|
|
State v. Owens
| 116029 | Crim.R. 11; plea hearing; knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; R.C. 2921.331; failure to comply; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14. Trial court erred by failing to advise defendant that it was required to impose a consecutive sentence for his conviction for failure to comply. Nonetheless, his guilty pleas were made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, where the trial court informed defendant of its ability to impose consecutive sentences and of defendant’s total aggregate exposure. The court made consecutive-sentencing findings under R.C. 2929.14 to support its other consecutive-sentencing orders. Defendant’s consecutive sentence was not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record where he committed the offenses underlying this appeal while on community control. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
10/8/2026
|
10/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3962 |
|
State v. Harris
| 115428 | Postrelease-control advisements; R.C. 2929.19; allocution; Crim.R. 32; motion for judicial release; R.C. 2929.20; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14. In appeal from resentencing hearing, case remanded to the trial court for defendant to be given postrelease-control advisements, where the court made no mention of postrelease control at hearing. The court erred in treating defendant’s statements at his resentencing hearing as a motion for judicial release, rather than as an allocution under Crim.R. 32. Court did not err by imposing consecutive sentences where it made required findings under R.C. 2929.14, which were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
10/8/2026
|
10/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3954 |
|
Jeasung Jay Yoo Trust v. First Energy Corp.
| 116032 | Pro se; jurisdiction; bootstrapping; Civ.R. 60(B); findings of fact and conclusions of law; abuse of discretion. The appellant timely appealed from the trial court’s judgment denying his motion to vacate the court’s judgment entry dismissing his complaint with prejudice. Since appellant’s first four assignments of error raised issues challenging the trial court’s dismissal order, they were untimely and were disregarded. Appellant also alleged that the trial court abused its discretion for denying his motion to vacate without providing an analysis for its decision. The trial court was not required to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when issuing a decision on a motion to vacate filed pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
10/8/2026
|
10/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3963 |
|
Henderson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Div. of Children & Family Servs.
| 115997 | Subject-matter jurisdiction; final appealable order; R.C. 2506.01. The trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the letter from the appellee to the appellant is not a final order appealable under R.C. 2506.01 | Laster Mays | Cuyahoga |
10/8/2026
|
10/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3960 |
|
State v. Ellis
| 115858 | Not guilty by reason of insanity; expert testimony; jury instructions; closing argument; accountability; ineffective assistance of counsel; voir dire. The trial court did not commit plain error when the State’s expert properly testified with respect to the correct legal standard in Ohio for insanity. The trial court did not commit plain error when it failed to provide the jury with a curative instruction when the prosecutor urged the jury to hold appellant accountable for her actions. Appellant’s right to effective assistance of trial counsel was not violated. Her trial counsel was not required to object to issues that were not error, such as the testimony of the State’s expert, or the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument. Nor did Ellis’s counsel’s performance during voir dire fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. | Sheehan | Cuyahoga |
10/8/2026
|
10/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3958 |
|