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?
Search Truncation Warning:
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 161 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Cole 8-18-26Defendant-appellant's consecutive sentences are not contrary to law because the trial court made the appropriate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the sentencing hearing. Although the trial court failed to properly incorporate all of its consecutive sentencing findings into its judgment entry of sentence, the trial court may correct this error via a nunc pro tunc order.PrestonLogan 11/19/2018 11/19/2018 2018-Ohio-4646
State v. Hill 7-18-24The defendant-appellant's rights under R.C. 2929.19 and Crim.R. 32 were not violated. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the defendant-appellant's community-control sanctions. Lastly, the defendant-appellant's trial counsel was not ineffective. Judgment affirmed.ZimmermanHenry 11/19/2018 11/19/2018 2018-Ohio-4647
State v. Miller 1-18-17By pleading no contest, defendant-appellant waived his right to appeal the trial court’s ruling granting the State’s motion in limine. Defendant-appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.PrestonAllen 11/19/2018 11/19/2018 2018-Ohio-4648
State v. Hawkins 1-18-08The trial court did not clearly err by overruling defendant-appellant's Batson objection. Defendant-appellant properly raised only one Batson objection and thus the trial court did not err by not requiring the State to provide race-neutral reasons for exercising a second peremptory challenge against another black potential juror. The record does not contain evidence demonstrating that defendant-appellant's trial counsel's failure to properly raise a second Batson objection constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.PrestonAllen 11/19/2018 11/19/2018 2018-Ohio-4649
State v. Washington 8-18-24Appellant's claim that the original sentence was erroneously imposed was barred by the doctrine of res judicata when they were raised for the first time on appeal after the sentence was reimposed for a violation of judicial release terms.WillamowskiLogan 11/13/2018 11/13/2018 2018-Ohio-4547
Titus v. Titus 8-18-19The trial court did not err in awarding legal custody to Appellees. Judgment affirmed.ZimmermanLogan 11/13/2018 11/13/2018 2018-Ohio-4548
State v. Powell 8-18-12; 8-18-13The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences in separate criminal cases. Judgments affirmed. ZimmermanLogan 11/13/2018 11/13/2018 2018-Ohio-4549
State v. Henderson 1-18-30Defendant-appellant's assault conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.PrestonAllen 11/13/2018 11/13/2018 2018-Ohio-4550
State v. Norville 13-18-14The decision to object at trial is a tactical decision. To establish a case for felonious assault, the State must prove that the defendant knowlingly caused serious physical harm to another.WillamowskiSeneca 11/5/2018 11/5/2018 2018-Ohio-4467
State v. Carter 13-18-13State presented sufficient evidence to support conviction for Felonious Assault. Convictions for Felonious Assault and Aggravated Burglary were not against the weight of the evidence.ShawSeneca 11/5/2018 11/5/2018 2018-Ohio-4468