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 404 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Baker 27596Defendant's "motion for newly discovered evidence," which is properly construed as a petition for post-conviction relief, was untimely. Even if we were to consider the merits of the motion, defendant failed to demonstrate that his trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea bargaining process. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 11/17/2017 11/17/2017 2017-Ohio-8602
State v. Dague 2017-CA-26Appellant's sentence of 16 months for a felony of the fourth degree is within the statutory range and not contrary to law, and the court was not required to make any statutory findings in imposing sentence. Appellant's argument that the probation officer preparing the presentence investigation report failed to interview Appellant, and that Appellant should have been "re-referred" for a presentence interview prior to sentencing, is belied by the presentence investigation report, which reflects that Appellant failed to contact the officer by means of the number provided to him, and the officer attempted to contact Appellant multiple times for an interview. Judgment affirmed.DonovanClark 11/17/2017 11/17/2017 2017-Ohio-8603
State v. Lewis 2016-CA-29Counsel for Appellant filed an Anders brief. We do not need to conduct an independent review, as the grant of ILC is not a final appealable order. Appeal dismissed for lack of a final appealable order.DonovanChampaign 11/17/2017 11/17/2017 2017-Ohio-8604
Thies v. Wheelock 2017-CA-8Evidence supported trial court's finding that the parties had entered into an oral contract to submit joint bids on a property to be sold at auction. Trial court did not err in enforcing the agreement. Statute of frauds did not apply because, although the ultimate goal of the agreement was to bid on real property, neither party held an interest in the property at the time of their oral agreement and, in any event, partial performance by plaintiff constituted an exception to the statute of frauds. Imposition of constructive trust on the property was appropriate, as was an award of specific performance. Trial court's "alternate" award of damages was superfluous. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMiami 11/17/2017 11/17/2017 2017-Ohio-8605
State v. Thomas 27588The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant's suppression motion. The appellant was not "seized," for Fourth Amendment purposes, when two police cruisers pulled into a parking lot and an officer started to approach a parked car in which the appellant sat. At that point, there had been no application of physical force or show of authority by the police to which the appellant submitted. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 11/17/2017 11/17/2017 2017-Ohio-8606
State v. Videen 27479The trial court's decision overruling Appellant's Crim.R. 33 motion for new trial without a hearing was not an abuse of discretion, as the motion was untimely and Appellant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence showing that he was unavoidably prevented from timely filing the motion. Affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 11/17/2017 11/17/2017 2017-Ohio-8608
Whitaker v. Paru Selvam, L.L.C. 27439The trial court did not abuse its discretion in precluding the pro se defendant-appellant from filing further documents in this case which is the docketing of a certificate of judgment from another court. His numerous prior filings were frivolous, and he received notice and an opportunity to be heard before the trial court imposed its filing restriction. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 11/17/2017 11/17/2017 2017-Ohio-8609
State v. Vance 2017-CA-18The trial court erred by finding under R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a) that Appellant was not subject to mandatory community control because he previously had been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a felony or to a misdemeanor offense of violence that he committed within two years before the offenses in this case. He had not. But the error is harmless because community control is also not required when, as here, the most serious charge for which the offender was being sentenced was a third-degree felony. R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a)(ii). Furthermore, one of the exceptions to the R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a) community control sentencing for a fifth-degree felony which is contained in R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b) is that the offender "violated a term of the conditions of bond," which he did. The trial court did not err by sentencing Appellant to prison and not drug treatment. The record supports the trial court's decision. Judgment affirmed.HallGreene 11/15/2017 11/17/2017 2017-Ohio-8607
State v. Garrett 27264The trial court did not err when it failed to instruct the jury on the issue of eyewitness identification pursuant to United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552, 558-59 (D.C.Cir.1972). Furthermore, appellant's trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request that the Telfaire instruction be given in place of the standard jury instruction regarding the credibility of eyewitness identification testimony. The facts of the instant case do not present a situation where the special instruction would have resulted in a different outcome to the case's disposition. Appellant's convictions for aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and kidnapping were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 11/9/2017 11/9/2017 2017-Ohio-8492
State v. Gross 27322The evidence is sufficient to support, and the weight of the evidence is not against, Appellant's conviction for loitering to engage in solicitation. Appellee concedes that the evidence is not sufficient to support the conviction for soliciting. Whether the loitering and soliciting offenses should have merged is moot. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded.HallMontgomery 11/9/2017 11/9/2017 2017-Ohio-8493