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

Reporter of Decisions - Opinions & Announcements

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:   What is Year Decided?
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 15 rows. Rows per page: 
12
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Ruff C-160385, C-160386SENTENCING: On appeal from a remand for resentencing on allied offenses, defendant's arguments relating to the trial court's failure to make the findings for consecutive sentences, consider the purposes and principles of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and notify him pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(f) that he cannot ingest or be injected with a drug of abuse and that he is required to submit to random drug testing in prison are not barred by res judicata, because they arose out of his resentencing hearing. The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences where the trial court made the requisite findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and incorporated those findings into the judgment entries of conviction. The trial court was not required to state on the record that it had considered the R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors prior to imposing sentence, and the appellate court can presume from a silent record that the trial court considered the factors prior to imposing sentence unless the defendant affirmatively shows that the court failed to do so. The court's failure to inform the defendant that he cannot ingest or be injected with a drug of abuse while in prison and that he would be required to submit to random drug testing while incarcerated did not prejudice the defendant, because R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(f) conferred no substantive rights upon the defendant, and therefore, the trial court's failure to comply with the statutory provision was harmless error. The cause must be remanded to the trial court for correction of the clerical errors in the judgment entries to reflect that the defendant had been found guilty by a jury and not the trial court.DetersHamilton 4/19/2017 4/19/2017 2017-Ohio-1430
In re M. C-170008CHILDREN - CUSTODY: The juvenile court did not err in awarding permanent custody of a child to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services where the record showed that the child's mother failed to consistently visit the child and continued to have issues with impulse control and substance abuse despite treatment, and where the child had special needs and needed permanence to address her issues, and there were no other relatives who could care for the child. The juvenile court did not err in finding that it was in the best interests of two of mother's other children to grant legal custody to the individuals who were caring for them where the record showed that mother was not in a position to care for the children and they were thriving in their placements.DetersHamilton 4/19/2017 4/19/2017 2017-Ohio-1431
In re W.M. C-170003CHILDREN - CUSTODY: Where the magistrate's finding that mother had failed to remedy the conditions that had led to the removal of her children from her home was supported by competent and credible evidence, the trial court did not err in adopting the magistrate's decision granting permanent custody of the children to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services. Although the reasonable-efforts requirement in R.C. 2151.419 does not apply to an R.C. 2151.413 motion for permanent custody, absent a narrowly defined statutory exception, the state must still make reasonable efforts to reunite the family during the custody proceedings prior to the termination of parental rights.MyersHamilton 4/14/2017 4/14/2017 2017-Ohio-1398
State v. McLendon C-160267APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL - FINAL ORDERS - JURISDICTION: A judgment of conviction is a final appealable order when it sets forth (1) the fact of conviction, (2) the sentence, (3) the judge's signature, and (4) the entry on the journal by the clerk of courts. Where the judgment of conviction does not contain the fact of conviction, it is not a final appealable order, and the appeal from that judgment must be dismissed.ZayasHamilton 4/14/2017 4/14/2017 2017-Ohio-1399
State v. Carter C-150625COUNSEL - PROSECUTOR - JURY VERDICTS: Because the prosecutor's comments during closing argument were a fair commentary on the evidence presented, did not denigrate defense counsel, and were not improper, the defendant failed to establish that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument. Because defense counsel's comments during closing argument were accurate statements based on the evidence presented, constituted an acceptable trial strategy, and did not result in prejudice to the defendant, defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance. The jury did not return inconsistent verdicts by finding the defendant guilty of one charge and being unable to reach a verdict on the remaining charges.MyersHamilton 3/31/2017 4/10/2017 2017-Ohio-1328
State v. Johnson C-160242SENTENCING: While there is no constitutional right to appellate review of a criminal sentence, R.C. 2953.08 confers statutory rights upon a defendant to appeal from some felony sentences including those that are contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(A); but R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) bars such an appeal when the sentence to be reviewed was imposed for the crime of aggravated murder. Since R.C. 2953.08 specifically and comprehensively defines the parameters of felony-sentencing appellate review, a sentence imposed for aggravated murder is not subject to review by an appellate court pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3). While an appellate court may not review the actual sentence imposed for aggravated murder, nothing in R.C. 2953.08(D) precludes review of whether the trial court complied with the requirements of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when ordering that sentence to be served consecutively. The determination of whether a trial court properly imposed nonmandatory consecutive sentences is governed by the same statute, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), both for general felonies and for aggravated murder; if a trial court exercises its discretion to impose consecutive sentences, it must make the consecutive-sentences findings set out in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and those findings must be made at the sentencing hearing and incorporated into the sentencing entry.CunninghamHamilton 3/29/2017 3/29/2017 2017-Ohio-1148
Tibbe v. Ranbaxy, Inc. C-160472SUMMARY JUDGMENT - PREEMPTION - DRUG WARNING LABELS: Summary judgment was properly granted to defendant generic-drug manufacturer on federal preemption grounds on plaintiffs' state-law tort claims where the generic manufacturer presented unrebutted evidence that its product labeling was the same as the brand-name counterpart, as required by federal law, and the plaintiffs' claims that the generic-drug manufacturer was required by state law to include different or additional language in its labeling to adequately warn consumers of the risks associated with the product conflicted with the generic-drug manufacturer's federal-law duty to maintain the same labeling as its brand-name counterpart, making it impossible to comply with both laws. Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604, 131 S.Ct. 2567, 180 L.Ed.2d 580 (2011), followed. Summary judgment was properly granted on plaintiffs' claim that defendant generic-drug manufacturer had a state-law duty to warn consumers regarding their potential legal rights, because their claim was not supported by Ohio law.CunninghamHamilton 3/29/2017 3/29/2017 2017-Ohio-1149
State v. Roberts C-150528APPELLATE REVIEW - JURISDICTION - POSTCONVICTION - POSTRELEASE CONTROL: Defendant's judgment of conviction was not correctable under Crim.R. 36 on the grounds that his sentence was not imposed in conformity with the statutes governing repeat violent offenders, indefinite sentences, jail-time credit, and postrelease control, because those claims alleged errors of law, not fact. Defendant's postconviction motion seeking relief on the grounds that his sentence was not imposed in conformity with the statutes governing repeat violent offenders, indefinite sentences, jail-time credit, and postrelease control was not reviewable by the common pleas court under R.C. 2953.21 et seq. as a postconviction petition, because it did not allege a constitutional violation; under Crim.R. 33 as a motion for a new trial or under Crim.R. 32.1 as a motion to withdraw guilty pleas, because he was convicted following a jury trial and did not seek a new trial; under R.C. Chapter 2731 as a petition for a writ of mandamus, under R.C. Chapter 2721 as a declaratory judgment action, or under R.C. Chapter 2725 as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, because the motion did not satisfy those statutes' procedural requirements; or under Civ.R. 60(B), upon the authority of Crim.R. 57(B), because his conviction was reviewable under the procedures provided for a direct appeal. Defendant's judgment of conviction was not correctable under a court's jurisdiction to correct a void judgment on the grounds that his sentence was not imposed in conformity with the statutes governing repeat violent offenders, indefinite sentences, or jail-time credit; but his sentence was subject to correction as void to the extent that it did not conform with the statutory mandates concerning postrelease control, because the mandatory five-year period imposed was not authorized for the special felony of murder.MockHamilton 3/24/2017 3/24/2017 2017-Ohio-1060
State v. Thompkins C-160384COUNSEL - AGGRAVATED ROBBERY - R.C. 2941.25: Defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel where counsel's cross-examination of a state's witness may have elicited additional evidence of defendant's involvement in the offenses where the witness's testimony on cross-examination was duplicative of his testimony on direct examination. Defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery were not against the weight of the evidence and were supported by sufficient evidence where the evidence showed that defendant acted as a lookout while his codefendants entered a hotel, held a gun to the hotel clerk's head, and stole the clerk's personal cell phone and money from the hotel's cash register. By failing to seek the merger of his convictions for aggravated robbery in the trial court, defendant forfeited for appellate review all but plain error on his claim that the offenses were allied offenses of similar import. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to merge defendant's two convictions for aggravated robbery where defendant and his codefendants robbed a hotel clerk of her personal cell phone and the hotel of cash from its register, because the offenses involved separate victims and were, therefore, offenses of dissimilar import within the meaning of R.C. 2941.25(B).MyersHamilton 3/24/2017 3/24/2017 2017-Ohio-1061
State v. Brice C-160473NONSUPPORT OF DEPENDENTS - COUNSEL - PROCEDURE/RULES - CONTINUANCE - COMMUNITY CONTROL: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for a continuance where defendant had already been granted four continuances, the state had had its witnesses present at the previous trial setting, the trial court had informed defendant that if defendant did not retain private counsel as he claimed trial would proceed at the next setting with appointed counsel, and defendant's claims of hiring a private attorney appeared to be false. Trial counsel was not ineffective where there was no indication in the record that counsel failed to produce key evidence at trial, counsel's decision not to cross-examine a hostile witness could be fairly characterized as trial strategy, and there was no reasonable probability that counsel's failure to object to certain testimony affected the outcome of the trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendant to pay his accumulated child-support arrearage as a condition of community control, because the condition was reasonably related to defendant's rehabilitation as it required him to support his daughter, was related to the crime of nonsupport, and ensured the good behavior of supporting his child.CunninghamHamilton 3/17/2017 3/17/2017 2017-Ohio-974
12