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 129 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Becraft 2016-CA-9The trial court's order of restitution in the amount of $1,200 is contrary to law because it fails to take into account the order of restitution to be paid by one of Appellant's co-defendants and thus exceeds the victim's economic loss in violation of R.C. 2929.18. The State, however, did not breach the portion of the parties' plea agreement to remain silent at sentencing because the comments Appellant complains of were made while the State was opposing Appellant's motion to withdraw guilty plea, not during sentencing. Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant's presentence/post-remand motion to withdraw guilty plea. Restitution amount modified and affirmed as modified. Judgment affirmed in all other respects. (Donovan, J., dissenting).WelbaumClark 4/21/2017 4/21/2017 2017-Ohio-1464
State v. Hurtado 26892Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance when his counsel advised him to plead guilty to the charged offense. The record also establishes that the trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 in accepting appellant's plea. Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered appellant to pay a mandatory fine in the amount of $7,500.00. Judgment affirmed. DonovanMontgomery 4/21/2017 4/21/2017 2017-Ohio-1465
State v. Nelms 27167The trial court did not err by overruling Appellant's motion to suppress the illegal drugs found in his vehicle. The vehicle had been parked directly in front of the entrance to a commercial building, had been occupied for an extended time by persons who were the subject of the drug investigation, and the vehicle was therefore covered by the premises search warrant authorizing the search of a commercial building and its curtilage, on which the vehicle was parked. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 4/21/2017 4/21/2017 2017-Ohio-1466
State v. Sapp 2015-CA-43Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying petition for postconviction relief; petitioner was not entitled to discovery, and his claims were barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed. FroelichClark 4/21/2017 4/21/2017 2017-Ohio-1467
First Natl. Bank of Omaha v. Spirit Med. Transport 2016-CA-8The trial court's conclusion that Plaintiff-Appellant transacts business in Ohio, and thus, is required under R.C. 1703.03 to be licensed with the Ohio Secretary of State is supported by the record. The trial court, therefore, correctly concluded that Plaintiff-Appellant, under R.C. 1703.29(A), was precluded from filing the cause of action at issue in this case. Judgment affirmed.TuckerDarke 4/21/2017 4/21/2017 2017-Ohio-1468
State v. Andrews 2016-CA-13The trial court did not err in overruling Appellant's motion to suppress, since the trooper who stopped Appellant had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Andrews committed a marked lanes violation and was operating his vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Judgment affirmed.DonovanGreene 4/14/2017 4/14/2017 2017-Ohio-1383
State v. Arnold 27218Where the State and a defendant enter into a plea agreement that includes an agreed sentence, and the trial court imposes a lawful sentence in accordance with the agreement, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) precludes an appeal of the sentence. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 4/14/2017 4/14/2017 2017-Ohio-1384
State v. Beechler 2016-CA-44The trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to vacate an alleged void conviction. Appellant had previously filed several post-conviction motions, and did not satisfy the requirements under R.C. 2953.23 for filing a successive post-conviction petition. The trial court, therefore, lacked jurisdiction over Appellant's claims. In addition, Appellant's claims were barred by res judicata. The trial court also was not required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and was not required to appoint counsel for Appellant. Affirmed.WelbaumClark 4/14/2017 4/14/2017 2017-Ohio-1385
State v. Bowshier 2015-CA-54; 2015-CA-73In this appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), there are no potential assignments of error having arguable merit. The trial court's valuation of Appellant's vehicles for restitution purposes is reasonable. The court reasonably rejected Appellant's claim that there was jewelry inside one of the vehicles. And any challenge to Appellant's sentence is barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., dissenting).HallClark 4/14/2017 4/14/2017 2017-Ohio-1386
State v. Howard 27048Pursuant to our responsibilities under Anders we have conducted an independent review of appellant's conviction and sentencing. We find no arguably meritorious assignments of error. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 4/14/2017 4/14/2017 2017-Ohio-1387