Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
State v. Kibble 104136Sentence Consistency; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; Restitution. Defendant's sentence did not violate R.C. 2929.11(B)'s consistency provision. Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. Trial court erred in imposing restitution in defendant's sentencing entry that was not addressed or imposed at the sentencing hearing.Gallagher 5/25/2017
Parma v. Odolecki 104160Parma Codified Ordinances 606.14, 648.08, and 684.04, obstructing official business, disorderly conduct, misconduct at an emergency. Appellant's conviction for obstructing justice by warning individuals of an upcoming OVI checkpoint is reversed, and is not supported by the evidence. Appellant's conviction for misconduct at an emergency is affirmed. Appellant approached a scene with five police vehicles, emergency lights activated, and several officers. Police were attempting to diffuse an attempted suicide situation involving an autistic teen whose mother and young sisters were also present. Appellant left his initial video recording location across the street and moved directly adjacent to the scene, aggravating the situation and causing interference with official activities. Appellant's conviction for disorderly conduct is also affirmed.Laster Mays 5/25/2017
State v. Wilson 104333Motion to Sever; Expert Testimony regarding Cell Phone Data Analysis; Sufficiency; Speedy Trial; Consecutive Sentences. Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to sever where a statement made by his co-defendant did not violate the rule of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed. 2d 476 (1968). Trial court did not err in allowing an expert to testify regarding cell phone location analysis. Defendant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. Defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated where he entered a valid waiver after he was provided with the alleged Bruton statement. Trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences.Gallagher 5/25/2017
Patterson v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos. 104371Civ.R. 56/summary judgment; motion for extension; discovery. The trial court's grant of summary judgment for appellee as to appellant's employer intentional tort claim was proper. The record does not show any evidence to support the claim of intentional tort. The trial court erred in denying appellant's motion for summary judgment where a genuine issue of material fact existed as to appellee's duty to indemnify under appellant's negligence and product liability claims. Additionally, appellant should have been permitted to conduct further discovery.Jones 5/25/2017
Watson v. Cleveland 104374R.C. 2506.04; standard of review; common pleas court; limited appellate review. Case reversed and remanded where trial court's judgment entry affirming the board of zoning appeals failed to identify any evidence whatsoever from the record and did not provide any analysis applying the law to such evidence; appellate court could therefore not perform its limited review of the trial court's decision.Keough 5/25/2017
Beverage Holdings, L.L.C. v. 5701 Lombardo, L.L.C. 104559Motion for summary judgment; declaratory judgment; contract; plain and ordinary meaning; ambiguous; parol evidence. Judgment affirmed. The trial court properly granted partial summary judgment when the plain language of the contract clearly provides buyer a credit for rents received by seller, and allows for the final month's rent credit to be prorated according to the date of closing.Kilbane 5/25/2017
State v. Shabazz 104635Resentencing; consecutive sentences. The trial court did not err in re-imposing consecutive sentences following a remand for resentencing where one of the unaffected terms ordered to be counted consecutively had been completed during the pendency of the appellate process.Gallagher 5/25/2017
State v. Harris 104833Bench trial; joinder; Crim.R. 13; other acts evidence; Evid.R. 404(B); sufficiency; manifest weight; circumstantial evidence; manifest injustice; App.R. 16(A)(7). Defendant has not demonstrated any prejudice with the joinder of two criminal cases in a bench trial and that the conviction for murder was against the sufficiency or manifest weight of the evidence.Gallagher 5/25/2017
State v. Gross 104851Consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); reasons. There is no requirement that a trial court provide reasons in support of the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings, and there is no argument that the findings were not supported by the record.Gallagher 5/25/2017
State v. Foster 104883Motion to vacate void judgment, postconviction relief. The appellant's sentence was not void because the trial court made the necessary findings on the record in accordance with R.C. 2929.14(D)(2). Because the appellant's sentence is not void, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant's motion for postconviction relief.Laster Mays 5/25/2017
State v. Diluzio 104906Conviction; drug possession; community control; no contest; plea; voluntarily; Crim.R. 11(C); motion to suppress; traffic stop; reasonable suspicion; detention; identification; contraband; drugs; plain view. Appellant's conviction for drug possession was upheld. The record reflects that appellant's plea of no contest was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The trial court properly denied appellant's motion to suppress where the officer was permitted to order him out of the vehicle during a traffic stop, the totality of circumstances afforded reasonable suspicion for further detention, and the incriminating evidence was lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine.Gallagher 5/25/2017
State v. Fortson 104941Petition for postconviction relief. Defendant's petition was untimely when it was filed over 16 years after his direct appeal and did not allege newly discovered evidence or a retroactive change in the law. Court had no jurisdiction to hear petition and the defendant's arguments are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.Blackmon 5/25/2017
State v. Ward 105001Postconviction relief; jurisdiction; untimely; newly discovered evidence. The trial court has no discretion to consider an untimely petition based on newly discovered evidence after a defendant pleads guilty because under R.C. 2953.23(A) he can never demonstrate that but for the constitutional violation at trial, no reasonable factfinder would have found the defendant guilty.Gallagher 5/25/2017
State v. Torres 105052Anders; App.R. 16(C); plea agreement; agreed sentence; non-frivolous issue. An independent review of the record demonstrates that there are no non-frivolous issues to argue in this case that involved a plea agreement with an agreed sentence.Celebrezze 5/25/2017
In re R.L.J. 105138Crim.R. 36/nunc pro tunc; bindover entry. Appellant's request for a nunc pro tunc entry was substantive, not clerical. Furthermore, appellant's motion was barred by res judicata. The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion.Jones 5/25/2017
State v. Stewart 105154Waiver; juvenile adjudication; criminal conviction; weapons while under disability; R.C. 2923.13; constitutional challenge to statute. Appellant argues for the first time on appeal that weapon while under disability statute, R.C. 2923.13, violates his right to due process because it permits a prior juvenile adjudication to be an element for a subsequent criminal offense. Appellant waived this argument by pleading guilty to the offense. State v. Hand, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5504, does not prevent a previous delinquency adjudication from establishing an element of the offense of having a weapon while under disability.Stewart 5/25/2017