|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
Leithauser v. Leithauser
| 2023-CA-43 | The trial court erred in finding that a debt due to husband’s parents was not a marital debt, as wife failed to establish the debt was husband’s alone. The parol evidence rule did not apply because husband’s parents were not attempting to enforce the debt; rather, it was subject to equitable distribution in the court’s division of marital assets and liabilities. Judgment reversed with respect to the division of marital property and remanded for further proceedings related to that issue. In all other respects, judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
4/19/2024
|
4/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1497 |
|
State v. Tackett
| 2023-CA-57 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting hearsay testimony in a community control revocation proceeding. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
4/19/2024
|
4/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1498 |
|
State v. Elton
| 2023-CA-62 | The mandate in R.C. 4511.55(A) requiring bicyclists to ride their bicycles “as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable” is not unconstitutionally vague; it provides sufficient notice of its proscriptions and contains reasonably clear guidelines to prevent arbitrariness or discrimination in its enforcement. In addition, the trial court did not err as a matter of law or rule against the manifest weight of the evidence by failing to find that an exception in R.C. 4511.55(C) relieved appellant of the obligation to ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Greene |
4/19/2024
|
4/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1494 |
|
In re S.M.J.
| 2023-CA-54 | In light of appellant’s repeated failure to pay child support, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant failed to comply with purge conditions for a second contempt or in requiring him to serve the remainder of a previously imposed 60-day jail sentence. Concerning a third contempt finding for failure to pay child support, appellant did not object to a magistrate’s decision finding him in contempt, and there was no plain error; appellant admittedly failed to pay as ordered. The court also did not abuse its discretion when, during a later hearing, it suspended the 90-day sentence for the third contempt and imposed purge conditions. Given appellant’s conduct and failure to provide any documentation of his excuses for non-payment, the court’s decision was reasonable. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Greene |
4/19/2024
|
4/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1495 |
|
State v. Yount
| 2023-CA-5 | Appellant’s guilty plea waived any argument that his speedy trial rights had been violated. Appellant’s double jeopardy rights were not violated because he was not punished twice for the same conduct; although another charge appears to have been dismissed before he was indicted in this case, he was not convicted or sentenced on that offense. There is no evidence to support appellant’s claim that the State agreed to remain silent as to the sentence, and thus his assertion that the State reneged on such a promise is without merit. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Miami |
4/19/2024
|
4/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1500 |
|
In re Estate of Taylor
| 29906 | Because appellant failed to object to a magistrate’s decision, alleged error is reviewed for plain error only. Although the trial court could have construed appellant’s pleading as an attempt to file a will contest, it did not err in failing to do so. Appellant never sought to amend the pleading to add parties that were necessary to a will contest under R.C. 2107.73, which was grounds for dismissing such an action. More importantly, appellant failed to comply with requirements for commencing such an action, like requesting service and filing an affidavit of indigency. There was no plain error. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Montgomery |
4/19/2024
|
4/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1496 |
|
State v. Thomas
| 29884 | Appellant admitted to violating the terms and conditions of his community control sanctions, and he has not demonstrated plain error in the trial court’s acceptance of his admission and imposition of a prison sentence. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
4/19/2024
|
4/19/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1499 |
|
Estrada v. Inman
| 29977 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a civil protection order, and the civil protection order was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Explicit threats of domestic violence are not required in order to support a civil protection order; statements, conduct and actions, taken with all surrounding facts and circumstances, can constitute a threat. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
4/12/2024
|
4/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1390 |
|
State v. Easter
| 2023-CA-42 | Appellant was convicted of two counts of cruelty against a companion animal. Because police officers had been told by appellant’s wife that appellant had shot and strangled the family dog and had heard a “wailing sound” which they believed was coming from the injured animal, the trial court reasonably concluded that exigent circumstances permitted the officers’ warrantless entry into the home and yard to search for and provide aid to the injured dog. Appellant moved for a mistrial, asserting a Brady violation, when the State produced a videotape of appellant’s wife’s statement to a police officer during trial; however, because neither the videotape nor any proffer regarding its content is part of the record, we cannot conclude that the late disclosure constituted a Brady violation or that it otherwise prejudiced appellant. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Greene |
4/12/2024
|
4/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1389 |
|
State v. Boulware
| 2023-CA-32 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea; the argument raised in the motion was barred by res judicata and otherwise lacked merit. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Clark |
4/12/2024
|
4/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1388 |
|
State v. Newby
| 2023-CA-30 | Denial of the right to effective assistance of counsel is not demonstrated in defense counsel’s joint representation of appellant and her co-defendant, where co-defendant was charged as the principal and appellant was charged by way of complicity in the same offenses. Appellant executed a waiver of conflict of interest prior to trial, the interests of appellant and her co-defendant were not incompatible and did not diverge, and the record does not demonstrate an actual conflict of interest. Ineffective assistance is not demonstrated in defense counsel’s asserting self-defense on behalf of co-defendant but not appellant, where appellant did not use any force. Defense counsel’s alleged egregious conduct in cross-examining the State’s witnesses was a matter of trial strategy, and prejudice is not demonstrated. Moreover, the jury is presumed to have followed the court’s instructions to disregard “editorializing” by defense counsel and that closing arguments were not evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit irrelevant evidence of the victim’s prior speeding record. Appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in not admitting the victim’s Facebook video discussing the shooting is without merit because defense counsel did not seek to admit the video. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury on aggravated assault as an inferior offense of felonious assault; there was no evidence of serious provocation, and the inferior offense was inconsistent with the theory of self-defense. Appellant’s conviction for complicity to attempted murder was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
4/12/2024
|
4/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1391 |
|
State v. Segovia
| 2023-CA-35 | The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of a drug debt owed by the victim to appellant in appellant’s trial for felonious assault. The evidence was admitted for the legitimate purpose of establishing appellant’s identity and motive and not his propensity to commit crime, and the court gave a limiting instruction. Appellant’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Clark |
4/12/2024
|
4/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1392 |
|
State v. Wallace
| 2023-CA-53 | The trial court did not err by sentencing appellant to a lengthy prison term as the sentences were not contrary to law and the record did not demonstrate that the trial court failed to consider the requisite sentencing factors. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
4/12/2024
|
4/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1393 |
|
C.D. v. P.O.C.
| 2023-CA-15 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing appellant to a jail term after he failed to comply with purge conditions related to non-payment of child support. Although appellant was incarcerated at the time of sentencing, appellant had failed to comply with the purge conditions before being incarcerated. Any issue as to the court’s failure to award jail-time credit is moot because appellant completed the sentence and no relief is possible. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Clark |
4/5/2024
|
4/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1294 |
|
In re N.Q.
| 2023-CA-16 | Appellant’s appeal is moot as the sentence has been served and he has shown no collateral disability or loss of rights as a result of his conviction. Appeal dismissed. | Lewis | Clark |
4/5/2024
|
4/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1296 |
|
State v. Bailey
| 2023-CA-27 | Appellant appeals from the trial court’s judgments revoking his community control in two cases. In his 2021 case, the revocation judgment did not order him to pay restitution, although restitution was included in his original judgment of conviction. Appellant’s challenge to the validity of the original restitution order is not properly before us in this appeal. Appellant did not raise any assignments with respect to his 2019 case. Judgments affirmed. | Epley | Champaign |
4/5/2024
|
4/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1293 |
|
State v. Fitch
| 2023-CA-28 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to suppress. Police officers obtained the consent of the homeowner to enter a residence and go upstairs to speak with appellant. The officers did not request permission to search and were familiar with the homeowner, and the circumstances did not cause the officers to doubt the homeowner’s authority to authorize entry. The officers relied in good faith on the homeowner’s consent to enter. When appellant’s girlfriend closed a tarp on a doorway upstairs in a manner that caused officers to be concerned for their safety, a protective sweep was warranted, and drugs were found in plain view. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Miami |
4/5/2024
|
4/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1295 |
|
State v. Lloyd
| 29918 | The trial court did not impermissibly consider factors outside of R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 in sentencing appellant to 18 months in prison. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
4/5/2024
|
4/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1297 |
|
State v. Stinson
| 29925 | The trial court did not err in overruling appellant’s untimely and successive motion for new trial and petition for post-conviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The trial court also did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to engage in post-conviction discovery. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
4/5/2024
|
4/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1298 |
|
State v. Lowe
| 29826 | Appellant failed to establish that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him to plead no contest to the indicted charges. Appellant also failed to establish that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to argue in his motion to suppress that an investigating officer used an unduly suggestive procedure to identify him. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Montgomery |
3/29/2024
|
3/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1189 |
|
Community Gain v. Anderson
| 29847 | Conceded error. The trial court erred in permitting service by publication where the affidavit in support of service by publication failed to identify any effort to ascertain the appellant’s address and did not indicate that the residence could not be ascertained with reasonable diligence. Judgments vacated; remanded for further proceedings. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/29/2024
|
3/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1191 |
|
State v. Bryant
| 2023-CA-17 | The juvenile court did not err when it transferred appellant’s felony case to adult court. The court found he was older than 14 at the time of his offense, there was probable cause to believe he committed the act charged, and he was not amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile system. The juvenile court also did not err in transferring the misdemeanor assault count to adult court; both the plain language of the statute and Ohio case law point to transferring the entire “case.” Finally, the adult court did not err by sentencing appellant to prison. The record does not demonstrate that the court failed to consider factors contained in R.C. 2929.19(B)(1)(b). Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Miami |
3/29/2024
|
3/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1192 |
|
M.A.N.S.O. Holding, L.L.C. v. Marquette
| 2023-CA-58 | Appellants vacated the residence following an eviction action, rendering their appeal on the forcible entry and detainer claim moot. Appeal dismissed. | Huffman | Greene |
3/29/2024
|
3/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1188 |
|
State v. Tyree
| 2023-CA-20 | The trial court did not err in finding that police officers had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop appellant’s vehicle and that seized contraband was properly obtained pursuant to the Fourth Amendment’s inventory search exception. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Champaign |
3/29/2024
|
3/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1186 |
|
State v. Hawk
| 2023-CA-2 | The trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C) when it accepted appellant’s guilty plea to attempted murder. There was no indication that the court’s single misstatement about the degree of the offense, which was made toward the end the plea colloquy, affected appellant’s understanding of the nature of the offense or the maximum penalty involved. The trial court did not err in increasing appellant’s sentence during the sentencing hearing. The court explained that its original pronounced sentence was a “mistake,” and there was no suggestion that the court increased the sentence based on impermissible factors or considerations. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Clark |
3/29/2024
|
3/29/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1190 |
|
State v. Koob
| 2023-CA-42 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled appellant’s presentence motion to vacate his guilty plea. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
3/22/2024
|
3/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1073 |
|
In re G.E.
| 2023-CA-48 | Deferring to the juvenile court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility, the court’s findings of delinquency on charges of rape and attempted rape were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Insofar as the State concedes that there was no evidence that appellant engaged in sexual contact with the victim for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either person, the finding of delinquency on a charge of gross sexual imposition was supported by insufficient evidence. Adjudication affirmed in part and vacated in part; remanded for a new disposition. | Huffman | Clark |
3/22/2024
|
3/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1074 |
|
State v. Alexander
| 2023-CA-46 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Appellant filed the motion the morning of the sentencing hearing, which was almost seven months after the plea hearing, he did not have any defense to the offenses, and he appeared to simply have had a change of heart. The trial court did not err in refusing to give jail-time credit to appellant for time that accrued while he was incarcerated on a previous, unrelated conviction. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Clark |
3/22/2024
|
3/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1080 |
|
State v. Gipp
| 29983 | State’s appeal. The trial court erred in sustaining appellee’s motion to suppress and in concluding that police officers did not have probable cause for his arrest for domestic violence. An officer responded to a report of domestic violence and, based on his conversation with the complainant, he had reasonable grounds to believe that appellee had committed domestic violence. This officer instructed fellow officers near appellee’s location to arrest him as the “preferred course of action” in a domestic violence situation pursuant to R.C. 2935.03(B)(3)(b). The officers’ collective knowledge justified appellee’s arrest. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/22/2024
|
3/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1076 |
|
State v. Davidson
| 29950 | The trial court did not commit plain error in admitting the opinion testimony of an expert witness on the age of the children depicted in nudity-oriented or sexually oriented material or in designating appellant both a Tier I and Tier II sex offender based upon the offenses for which he was convicted. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/22/2024
|
3/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1078 |
|
State v. Bowen
| 29833 | The record does not reflect that the trial court placed the burden of proof on self-defense on appellant at his bench trial for domestic violence. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Montgomery |
3/22/2024
|
3/22/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1079 |
|
Kelley v. Dayton Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn.
| 29904 | The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee on appellant’s race discrimination and sex discrimination claims. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/15/2024
|
3/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-979 |
|
State v. Reyes
| 2023-CA-39 | Appellant’s guilty plea following the trial court’s denial of bail rendered moot his argument that the trial court should not have denied him bail, and the matter is not one of great public or general interest such that we may consider it despite its mootness. Moreover, appellant’s argument that the trial court should not have denied bail is without merit under any of the standards of review applied by other appellate courts. He was indicted for a qualifying offense, and there was strong evidence that he committed the offense, that he posed a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or to the community, and that no release conditions would reasonably assure the safety of that person or the community. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Champaign |
3/15/2024
|
3/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-977 |
|
State v. Isa
| 2023-CA-28 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s application for DNA testing, motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial, and request to obtain the discovery in appellant’s trial court case under the Ohio Public Records Act. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Champaign |
3/15/2024
|
3/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-980 |
|
State v. Bevard
| 2023-CA-15 | The trial court’s statement during a plea hearing about appellant’s two offenses not merging as allied offenses did not invalidate his guilty plea. The trial court’s tentative assessment of the issue repeated what defense counsel already had told appellant and was supported by case law. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Champaign |
3/15/2024
|
3/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-982 |
|
State v. Harrell
| 2022-CA-50 | The trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from his illegal detention. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s untimely motion to suppress pretrial identification evidence. Because the State presented sufficient evidence to support each of appellant’s convictions, double jeopardy does not preclude the State from retrying appellant. Other issues and assignments of error are rendered moot by our determination of the suppression issue related to appellant’s illegal detention, which necessitates the reversal of his convictions. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Lewis | Clark |
3/15/2024
|
3/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-981 |
|
State v. Leach
| 2023-CA-34 | State’s appeal. The trial court erred in granting appellee jail-time credit for days he served in prison for an unrelated case while the current case was pending. Further, the sentences in the current case were imposed consecutively to those in the unrelated case, and jail-time credit is not available in such situations. Judgment reversed only as to jail-time credit and remanded for issuance of a new judgment entry omitting jail-time credit. | Welbaum | Greene |
3/15/2024
|
3/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-978 |
|
State v. Abney
| 2023-CA-49 | Appellant’s 18-month concurrent sentences for domestic violence and vandalism are not contrary to law. Appellant’s argument that the trial court should have sentenced her to community control, rather than prison, is precluded by State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Greene |
3/15/2024
|
3/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-983 |
|
State v. Hudson
| 2023-CA-25 | The trial court did not err in its imposition of consecutive sentences. The consecutive sentencing findings were not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Judgments affirmed. | Epley | Champaign |
3/8/2024
|
3/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-866 |
|
Westerling v. Westerling
| 2023-CA-38 | The trial court’s judgment granting custody of the parties’ two minor children to the appellee did not constitute an abuse of discretion and was not against the weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Tucker | Clark |
3/8/2024
|
3/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-859 |
|
State v. Snyder
| 29933 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief without a hearing where the petition failed to state a substantive ground for relief. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
3/8/2024
|
3/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-861 |
|
Rehmert v. Rehmert
| 29860 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the de facto date of the termination of the parties’ marriage, in dividing marital and nonmarital property, or in rejecting appellant’s claims of financial misconduct. Ineffective assistance of counsel is not properly raised on appeal from a divorce proceeding. Judgment affirmed. | Lewis | Montgomery |
3/8/2024
|
3/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-862 |
|
State v. Moody
| 29885 | Appellant’s successive petition for postconviction relief was untimely and barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/8/2024
|
3/8/2024
| 2024-Ohio-864 |
|
State v. Beall
| 29866 | In considering appellant’s pro se petition for post-conviction relief, the trial court properly determined that its subject-matter jurisdiction was not at issue. The petition was successive and untimely, and appellant did not establish that his untimely filing was justified under either of the exceptions set forth in R.C. 2953.23(A). As such, appellant was not entitled to a hearing on his petition. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Montgomery |
3/1/2024
|
3/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-750 |
|
State v. Crawl
| 29859 | Appellant’s conviction for menacing by stalking was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Welbaum | Montgomery |
3/1/2024
|
3/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-752 |
|
FIG 20, L.L.C. FBO SEC PTY v. He
| 29910 | The trial court properly granted summary judgment to tax certificate holder on its foreclosure action. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/1/2024
|
3/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-754 |
|
In re R.S.H.-F.
| 29949 | The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding Mother was not in contempt for missed parenting time, missed FaceTime calls, or a lack of communication. The trial court also did not err when it found no change in circumstances that justified a reallocation of parental rights and responsibilities. Because the trial court found no change in circumstances, it did not err by failing to do a best interest of the child analysis, which is only necessary after finding a change in circumstances. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it calculated child support. Judgment affirmed. | Epley | Montgomery |
3/1/2024
|
3/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-755 |
|
Williams v. Williams
| 29892 | The probate court erred in entering a default judgment against appellant in a concealment action. R.C. 2109.50 et seq. set forth a special proceeding which requires the probate court to investigate and make a finding of guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented when someone is accused of concealment or embezzlement of assets of a guardianship. Because the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, the court is required to compel the accused’s appearance to be examined, which can be accomplished by committing the person to jail, if necessary. The trial court failed to comply with these statutory provisions when appellant failed to appear at a hearing. The court also erred in entering a default judgment, which is not contemplated by the statutes in question. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Lewis | Montgomery |
3/1/2024
|
3/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-758 |
|
State v. Clark
| 2023-CA-22 | Conceded error. The trial court erred by not informing appellant at the sentencing hearing of the jail time credit, if any, to which he was entitled and by not including the jail time credit calculation in the judgment entry. Judgment reversed and remanded. | Tucker | Clark |
3/1/2024
|
3/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-751 |
|
State v. Lewis
| 2023-CA-24 | The judgment of the trial court was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed. | Huffman | Champaign |
3/1/2024
|
3/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-756 |
|