|
|
State v. Conner
| 115631 | Juvenile, discretionary transfer, amenability hearing, R.C. 2152.12, consecutive sentence, agreed-recommended sentence, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), R.C. 2929.144. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding the juvenile defendant amenable for transfer for criminal prosecution. The juvenile court considered all the relevant factors for and against transfer, and court’s findings that juvenile was not amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile system were supported by the record. Also, the trial court did not err in imposing consecutive prison terms here. Since the prison sentence was within the agreed-recommended sentencing range, consecutive-sentence findings are not required and the sentence is not reviewable on appeal with respect to whether the court properly made the consecutive findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). | Forbes | Cuyahoga |
10/1/2026
|
10/1/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3871 |
|
State v. Genao
| 115679 | Evid.R. 404(B); Evid.R. 403; R.C. 2907.322(A)(3); R.C. 2907.322(A)(5); jury instructions; parental discipline; weight of the evidence; sufficiency of the evidence; knowledge; lesser included offense. The trial court did not err when it concluded that evidence of other acts was admissible where the State’s reasoning established that it was introducing the evidence to show the appellant’s preparation and plan and where it limited the evidence to a particular time frame ensuring that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any potential prejudicial effect. The trial court properly denied the appellant’s request for a parental discipline instruction where the evidence at trial established that the appellant admitted “whipping” the minor child “too much” and there was evidence she sustained physical injuries as a result. Appellant’s conviction for gross sexual imposition was supported by the greater weight of the evidence, where although there were discrepancies in the minor child’s testimony, she consistently maintained that appellant had touched her inappropriately and the jury was free to believe all, some, or none of her testimony. The trial court erred in finding that R.C. 2907.322(A)(5) was a lesser included offense of R.C. 2907.322(A)(3) where it was possible to be convicted of the greater offense without committing the lesser offense. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
10/1/2026
|
10/1/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3872 |
|
Lakewood v. Tittl
| 115701 | Operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs (“OVI”); motion to suppress; field-sobriety tests; substantial compliance; horizontal gaze nystagmus test; walk and turn test; one-leg stand test; hearsay; abuse of discretion; manifest weight of the evidence. Officer’s testimony regarding defendant’s performance on field-sobriety tests was admissible where evidence showed the officer substantially complied with the requirements outlined in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) manual for administering field-sobriety tests. Exclusion of a notarized letter from defendant’s physical therapist from the evidence was not an abuse of discretion where the letter was hearsay and would likely have been duplicative of other evidence. Defendant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | E.T. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
10/1/2026
|
10/1/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3873 |
|
State v. Hamilton
| 115903 | Attempted murder; aggravated robbery; felonious assault; receiving stolen property; grand theft auto; sever charges; separate trial; plain error; ineffective assistance of counsel; Crim.R. 8; Crim.R. 14; joinder test; trial tax; vindictive sentence; identity; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; State v. Reillo, 2026-Ohio-2701. Judgment affirmed. Neither the joinder of the appellant’s several charges, nor the trial court’s failure to sua sponte separate the cases for trial constituted plain error. The joinder would have been proper even if a motion to sever was filed, and appellant was not prejudiced by the joinder because the State’s evidence was simple and direct. Furthermore, trial counsel cannot be deemed deficient or ineffective for failing to ask that the charges be severed because appellant failed to demonstrate that a motion to sever, if filed, would have been successful. Trial counsel cannot be found ineffective for failing to perform a futile act. Appellant’s sentence was not a trial tax. There is no evidence in the record indicating that the trial court acted in a vindictive manner, and appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law. Lastly, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support appellant’s convictions and his convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant admitted to his involvement in two of the incidents and the forensic, firearm, and digital evidence, and overlapping witness testimony, collectively established his identity as the assailant. Additionally, appellant has not pointed to any contradictory material facts or directly impeached testimony, nor has he presented any evidence satisfying the “fantastical” standard as set forth in Reillo. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
10/1/2026
|
10/1/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3874 |
|
State v. Baker
| 115915 | Motion to suppress; ruling on pretrial motions waived on appeal by guilty plea; Crim.R. 32.1; presentence motion to withdraw guilty plea; no abuse of discretion; balancing test; no reasonable or legitimate basis to withdraw. Appellant appeals raising two assignments of error. First that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and second that it erred in denying his presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Reviewing the transcript and applying the nine-factor balancing test, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We further find that appellant’s valid guilty plea to aggravated murder waived his right to appeal the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress in that case. Both assignments of error are overruled. Judgment affirmed. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
10/1/2026
|
10/1/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3875 |
|