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 315 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Boyle 2018-CA-12Defendant-appellant, after pleading guilty to a number of indictment counts (with the remaining counts being dismissed) and after his conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal, filed a motion asserting that the indictment was defective and seeking its dismissal. The trial court properly overruled the motion because Defendant-appellant’s guilty pleas acted as a waiver of any defects in the indictment. Further, even if any indictment defects had not been waived, consideration of the issue would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Judgment affirmed.TuckerGreene 8/17/2018 8/17/2018 2018-Ohio-3284
State v. Caplette 27805Pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B), the trial court did not err in admitting evidence regarding the prior acts of the appellant, as the danger of unfair prejudice was minimal and the evidence was clearly probative of whether appellant had knowledge that his accomplice intended to burglarize the victims’ residence when they arrived there. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 8/17/2018 8/17/2018 2018-Ohio-3285
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Jones 27936Upon remand from the court of appeals, the trial court was vested with jurisdiction to consider and rule upon appellee’s motion to vacate a Foreclosure Decree judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted appellee’s motion to vacate a Foreclosure Decree judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 8/17/2018 8/17/2018 2018-Ohio-3286
State v. Diamond 27904Ineffective assistance of counsel is not demonstrated in Appellant’s bench trial on four counts of animal cruelty. Overwhelming evidence was adduced by the State and no deficient performance was established. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 8/17/2018 8/17/2018 2018-Ohio-3287
State v. Grissom 2017-CA-30An independent review of the record pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), reveals no issues with arguable merit to present on appeal. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMiami 8/17/2018 8/17/2018 2018-Ohio-3288
State v. Kintz 2017-CA-66The trial court, following Defendant-appellant’s guilty pleas to trafficking in marijuana and trafficking in cocaine, sentenced Defendant-appellant to a 17-year prison term. The trial court made findings to support a greater than minimum sentence for the trafficking in marijuana offense. Further, the trial court made the appropriate findings when ordering consecutive sentences. It cannot be concluded by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant-appellant’s sentence was not supported by the record or that it was otherwise contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring in judgment only.)TuckerClark 8/17/2018 8/17/2018 2018-Ohio-3289
State v. Kuck 2017-CA-15Trial court did not err in concluding that petitioner failed to demonstrate operative facts supporting his post-conviction relief claim that trial counsel was ineffective. Judgment affirmed.TuckerDarke 8/17/2018 8/17/2018 2018-Ohio-3290
State v. McCloud 27825Defendant-appellant’s conviction, following a jury trial, for robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) is supported by sufficient evidence and it is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 8/17/2018 8/17/2018 2018-Ohio-3291
State v. Ragland 2018-CA-11Under the provisions of R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(iii), the doctrine of res judicata does not bar appellate review of a jail time credit claim of a defendant who failed to raise such claim on direct appeal. However, where any jail time credit due was applied to the defendant’s sentence for unrelated offenses in a different county, defendant was not entitled to have jail time credit also applied to the consecutive sentence imposed in the case on review. Judgment affirmed.FroelichChampaign 8/17/2018 8/17/2018 2018-Ohio-3292
State v. Ray 2017-CA-33Pursuant to our responsibilities under Anders we have conducted an independent review of appellant’s conviction and sentencing. We find no arguably meritorious issues for appeal. Judgment affirmed.DonovanChampaign 8/17/2018 8/17/2018 2018-Ohio-3293