|
| Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Citation / County | Decided | Posted | WebCite |
|
State v. Jones
| 3-23-32 | Abuse of discretion; Community control violation; Prison term. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that defendant-appellant was in violation of the terms of his community control. Further, the trial court did not err by imposing a prison term as a result of defendant-appellant's violation of the terms of his community control. | Miller | Crawford |
4/15/2024
|
4/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1420 |
|
Smith v. Perkins
| 5-23-18 | DEFAULT JUDGMENT; CIV.R. 55; COMPENSATORY DAMAGES; PUNITIVE DAMAGES; CIV.R. 36; REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS; MOTION TO STRIKE; MOTION IN LIMINE. Because the grounds for granting a Civ.R. 36(B) motion were satisfied, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by proceeding with a hearing on the issue of damages. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting a default judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellant and awarding him $250.00 in compensatory damages. The trial court’s damages award is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Zimmerman | Hancock |
4/15/2024
|
4/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1419 |
|
Smith v. Honda
| 8-23-17 | Civ.R. 49. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding jury interrogatories redundant. | Waldick | Logan |
4/15/2024
|
4/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1418 |
|
State v. Barton
| 13-23-22 | Endangering Children; Grand Jury; Fifth Amendment; Bill of Particulars. Conviction for Endangering Children supported by the evidence. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for mistrial based on Fifth Amendment issues. | Waldick | Seneca |
4/15/2024
|
4/15/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1417 |
|
State v. Cline
| 6-23-14 & 6-23-16 | Guilty Plea; Waiver; Crim.R. 5; Consecutive Sentences. Appellant waived any issues with regard to Crim.R. 5 by pleading guilty. Consecutive sentences were not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. | Waldick | Hardin |
4/9/2024
|
4/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1337 |
|
State v. Ritter
| 5-23-23 | Sufficient Evidence; Manifest Weight; Aggravated Possession of Drugs. Possession can be actual or constructive. Constructive possession exists where a person is able to exercise dominion and control over an item even if he or she is not found in physical control of the item in question. The State may establish constructive possession through circumstantial evidence alone. Mere physical proximity is not sufficient to establish constructive possession. However, close physical proximity can be used to support a finding of constructive possession if other facts that suggest dominion and control are presented at trial. | Willamowski | Hancock |
4/9/2024
|
4/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1336 |
|
In re Adoption of G.A.J.
| 4-23-05 | Adoption; De minimus maintenance and support; Consent; R.C. 3107.07; Notice of the Adoption Petition; R.C. 3107.11; 14-day Objection Period; Harmless Error. The trial court did not err by determining that respondent-appellant’s consent to the petitioner-appellee’s adoption of G.A.J. was not required under R.C. 3107.07(K). | Zimmerman | Defiance |
4/9/2024
|
4/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1335 |
|
State v. Brown
| 1-22-78 | Recording of Criminal Proceedings; Crim.R. 22; Side-bar conferences; Chambers conferences; Sufficiency of the Evidence; Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. The trial court did not err by the purported inadequacy of the record since the defendant-appellant was unable to demonstrate any prejudice, let alone, material prejudice. The defendant-appellant’s trafficking-in-drugs conviction is based on sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant-appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective as to pre-trial events or at trial. | Zimmerman | Allen |
4/9/2024
|
4/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1333 |
|
State v. Rogan
| 2-23-01 | Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Crim.R. 32.1; Presentence Motion to Withdraw Plea; Consecutive Sentencing; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Defendant-appellant failed to demonstrate that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Because the trial court made the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences and those findings are supported by the record, defendant-appellant’s consecutive sentences are not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record or otherwise contrary to law. | Miller | Auglaize |
4/9/2024
|
4/9/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1334 |
|
State v. Cornett
| 2-23-12 | FELONY SENTENCING; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Defendant-appellant’s sentence is not contrary to law because his sentence is within the sentencing range and the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. | Zimmerman | Auglaize |
4/1/2024
|
4/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1238 |
|
In re D.C.-F.
| 1-23-34 | Permanent Custody; Manifest Weight of the Evidence; Best Interest; Reasonable Efforts. The trial court's judgment terminating parental rights was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the agency made reasonable efforts toward reunification under the circumstances presented in this appeal. | Zimmerman | Allen |
4/1/2024
|
4/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1237 |
|
State v. Ferguson
| 8-23-14 | Motion to Suppress; Voluntary Statements; Totality of the Circumstances; Coercive Tactics. Voluntary confessions are admissible. A statement is not voluntary if, under the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement obtained the confession through coercion or improper inducement. Under this test, the existence of a coercive police tactic is a predicate to finding a confession was involuntary. If a coercive tactic was found, an appellate court must then examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the defendant's will was overborn by the coercive tactic. | Willamowski | Logan |
4/1/2024
|
4/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1239 |
|
In re Adoption of A.M.Z.
| 13-23-21 | R.C. 3107.07(A); Consent to Adoption; Right to Counsel. An indigent parent may waive his or her right to counsel expressly or through conduct. A waiver of the right to counsel must be voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. A natural parent's consent to adoption is not required if, in the year preceding the filing of the petition for adoption, the natural parent failed without justifiable cause to either engage in more than de minimis contact with the child or to provide for the maintenance and support of the child as required by a judicial decree or by law. | Judge John R. Willamowski | Seneca |
4/1/2024
|
4/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1240 |
|
In re L.A.
| 13-23-23 | Ineffective assistance of counsel; Motion to withdraw; Abuse of discretion; Motion to extend deadline. Generally, parties to a civil proceeding are unable to challenge a civil judgment on the basis of receiving ineffective assistance from retained trial counsel. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a request to extend the deadline to file transcripts. | Miller | Seneca |
4/1/2024
|
4/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1241 |
|
State v. Cook
| 14-23-36 | Motions for a new trial; Crim.R. 33; Unavoidably prevented from the discovery of new evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the new trial motion filed by defendant-appellant. | Waldick | Union |
4/1/2024
|
4/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1242 |
|
In re M.C.
| 16-23-06 | Reunification; Custody Determination; Paternity; Reasonable Efforts; Best Interest of the Child. Trial court was not required to make a reasonable efforts finding when the children were being returned to the home of one of the two parents and the Agency took no position on which home as it determined both were acceptable. Trial court did not err in determining that placement in father's home was in the best interest of the child when both parents requested an arrangement similar to shared parenting and that was what was ordered. The trial court merely placed the child with father for the purpose of education, which maintained the current school district. | Willamowski | Wyandot |
4/1/2024
|
4/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1243 |
|
Diller v. Pennucci
| 10-23-07 | Wills; Anti-Lapse; R.C. 2107.52; Retroactivity; Law of the Case Doctrine. Law of the case doctrine prevented trial court from altering this court's prior decision in Diller I. Further, even if the law of case doctrine did not apply, statute could not be applied retroactively here because it impaired vested rights of appellee. | Waldick | Mercer |
4/1/2024
|
4/1/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1244 |
|
State v. Knott
| 13-23-16 | Manifest weight, ineffective assistance of counsel. Conviction for robbery was not against the manifest weight of the evidence when jury could determine the credibility of the witness and observe security footage of the incident. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to argue complicity did not apply when complicity was not charged and the jury was not instructed on complicity. | Willamowski | Seneca |
3/25/2024
|
3/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1109 |
|
State v. Murray
| 14-23-29 | Judicial Release; R.C. 2929.20(J); Felony Sentencing; R.C. 2953.08; Clear and Convincing Evidence. Before granting an eligible offender's motion for judicial release, the trial court must make the findings required under R.C. 2929.20(J) and specifically list the relevant R.C. 2929.12 factors that were presented at the hearing. | Willamowski | Union |
3/25/2024
|
3/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1110 |
|
State v. Barrett
| 8-22-44 | R.C. 2152.12; Juv.R. 30; Probable Cause Hearing; Amenability Hearing; Complicity. The juvenile court did not err in conducting a joint probable cause hearing or in transferring defendant-appellant’s case from the juvenile court to the general division of the common pleas court for criminal prosecution. Defendant-appellant’s due process and confrontation rights were not violated. | Miller | Logan |
3/25/2024
|
3/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1108 |
|
State v. Hardy
| 7-23-10 | Rape; Sufficient Evidence; Criminal Rule 29; Manifest Weight of the Evidence. Evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for rape when testimony and DNA tests showed that sexual conduct occurred and victim testified to force. Conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Since the evidence was sufficient, the trial court did not err in denying the criminal rule 29 motion for acquittal. | Willamowski | Henry |
3/25/2024
|
3/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1107 |
|
State v. Ware
| 1-22-60 | Evid.R. 404(B); other-acts evidence; drug use; opportunity; intent; preparation; knowledge; Evid.R. 401; Evid.R. 403(A); unfair prejudice; invited error; plain error; inextricably intertwined; limiting instructions; Reagan Tokes Law | Hess | Allen |
3/25/2024
|
3/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1105 |
|
Dilgard v. McKinniss
| 5-23-36 | Summary Judgment; R.C. 955.28(B); Harborer; Landlord. A plaintiff may establish liability for a dog-bite by demonstrating that the defendant was the owner, keeper, or harborer of the dog. If the dog is owned or kept by a tenant, the landlord may be liable if he or she was a harborer of the dog. A harborer is a person who has possession or control of the premises where the dog lives. The ability to admit or exclude people from the property is the key indicator of control. | Willamowski | Hancock |
3/25/2024
|
3/25/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1106 |
|
State v. Brinkman
| 4-23-08 | SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE; IMPORTUNING; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES. The defendant-appellant’s importuning conviction is based on sufficient evidence. The trial court made the appropriate findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences. | Zimmerman | Defiance |
3/18/2024
|
3/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1005 |
|
State v. Harvey
| 1-23-35, 1-23-36 | REMISSION OF PENALTY; BOND FORFEITURE; R.C. 2937.39; SURETY. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by remitting only $70,000 of a collective $150,000 surety bond. | Zimmerman | Allen |
3/18/2024
|
3/18/2024
| 2024-Ohio-1004 |
|
State v. Saxton
| 6-23-06 | Ability to Pay; Waiver of Mandatory Fine; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. The trial court properly considered appellant-defendant's present and future ability to pay before assessing a mandatory fine. Defendant-appellant failed to demonstrate that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. | Miller | Hardin |
3/11/2024
|
3/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-882 |
|
State v. Jose
| 3-23-19 | Judicial Release; R.C. 2929.20(K). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking the defendant-appellant's judicial release and reimposing his original prison sentence with credit for time already served. | Miller | Crawford |
3/11/2024
|
3/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-881 |
|
State v. Spangler
| 8-23-02 | Crim.R. 11; Ability to Pay; Mandatory Fine. Defendant-appellant did not demonstrate that his plea was anything other than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The trial court properly considered defendant-appellant’s present and future ability to pay before assessing a mandatory fine. | Miller | Logan |
3/11/2024
|
3/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-883 |
|
State v. Harrison
| 8-23-10 | The trial court did not err by denying defendant-appellant's motion to suppress evidence seized incident to May 27, 2020 search because R.C. 2967.131, which authorizes warrantless searches of individuals or felons on post-release control, is not unconstitutional. | Zimmerman | Logan |
3/11/2024
|
3/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-884 |
|
State v. Cabrera
| 8-23-12 | Vehicular Manslaughter; Failure to Yield; R.C. 2903.06(A)(4); R.C. 4511.43(A). The evidence at trial supported a finding that defendant-appellant violated R.C. 4511.43(A) by not yielding the right-of-way to the victim's vehicle. The defendant-appellant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Miller | Logan |
3/11/2024
|
3/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-885 |
|
State v. Smith
| 9-23-04 | Felonious Assault; R.C. 2903.11; Abduction; R.C. 2905.02(A)(2); Evid.R. 804(B)(1); Evid.R. 616; Merger of Offenses; R.C. 2941.25. The trial court did not err in admitting the victim's testimony from the preliminary hearing, not allowing defendant-appellant to introduce evidence of a false accusation made against him, or not merging defendant-appellant's offenses together. Defendant-appellant's convictions for felonious assault and abduction were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence. | Miller | Marion |
3/11/2024
|
3/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-886 |
|
OhioHealth Corp. v. Bishop
| 9-23-39 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT; FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS PRACTICES ACT (FDCPA); CIV.R. 8. The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee. Defendant-appellant failed to allege a FDCPA violation in the manner contemplated by the civil rules. | Zimmerman | Marion |
3/11/2024
|
3/11/2024
| 2024-Ohio-887 |
|
Universal Steel Bldgs. Corp. v. Dues
| 10-22-07 | JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT; DIRECTED VERDICT; DEPOSITION TESTIMONY; CIV.R. 32; MOTION FOR JURY TRIAL; CIVIL MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; ATTORNEY FEES; BREACH OF CONTRACT; TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT; PUNITIVE DAMAGES. The trial court erred by granting plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to defendant-appellant/cross-appellee’s counterclaim for tortious interference with a contract and erred by denying defendant-appellant/cross-appellee’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant’s breach-of-contract claim. The trial court erred by granting plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant’s motion for directed verdict as to defendant-appellant/cross-appellee’s counterclaim for punitive damages. Even assuming without deciding that it satisfied the circumstances which must be met under Civ.R. 32(A)(3), plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant was not materially prejudiced by the exclusion of deposition testimonies at trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant-appellant/cross-appellee’s motion for a jury trial. The jury’s verdict as to defendant-appellant/cross-appellee’s breach-of-contract counterclaim is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant’s request for attorney fees. | Zimmerman | Mercer |
2/26/2024
|
2/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-698 |
|
State v. Ghast
| 7-23-13 | Mootness of Appeal. This appeal is moot because defendant-appellant voluntarily completed the jail term without seeking a stay from the trial court, the jail term was imposed for the non-felony offense of violating a no-contact order, and there was no evidence from which an inference could be drawn that defendant-appellant will suffer some collateral disability or loss of civil rights because of the challenged judgment apart from the already-served sentence itself. | Miller | Henry |
2/26/2024
|
2/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-697 |
|
In re M.G.
| 4-23-09 | Custody; Change in Circumstances; Failure to Object. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that change in circumstances occurred. | Waldick | Defiance |
2/26/2024
|
2/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-695 |
|
State v. Whitaker
| 6-23-11 & 6-23-12 | The trial court properly informed defendant-appellant of the consecutive nature of her sentences. The trial court did not err by ordering defendant-appellant to pay court costs, fines, fees, court-appointed counsel fees, and reimbursement fees. | Miller | Hardin |
2/26/2024
|
2/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-696 |
|
State v. Greer
| 1-23-01 | Manifest Weight; Witness Credibility; Trier of Fact. The jury, as the finder of fact, is free to believe all, some, or none of the testimony of each witness that appears at trial. A verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the jury found the State's evidence more credible than the Defense's evidence. A verdict is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because the jury chose not to believe the defendant's account of what transpired. | Zmuda | Allen |
2/26/2024
|
2/26/2024
| 2024-Ohio-694 |
|
State v. Godsey
| 1-22-59 | R.C. 2911.02(A)(2); Physical-Harm Robbery; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. The State's evidence that defendant-appellant committed robbery was legally sufficient and his conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant-appellant's trial counsel was not ineffective in a manner that prejudiced him. The trial court did not err in not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offense of theft for the robbery count. | Miller | Allen |
2/20/2024
|
2/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-629 |
|
State v. Carroll
| 3-23-33 | Sufficiency of the Evidence; Manifest Weight; Obstructing Justice. Conviction for obstructing justice supported by the evidence. | Miller | Crawford |
2/20/2024
|
2/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-628 |
|
State v. Brown
| 7-23-05 | Sufficient Evidence; Pattern of Corrupt Activity; Venue. To establish venue in a prosecution for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of R.C. 2923.32(A)(1), the State need only prove that any portion of the pattern of corrupt activity transpired in the jurisdiction where the trial is held. The State does not need to establish that the defendant was physically present in the forum county if the defendant participated in an enterprise that was active in the forum county. | Willamowski | Henry |
2/20/2024
|
2/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-627 |
|
In re J.R.
| 8-23-07; 8-23-08 | Void judgment, subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, manifest weight, reasonable efforts, best interest, effective assistance of counsel. Trial court did not lose jurisdiction when it had subject matter jurisdiction and respondent waived service agreeing to personal jurisdiction. Agency testified that reasonable efforts to reunify the family were made and trial court made the required findings. Trial court's determination to grant permanent custody was not against the manifest weight of the evidence when the child had been in the custody of the agency for 16 out of the prior 22 months and termination of parental rights was in the best interest of the child. Trial court did not err in denying the motion for legal custody of child, trial court did not err in granting a stay of the proceedings while an appeal by a third party was pending. Respondent was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. | Willamowski | Logan |
2/20/2024
|
2/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-626 |
|
State v. Morgan
| 14-23-27, 14-23-28 | Consecutive Sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); Felony Sentencing Review; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides a basis for an appellate court to determine whether a trial court's R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings are supported by the record. The appellant cannot establish the prejudice prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim if it is an argument that only speculates about the contents of materials that exist outside of the record. | Willamowski | Union |
2/20/2024
|
2/20/2024
| 2024-Ohio-625 |
|
State v. Schleter
| 13-23-25 | Motion to suppress; Warrantless search; Exigent circumstances. The trial court did not err in overruling defendant-appellant's motion to suppress, as the warrantless entry into appellant's home was justified by exigent circumstances. | Waldick | Seneca |
2/12/2024
|
2/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-514 |
|
State v. Pena
| 13-23-24 | Motion to suppress; Warrantless search; Exigent circumstances. The trial court did not err in overruling defendant-appellant's motion to suppress, as the warrantless entry into appellant's home was justified by exigent circumstances. | Zimmerman | Seneca |
2/12/2024
|
2/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-515 |
|
State v. Tucker
| 13-23-17 | Evid.R. 403(A); Evid.R. 403(B); plain-error review; manifest weight of the evidence; witness-credibility determination. Defendant-appellant failed to develop a plain-error argument on appeal, and thus we will not fashion one for him. Hence, we will not address his evidentiary arguments. The defendant-appellant’s failure-to-comply conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Zimmerman | Seneca |
2/12/2024
|
2/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-516 |
|
In re S.M.
| 9-23-30 | R.C. 2151.414; Permanent custody; Manifest weight of the evidence; App.R. 9; Record on appeal. The judgment of the trial court granting permanent custody to the children's services agency was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and the record on appeal was sufficient for appellate review. | Waldick | Marion |
2/12/2024
|
2/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-517 |
|
State v. Frazier
| 6-23-13 | R.C. 2953.08; Felony Sentence; Presumption of Regularity; Jointly Recommended Sentence. The appellant has the burden of affirmatively demonstrating any error alleged on appeal. If the trial court imposes a jointly recommended sentence that is authorized by law, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) states that the felony sentence is not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08. Further, a presumption of regularity attaches to the proceedings at the trial court. | Willamowski | Hardin |
2/12/2024
|
2/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-518 |
|
State v. Patterson
| 5-23-31 | Postconviction motion to dismiss indictment; res judicata; motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial; Crim.R. 33; clear and convincing standard. Defendant-appellant’s postconviction motion to dismiss the indictment is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The trial court did not abuse err by not holding an evidentiary hearing on defendant-appellant’s motion. | Zimmerman | Hancock |
2/12/2024
|
2/12/2024
| 2024-Ohio-519 |
|
Wilhelm v. Advanced Drainage Sys., Inc.
| 5-23-16 | Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; Workers' compensation; COVID-19; Occupational disease. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, as plaintiff-appellant failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact with regard to his claim that COVID-19 was a compensable occupational disease. | Waldick | Hancock |
2/5/2024
|
2/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-390 |
|
Rader v. RLJ Mgt. Co., Inc.
| 5-23-37 | Landlord-Tenant; Civ.R. 8; Notice Pleading; Negligence per se; open and obvious. Trial court did not err by determining that open and obvious nature of pothole precluded common law claim by tenant against landlord. However, trial court erred by determining complaint did not sufficiently raise a claim of a violation of the landlord-tenant act where complaint asserted negligence and that plaintiff was a tenant. | Waldick | Hancock |
2/5/2024
|
2/5/2024
| 2024-Ohio-391 |
|