement affirmed.OsowikLucas 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 2022-Ohio-2286
State v. Gumm E-21-044Reversing trial court’s acceptance of guilty plea on grounds that the defendant did not have the information needed to make a voluntary and intelligent decision whether to enter a plea.PietrykowskiErie 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 2022-Ohio-2287
State v. Lorenzen OT-21-033The trial courts imposition of consecutive sentences was clearly and convincingly supported by the record, and its imposition of maximum individual sentences was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.DuhartOttawa 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 2022-Ohio-2288
State ex rel. Saalim v. Lucas Cty. Sheriff's Office L-21-1135Petition for writ of mandamus dismissed as moot where requested documents have been produced. Relator not entitled to attorney fees or court costs where the court does not enter an order compelling respondent to comply with R.C. 149.43(B), and where relator does not demonstrate that respondent acted in bad faithPietrykowskiLucas 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 2022-Ohio-2290
State v. Mathis L-21-1184Judgment affirmed where appellant waived issue of preindictment delay by failing to file motion prior to trial or raise as error in initial appeal, motion lacked evidentiary support, and trial counsel was not ineffective in arguing the motion to dismiss.ZmudaLucas 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 2022-Ohio-2291
McKinzie v. Fry L-21-1188While magistrate misapplied Ohio Supreme Court’s March 27, 2020 Covid-19 tolling order and Am. Sub. H.B. 197 to extend one-year period within which mother could bring action to rescind acknowledgment of paternity under R.C. 3111.28, trial court did not. Trial court reviewed magistrate’s decision, recognized the error, and instead relied on Civ.R. 60(B)(5) to vacate judgment of paternity.MayleLucas 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 2022-Ohio-2292
State v. Palmer OT-21-034The appellate court will not second-guess the trial court’s weighing of factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.MayleOttawa 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 2022-Ohio-2293
State v. Szozda L-21-1026Trial court did not err in sentencing appellant on one count of aggravated vehicular homicide, in violation of R.C. 2903.06. Appellant’s argument on appeal is contrary to the Ohio Supreme Court ruling in State v. Jones 163 Ohio St.3d 649, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 242, and the doctrine of stare decisis. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) is not unconstitutional as applied to appellant. Judgment affirmed.OsowikLucas 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 2022-Ohio-2294
State v. Woods L-21-1166 & L-21-1167Appellant fails to identify evidence of trial court's error. Alleged error committed by adult parole authority not reviewable on direct appeal. Judgment affirmed.ZmudaLucas 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 2022-Ohio-2295
State ex rel. Ahreshien v. Boros L-22-1140Petition for writ of mandamus/prohibition dismissed as fatally defective where relator, a pro se inmate, does not include a certified statement from the institutional cashier as required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) and 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 7(A).PietrykowskiLucas 6/29/2022 6/29/2022 2022-Ohio-2234
State ex rel. Ahreshien v. Boros L-22-1142Petition for writ of mandamus/prohibition dismissed as fatally defective where relator, a pro se inmate, does not include an affidavit of indigency or a certified statement from the institutional cashier as required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) and 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 7(A).PietrykowskiLucas 6/29/2022 6/29/2022 2022-Ohio-2235
State ex rel. Tingler v. VanEerten OT-22-029Petition for writ of mandamus compelling prosecutor to seek an indictment against a person is sua sponte dismissed where the petition does not provide or allege any specific facts of the person’s alleged criminal activity, and is based entirely on relator’s own naked allegation that the person committed a crime.PietrykowskiOttawa 6/29/2022 6/29/2022 2022-Ohio-2236
State ex rel. Tingler v. Howe-Gebers OT-22-028Petition for writ of mandamus compelling prosecutor to seek an indictment against a person is sua sponte dismissed where the petition does not provide or allege any specific facts of the person’s alleged criminal activity, and is based entirely on relator’s own naked allegation that the person committed a crime.PietrykowskiOttawa 6/29/2022 6/29/2022 2022-Ohio-2237
State v. Irons WD-21-073The petition for revocation of community control, which contained a positive drug test admission statement and which was served upon appellant satisfied the appraisal requirement of Crim.R. 32.3(A). In addition, the record is void of any evidence that appellant failed to understand the rights he waived when he readily admitted to his community control violation.DuhartWood 6/24/2022 6/24/2022 2022-Ohio-2177
State v. McCullough H-21-008Trial court did not err in issuing an amended judgment entry on remand without holding a resentencing hearing.ZmudaHuron 6/24/2022 6/24/2022 2022-Ohio-2178
Al-Bey v. Olender L-22-1120Writ of habeas corpus. Failure to file requirements.DuhartLucas 6/23/2022 6/23/2022 2022-Ohio-2157
State ex rel. Minshall v. Swift E-21-011Motion for summary judgment granted. Relator not entitled to writ of prohibition due to adequate remedy at law.OsowikErie 6/23/2022 6/23/2022 2022-Ohio-2158
State v. Dominique F-21-012Defendant’s plan to submit a false urine sample was thwarted when the bladder of urine tied around his waist leaked. The crime not having been successful, finished, or completed, his conduct rose only to the level of attempted tampering with evidence—not tampering with evidence. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for tampering with evidence.MayleFulton 6/17/2022 6/17/2022 2022-Ohio-2068
State v. Gipson OT-21-001, OT-21-002, OT-21-003Trial court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences for multiple drug convictions was affirmed because the trial court made the required findings under 2929.14(C)(4) and the record supported those findings. Additionally, the trial court’s misstatement regarding defendant’s eligibility to apply for judicial release did not amount to reversible error where the defendant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the misstatement.MayleOttawa 6/17/2022 6/17/2022 2022-Ohio-2069
State v. Kamer WD-20-084Appellant was prejudiced by the trial court’s erroneous admission of impermissible Evid.R. 404(B) testimony and hearsay testimony, and the state failed to show that the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court properly excluded impeachment evidence. The trial court committed error—but not plain error—by permitting expert testimony from an unqualified witness. The indictment was not constitutionally flawed, and appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence.MayleWood 6/17/2022 6/17/2022 2022-Ohio-2070
State v. Scott L-21-1128Error is forfeited where appellant fails to file timely objections to magistrate’s decision, thus plain-error standard of review applies. Ohio districts differ in interpreting “at a clearly marked stop line” in R.C. 4511.13(C)(1)(a). Officer’s interpretation of statute was objectively reasonable in light of ambiguity, thus suppression of evidence not warranted. Officer administered field sobriety tests in conformance with NHTSA guidelines even if performed a little faster than the guidelines recommend.MayleLucas 6/17/2022 6/17/2022 2022-Ohio-2071
State v. Stenson L-20-1074The Reagan Tokes Law does not violate separation-of-powers doctrine and does not, on its face, violate right to due process.MayleLucas 6/17/2022 6/17/2022 2022-Ohio-2072
Berry's Restaurant, Inc. v. Aisling, L.L.C. H-21-003No trial court error determining claims for replevin, unjust enrichment, and to stay the execution of the judgment. Replevin, fixtures, stay of judgment execution, jurisdiction, unjust enrichment.OsowikHuron 6/10/2022 6/10/2022 2022-Ohio-1971
In re D.H. E-21-029Trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sentence upon disposition of juvenile offender.ZmudaErie 6/10/2022 6/10/2022 2022-Ohio-1972
State v. Fenderson E-21-018Trial counsel not ineffective for failing to timely file motion to suppress where appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the motion would have been granted. Trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for continuance made on the morning of trial. Appellant’s convictions for drug possession, trafficking, and corrupting another with drugs were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.OsowikErie 6/10/2022 6/10/2022 2022-Ohio-1973
State v. Guevarra L-21-1096, L-22-1010Trial court did not abuse its discretion in discounting the credibility of affidavits submitted by defendant in support of his claim of “actual innocence,” nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw guilty plea without a hearing. Further, appellant failed to meet his burden of showing that a manifest injustice had occurred.PietrykowskiLucas 6/10/2022 6/10/2022 2022-Ohio-1974
State v. Lanier L-21-1183Sufficient evidence supported a guilty verdict for obstructing official business. No plain error was established by the court’s failure to address appellant’s competency. R.C. 2945.37; R.C. 2921.31.PietrykowskiLucas 6/10/2022 6/10/2022 2022-Ohio-1975
White v. Molnar Trust OT-21-022Judgment reversed where trial court abused its discretion in overruling magistrate’s decision regarding fraudulent transfer, and with ownership restored to the corporation, the appellants lacked an ownership interest in the property to sustain their replevin/conversion claim.MayleOttawa 6/10/2022 6/10/2022 2022-Ohio-1976
Swann v. State H-21-011Trial court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a petition for relief from firearms disability.PietrykowskiHuron 6/10/2022 6/10/2022 2022-Ohio-1977
In re W.M. L-22-1016Juvenile court did not err in finding that mother’s two children are dependent and neglected, and awarding permanent custody to children services agency.ZmudaLucas 6/10/2022 6/10/2022 2022-Ohio-1978
Toledo v. Wyse L-21-1126Reversing dismissal of the case on the grounds that: 1) Wyse’s due process rights were not violated; 2) the trial court erred in finding that Wyse’s property was “confiscated,” “seized,” and “lost;” and 3) dismissal as a discovery violation sanction constituted an abuse of discretion, where there was no evidence of bad faith and where the prosecutor complied with the requirements of Crim.R. 16(I).DuhartLucas 6/10/2022 6/10/2022 2022-Ohio-1979
State v. Ryan OT-21-027, OT-21-028Conviction affirmed where trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) in ensuring appellant understood the nature of the charges in entering guilty plea, and trial court did not error in considering and weighing the danger posed to the public in imposing consecutive sentences.MyersOttawa 6/3/2022 6/3/2022 2022-Ohio-1888
State v. Sepeda L-21-1123Trial court appropriately refused to instruct the jury on self-defense and defense of others where appellant testified at trial that he never struck the victim with his vehicle. Trial court did not commit plain error in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of negligent assault and simple assault.ZmudaLucas 6/3/2022 6/3/2022 2022-Ohio-1889
In re L.K. L-21-1117In a parental-rights-termination case, the trial court’s findings that appellant abused her children and that the children could not be placed with appellant within a reasonable time or should not be placed with appellant were proven by clear and convincing evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.MayleLucas 6/2/2022 6/2/2022 2022-Ohio-1857
State v. Knight E-21-017Appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. The verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by allowing appellant’s parole officer to testify. Appellant was not denied the right to a fair trial as the result of cumulative errors. The trial court did not err in failing to merge counts or in its application of the Reagan Tokes law and RVO specification.DuhartErie 5/27/2022 5/27/2022 2022-Ohio-1787
State v. Wilson S-21-009Record does not reflect a Crim.R. 10 breach by the trial court during appellant’s misdemeanor, traffic arraignment hearing. Judgment affirmed.OsowikSandusky 5/27/2022 5/27/2022 2022-Ohio-1788
In re R.A. E-21-048, E-21-049The juvenile court’s decisions were supported by clear and convincing evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.PietrykowskiErie 5/25/2022 5/25/2022 2022-Ohio-1748
State v. Kelly L-21-1069, L-21-1070, L-21-1071Evidence that appellant refused to produce identification upon request of an officer is insufficient to support a conviction for obstructing official business. Conviction for resisting arrest is not supported by sufficient evidence where officers lacked a reasonable basis to believe that appellant committed the offenses for which they arrested him. Conviction for aggravated menacing is not against the manifest weight where appellant made a specific threat to the officer and told her she should get a TPO.MayleLucas 5/20/2022 5/20/2022 2022-Ohio-1696
State v. Lanier OT-21-029Appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law under R.C. 2929.11.ZmudaOttawa 5/20/2022 5/20/2022 2022-Ohio-1697
Riesterer v. Porter E-21-005Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to appellee because issues of fact remained regarding personal liability of contractor and amount of appellee’s damages.MayleErie 5/20/2022 5/20/2022 2022-Ohio-1698
State v. Gifford L-21-1201The trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences where the record does not support its finding of great or unusual harm under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b). The Reagan Tokes Law does not violate principals of separation of powers because the trial court imposes both the minimum and maximum sentences. The state’s cross-appeal is dismissed as moot based on court’s erroneous imposition of consecutive sentences.MayleLucas 5/13/2022 5/13/2022 2022-Ohio-1620
State v. Jeremy L-21-1085Trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a) written sentencing entry finding, in support of consecutive sentences, is incongruous with the trial court’s underlying R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(b) oral sentencing finding, in support of consecutive sentences. Case is remanded for an accordant nunc pro tunc entry.OsowikLucas 5/13/2022 5/13/2022 2022-Ohio-1621
Churchill v. Churchill E-21-023In a divorce proceeding, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file objections to the magistrate’s decision, the magistrate did not err in adopting appellee’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the court did not err in awarding spousal support. Civ.R. 53; R.C. 3105.18(C).PietrykowskiErie 5/6/2022 5/6/2022 2022-Ohio-1530
M.M. v. V.S. L-21-1176Custody. Best interest of the child. Credibility.DuhartLucas 5/6/2022 5/6/2022 2022-Ohio-1531
State v. Hopings L-20-1075Appellant’s counsel was not ineffective. Appellant’s speedy trial rights were not violated. Evidence at trial established offenses as indicted.OsowikLucas 5/6/2022 5/6/2022 2022-Ohio-1532
State v. Marshall WD-21-043Trial court properly granted motion to suppress evidence taken while appellee was unconscious in his hotel room bathtubDuhartWood 5/6/2022 5/6/2022 2022-Ohio-1533
State v. Pelmear F-21-003, F-21-006Officers’ testimony was not hearsay or without personal knowledge where the testimony was limited to officers’ claims that after speaking with Cherokee Nation they were unable to verify appellant’s status as a member. Appellant’s conviction for falsification based upon insufficient evidence where the state presented no evidence that appellant’s claims were untrue. Appellant’s conviction for obstruction of justice based upon insufficient evidence where appellant’s conduct did not hamper or impede officer.PietrykowskiFulton 5/6/2022 5/6/2022 2022-Ohio-1534
State v. Schramm WD-21-051Recommendation that defendant plead guilty to second degree pandering—which prohibits the reproduction of child pornography—was not ineffective assistance of counsel where defendant admitted that he “downloaded” child pornography from the internet onto his phone. Because the process of downloading requires taking active steps to create a copy of the image, defendant was properly charged with second degree pandering, and it was not deficient performance to advise defendant to plead guilty.MayleWood 5/6/2022 5/6/2022 2022-Ohio-1535
123