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 431 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Taylor 27879The trial court did not err in overruling Appellant’s pro se “Motion to Vacate Unlawful Sentence.” The trial court correctly concluded that the holding in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) did not apply to Appellant’s case and that Appellant was not denied equal protection of the law. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 11/16/2018 11/16/2018 2018-Ohio-4628
State v. Smedley 27889The trial court did not err by overruling Appellant’s motion to suppress. The affidavit supporting the search warrant provided a substantial basis for the issuing judge’s conclusion that contraband would likely be found in Appellant’s residence. The descriptions of three controlled buys were sufficient by themselves to issue a search warrant. Appellant fails to establish that trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging the search warrant under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). The record reveals no basis for a Franks challenge. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 11/16/2018 11/16/2018 2018-Ohio-4629
State v. Poling 27882The trial court, following Defendant-appellant’s guilty plea to unlawful sexual conduct with a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.04(A), sentenced Defendant-appellant to a five-year term of imprisonment, the maximum sentence the trial court could impose. It cannot be concluded by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court’s sentence, and the sentence is not otherwise contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 11/16/2018 11/16/2018 2018-Ohio-4630
State v. Pack 2018-CA-52The trial court did not err in sentencing Appellant to a 30-month prison term for one count of third-degree-felony aggravated trafficking in drugs, because the sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law and we do not find by clear and convincing evidence that the record failed to support the sentence. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring in judgment only.)WelbaumClark 11/16/2018 11/16/2018 2018-Ohio-4632
State v. Monahan 2018-CA-2Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to qualify a proper expert for an impossibility defense or by failing to argue self-defense. The trial court allowed the defense expert to testify about re-enactment and experimentation that the expert conducted, and the elements of self-defense were not met. The court’s judgment, after a bench trial, that Appellant was guilty of aggravated assault was also not against the manifest weight of the evidence, Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion of Appellant’s appointed counsel to withdraw. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumDarke 11/16/2018 11/16/2018 2018-Ohio-4633
State v. Lucero 2018-CA-26Anders appeal. Defendant pled guilty to illegal use of supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits or WIC program benefits, a felony of the fifth degree, and was sentenced to eight months in prison. There are no non-frivolous issues related to pretrial rulings and the Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy, and any issues regarding her sentence are moot. Judgment affirmed.FroelichClark 11/16/2018 11/16/2018 2018-Ohio-4634
Kuntz 2016, L.L.C. v. Montgomery Cty. Auditor 28038Since the subject property was included on the tax-exempt list in 2016, and therefore not on the tax list and/or duplicate for that year, the trial court did not err when it found that the board of revision did not have jurisdiction to hear appellant’s complaint regarding the valuation of the subject property for 2016. Additionally, the trial court did not affirm any valuation determination; the board of revision did not make a valuation determination pursuant to appellant’s complaint, since it did not have jurisdiction to do so. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 11/16/2018 11/16/2018 2018-Ohio-4635
State v. Holloway 2017-CA-91The trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, as Appellant was timely brought to trial. The court also did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence, because the police received consent from an occupant to search the area in which Appellant had been seen with suspected drugs. In addition, Appellant’s conviction for several trafficking and drug possession offenses was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Furthermore, trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to call a witness for the suppression hearing. Finally, the trial court made all requisite statutory findings to support consecutive sentences; we also cannot clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the trial court’s findings or that the sentence was contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.WelbaumClark 11/16/2018 11/16/2018 2018-Ohio-4636
Discover Bank v. Wells 2018-CA-44The trial court did not err when it concluded that Defendant-appellant’s claim that he did not receive service of process was not credible. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Defendant-appellant’s motion for relief from judgment filed under Ohio Civ.R. 60(B)(4) and (5). Judgment affirmed.TuckerClark 11/16/2018 11/16/2018 2018-Ohio-4637
State v. DeMoss 2018-CA-23The rape indictment against Defendant-appellant, contrary to his contention on appeal, includes a sexually violent predator specification. As such, Defendant-appellant, consistent with due process requirements, was given fair notice of the specification. Judgment affirmed.TuckerChampaign 11/16/2018 11/16/2018 2018-Ohio-4638
12345678910...>>