Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
State v. Solomon 104072Crim.R. 11; voluntary, knowing, and intelligent plea; appellate rights. The defendant's plea was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered into despite the trial court not informing him at the plea hearing that by pleading guilty, he would not be able to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress.Boyle 4/13/2017
State v. Cockrell 104207Postrelease control, void, operation of law, R.C. 2967.28, R.C. 2929.191. Trial court erroneously ordered defendant to serve a mandatory three-year period of postrelease control when the statute required that the defendant serve five years of mandatory postrelease control for a first-degree felony. The error resulted in defendant's sentence as it pertained to postrelease control to be void. The trial court could not correct its error pursuant to R.C. 2929.191 because the defendant served his underlying prison sentence. Postrelease control does not arise by operation of law and the language in R.C. 2967.28 does not save the imposition of a void period of postrelease control.Keough 4/13/2017
State v. Wojtowicz 104384Crim.R. 11, ineffective assistance of counsel. Crim.R. 11 does not require a defendant to be told that the sentences imposed for each count may be imposed consecutively. The trial court does not have to advise a defendant of the cumulative total of all prison terms for all offenses at the time of this guilty plea. An attorneys inaccurate prediction of a defendant's sentence does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. The imposition of a lengthy sentence was not motivated by defendant's inability to pay restitution where the record demonstrates that the sentence was based on defendant's significant criminal history and undettered conduct.Keough 4/13/2017
State v. Echols 104483Crim.R. 32(B); harmless error; felony sentencing. Defendant's sentence affirmed. Failure to inform defendant of his right to appeal is harmless when delayed appeal accepted and appellate counsel appointed. Felony sentence supported by evidence in the record and not contrary to law.Blackmon 4/13/2017
State v. Buchanan 104500Rape; self-representation; amendment of indictment. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's day-of-trial verbal request for self-representation as the request was not unequivocal or timely. Where an amendment of the indictment does not change the name or identity of the offense, as in this case, this court will not disturb the trial court's decision to permit the state to amend the date of the offense to conform to the evidence as it was within the trial court's discretion to do so and appellant fails to demonstrate prejudice.McCormack 4/13/2017
O'Malley-Donegan v. MetroHealth Sys. 104544Retaliatory-discharge retaliation; whistleblower retaliation. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of a hospital in an action filed by a nurse who claimed she was discharged by the hospital in retaliation for her reporting an abuse by a nursing aide who raised all four rails of a resident's bed to confine the resident. Appellant nurse failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding her retaliatory-discharge claim under R.C. 3721.24 or whistleblower retaliation claim under R.C. 4113.52McCormack 4/13/2017
State v. McGee 104566Motion to vacate; void sentence; res judicata; R.C. 2971.03; R.C. 2941.148; Tier III; sexual predator; automatic; former R.C. 2950.09(A); postrelease control; R.C. 2967.28. Trial court's denial of motion to vacate a void sentence was affirmed. Appellant's challenge relating to sexually violent predator specifications was barred by res judicata. Appellant's challenge to the length of his sentence was raised in a direct appeal, and R.C. 2971.03 was not applicable to the case. Appellant properly remained subject to postrelease control. The case was remanded for the limited purpose of vacating the Tier III sex offender classification and the automatic imposition of a sexual predator classification in accordance with former R.C. 2950.09(A).Gallagher 4/13/2017
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Baxter 104585Foreclosure; summary judgment; blank-indorsed note; holder of assignment of mortgage. Plaintiff bank established it was the holder of the note by its possession of the blank-indorsed note. Defendants' claim that the assignment of mortgage was invalid is meritless because a mortgagor lacks standing to challenge a mortgage assignment when the mortgagor is neither a party to, nor a third-party beneficiary of, the mortgage assignment.McCormack 4/13/2017
State v. Edner 104594Theft; R.C. 2913.02; blank checks; forgery; R.C. 2913.31; allied offenses; separate conduct; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); restitution; contrary to law. The theft of blank checks and the ensuing forging of those checks to steal a sum certain are not allied offenses subject to merger. The trial court made all the required consecutive sentencing findings, and the defendant failed to challenge whether the findings were supported by the record. The imposition of restitution was contrary to law because no evidence was offered in support of the amount of restitution actually imposed.Gallagher 4/13/2017
State v. Johnson 104597Community control sanctions; abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the appellant's community control sanctions and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment because the appellant violated the conditions of his community control sanctions.Laster Mays 4/13/2017
Berube v. Richardson 104651Default judgment; Civ.R. 55; jury trial demand; Civ.R. 38. Plaintiff appellant was entitled to a jury trial on damages in a default judgment proceeding where she made a proper and timely jury demand.McCormack 4/13/2017
Geauga Savs. Bank v. Berg 104660Foreclosure; order of sale; confirmation of sale; jurisdiction; interlocutory order; final order; reconsideration. The trial court had jurisdiction and authority to confirm a sale that occurred after the court improperly attempted to dismiss a foreclosure action after the court entered an order of foreclosure as this court held in a previous appeal. The trial court could then confirm the sale because its order denying the confirmation of sale was interlocutory and capable of reconsideration sua sponte.Celebrezze 4/13/2017
State v. Jackson 104684Motion; suppress; investigatory stop; seizure; traffic violation; reasonable; suspicion; articulable; hunch; constitutional; invalid; nature; area; Terry stop; criminal; sustained. The trial court erred in failing to grant defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of an invalid investigatory stop. The detective did not articulate a sufficient basis for his reasonable suspicion that a crime was afoot at the time he initiated the investigatory stop.Gallagher 4/13/2017
Vadaj v. French 104699 & 104701Negligence; summary judgment; foreseeability; proximate cause. Summary judgment in favor of defendants appellees was proper where reasonable minds can only conclude that any negligence on the part of the defendants appellees was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff appellant's injury. Rather, plaintiff appellant's own action in ascending the stairs she could not see was the proximate cause of her broken foot.McCormack 4/13/2017
Kent's Excavating Servs., Inc. v. Leneghan 104820Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; legal malpractice; expert report. Summary judgment in favor of the attorney in a legal malpractice claim was proper where the client did not file a properly authenticated expert report in support of its opposition to summary judgment as mandated by Civ.R. 56(C) and (E). Without an expert report, the client failed to establish its reciprocal burden of presenting a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the attorney breached a professional standard of care.McCormack 4/13/2017
Rees v. Univ. Hosps. 104848Workers' compensation; arising out of and in the course of employment; totality of the circumstances; coming and going rule; workplace errand; special mission; public street; R.C. 4123.512; R.C. 4123.01; required training class; fixed situs. The trial court properly determined that a worker injured when she fell crossing a public street between a parking garage and her designated work location was entitled to workers' compensation benefits when the worker was sent to the parking garage to retrieve something necessary for her work duties that day.Celebrezze 4/13/2017
State v. McArthur 104862Crim.R. 32.1, postsentence, manifest injustice, res judicata. Defendant's postsentence motion to withdraw his plea was properly denied because the issues raised in the motion could have been raised in a direct appeal. Further, the documents attached to his motion demonstrates that defendant was competent at the time of the plea; thus manifest injustice could not be shown.Keough 4/13/2017
Yidi, L.L.C. v. JHB Hotel, L.L.C. 104907Intervene; Consolidate; Civ.R. 24; Civ.R. 42. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying shareholder appellant's motion to intervene in foreclosure action where proposed intervenor owned 99 percent of company that owned the mortgage property but did not own the mortgage property, did not sign the loan documents, and did not have a lien on the mortgage property. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to consolidate foreclosure action with shareholder's derivative lawsuit involving different parties. Since shareholder was properly denied right to intervene, it could not challenge Receiver's sale of mortgage property.Blackmon 4/13/2017
Cole v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Servs. 104975Administrative appeal; adult care facility; Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services; revocation of license; denial of application to renew license; R.C. 5119.34(F)(2)(a); Ohio Adm.Code 5122-33-05(G); reliable, probative and substantial evidence; in accordance with the law; abuse of discretion; Ohio Adm.Code 5122-33-23(B)(15); exploitation; resident agreement; improper management of resident funds; charging additional fees for services not specified in resident agreement; Ohio Adm.Code 5122-33-16; final accounting; Ohio Adm.Code 5122-33-21(C)(3) - Common pleas court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise err in determining that order of Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services ("MHAS") revoking the licenses of two adult care facilities and denying the renewal of the license of a third adult care facility was supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and in accordance with law based on findings that appellants exploited a resident in violation of Ohio Adm.Code 5122-33-23(B)(15), managed residents' funds in contravention of their resident agreements and charged additional fees for services not specified in resident agreement in violation of Ohio Adm.Code 5122-33-16, failed to provide a final accounting in violation of Ohio Adm.Code 5122-33-21(C)(3) and/or failed to provide proper staff supervision and protect the rights of residents in violation of Ohio Adm.Code 5122-33-12(A)(3) and (5). Facilities failed to show that their due process rights were violated based on their alleged failure to receive a timely hearing on order suspending admissions of residents.Gallagher 4/13/2017
In re N.B. 105028Permanent custody; clear and convincing; manifest weight; substance abuse treatment; best wishes; relevant factors; guardian ad litem; Sup.R. 48; reversible error; independent counsel; R.C. 2151.414(D)(1). Affirmed the trial court's decisions awarding permanent custody of children to CCDCFS and terminating parental rights where mother had not successfully completed substance abuse treatment or maintained sobriety of any significant duration. The trial court considered all relevant factors; the record contained sufficient competent, credible evidence to support the trial court's decisions under a clear and convincing standard; and the decisions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The guardian ad litem's failure to comply with the directives of Sup.R. 48(D) in ascertaining the wishes of the children did not constitute grounds for reversal, and the record did not reflect any reasonable basis for the juvenile court to have considered appointing independent counsel for the children.Gallagher 4/13/2017
State v. Vaughn 103330App.R. 26(B); Application to reopen; ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; consecutive sentencing; trial court's error in reading defendant's record; and prejudice. Appellate counsel's failure to include the trial judge's misreading of the defendant's record in imposing consecutive sentences did not result in prejudice, when defendant's conduct in participating in two separate armed robberies, vandalism, and kidnapping while on probation justified consecutive sentences. Appellate counsel in the exercise of professional judgment could decide not to include the "misreading" when the trial judge did not repeat the misreading while making the necessary findings for consecutive sentences.Blackmon 4/12/2017
State v. Lopez 105200Petition for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, failure to caption petition with names and addresses of all parties, R.C. 2969.25(A) - description of all civil actions filed against government or government employees in last five years, R.C. 2725.04(D) - copy of commitment papers, R.C. 2725.04 - verification of petition requirement. The petitioner's request for a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is employed by the government of the United States to secure the presence in federal court of a person incarcerated by a state. In addition, a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is not equivalent to a writ of habeas corpus as found in R.C. Chapter 2725.Jones 4/11/2017