|
|
State v. Jones
| 115599 | Effect of a guilty plea; felony sentencing. In following State v. Fontanez, 2026-Ohio-3281, the court did not err by not explaining that a guilty plea is a complete admission of guilt because this is a commonly understood term. The court erred by including a driver’s license suspension in the sentencing journal entry when this was not imposed at the sentencing hearing. | E.A. Gallagher | Cuyahoga |
9/17/2026
|
9/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3626 |
|
Apex Energy Group, L.L.C. v. Cohen & Co., Ltd.
| 115629 | Vacate; arbitration; arbitration agreement; arbitration award; asset purchase agreement; R.C. Chapter 2711; arbitrators exceeded their powers; the essence of the agreement; waiver; modification; miscalculation. Judgment affirmed. The trial court’s confirmation of the arbitration award was proper. The arbitrator’s award draws its essence from the agreement and arbitrator did not exceed his authority in rendering his final determination. Additionally, there is a rational nexus between the arbitration award and the agreement - the arbitration agreement specifically references the “net working capital” adjustment and other adjustments under asset purchase agreement as being within the scope of the authority granted in the agreement and the award is based exclusively on these issues. Furthermore, because appellant failed to present the miscalculation issue to the arbitrator, appellant waived its right to raise it on appeal. Appellant also failed to provide “evident material miscalculation of figures or an evident material mistake” in the arbitration award as required by R.C. 2711.11(A). | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
9/17/2026
|
9/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3627 |
|
State v. Aldemur
| 115677 | Competency hearing; Evid.R. 601; demonstrative evidence; Brady; allied offenses of similar import; sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence; nunc pro tunc entries; right to self-representation. The trial court did not err when it did not have a hearing on appellant’s competency to stand trial because there was evidence on the record of appellant’s competency but not incompetency to stand trial so the failure to hold a hearing was harmless. The trial court did not err when it refused to allow appellant to represent himself where the record did not establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of his constitutional right. The trial court did not err in allowing a child under ten to testify where the law had changed deeming all witnesses competent unless the record reflects otherwise, and the record did not reflect that the child witness was incompetent to testify. Appellant failed to meet the burden of establishing that the State violated Brady v. Maryland where he did not establish that the State suppressed the evidence or that a witness perjured themselves and/or that the State knew that they were submitting false testimony. The trial court erred when it failed to merge offenses involving the minor victim where the crimes were allied offenses of similar import. The State presented sufficient evidence to support the convictions by presenting some evidence as to each element of the offenses. The convictions were supported by the manifest weight of the evidence where the appellant challenged the credibility of the evidence and the jury was in the best position to observe the competing testimony and determine the credibility of the evidence. The trial court’s sentencing entry was in error where it ordered appellant to pay the costs of prosecution where the sentence announced in open court ordered the appellant to pay half the court costs and where “court costs” and “costs of prosecution” have been deemed synonymous terms. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
9/17/2026
|
9/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3628 |
|
Salvo-Hill v. Univ. Hosp. Geauga Med. Ctr.
| 115735 | Motion for summary judgment; Civ.R 56; genuine issues of material fact; H.B. 606; immunity; COVID-19; ordinary negligence; medical claim; healthcare services; common knowledge exception. Judgment reversed and remanded. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment was improper where plaintiff’s claim were ones of ordinary negligence and the immunity set forth in H.B. 606 did not apply to defendants. Plaintiff’s mother was a patient at defendant-hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the patient’s discharge, patient was transported to her daughter’s car by wheelchair. The patient fell as defendant attempted to place the patient into the car. Falls can either be medical claims or general negligence claims, depending upon the factual circumstances. When a person falls because of the negligent use of medical equipment during a medical procedure, it is a medical claim. However, where the fall does not arise out of medical diagnosis, care, or treatment, the fall gives rise to a general negligence claim. Based on the facts of this case, the patient’s fall gave rise to a negligence claim. Therefore, the immunity for healthcare services as defined in H.B. 606 did not apply. When reviewing the evidence in the record, genuine issues of material fact exist because of the inconsistencies in the testimony regarding how many of defendant’s employees assisted the patient out of her hospital bed with only one employee assisting the patient to the car and whether an ambulance transport was offered as an option to bring the patient home. At this stage in the proceedings, the trial court is not permitted to weigh the evidence or choose among reasonable inferences. Rather, the court must evaluate the evidence, taking all permissible inferences and resolving questions of credibility in favor of the nonmoving party. | Boyle | Cuyahoga |
9/17/2026
|
9/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3629 |
|
State v. Shabazz
| 115750; 115889 | Manifest weight of the evidence; sufficiency of the evidence; motion to suppress; Terry stop; arrest warrant; admissibility. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s two motions to suppress. The first ruling finding that the stop was supported by both reasonable suspicion and probable case, the record established that the trial court’s findings of fact were supported by competent credible evidence and that the court properly applied the law to the facts. In the second ruling, although there was a mistaken understanding of the nature of the arrest warrant, the warrant was valid and thus the subsequent arrest and search incident to arrest was valid. The trial court did not err in allowing a witness to testify to the area of the crime as “high crime” over objection, where the testimony was relevant to explain the officer’s conduct in stopping the appellant whose conduct appeared innocent. The fact that the area was high crime and was known to be a site were drug trafficking occurred provided context to the officer’s actions. Accordingly, the evidence was relevant and admissible, further it was more probative than prejudicial where the evidence was cumulative and there was other evidence of guilt. The State presented sufficient evidence of the weight of drugs in appellant’s possession to support his trafficking charge, where the analyst testified that they used a hypergeometric sampling pattern that has been recognized as a valid method of extrapolating the contents of multiple use by testing a mere sample. Additionally, appellant’s conviction for receiving stolen property was supported by the manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence where the defendant borrowed a friend’s rental car, kept it eight months beyond the time the Mazda was supposed to be returned, and when located, the VIN number was obscured and the license plate was found in the trunk with a number scratched off. | Groves | Cuyahoga |
9/17/2026
|
9/17/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3630 |
|