Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
State v. Durrette 104050Guilty plea; Crim.R. 11; ineffective assistance of counsel; motion to withdraw guilty plea; Crim.R. 32.1; manifest injustice; notice of prior conviction specification; R.C. 2929.13; due process; juvenile adjudication; sentence; R.C. 2953.08; contrary to law; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his guilty pleas. Because appellant failed to meet his burden of establishing a manifest injustice, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Appellant's trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. The trial court's sentence is not contrary to law.Celebrezze 8/24/2017
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Ward 104104R.C. 5301.23; R.C. 5301.25; unrecorded mortgage; doctrine of equitable subrogation. Under R.C. 5301.23, the first recorded mortgage has priority. Accordingly, appellant's argument that its unrecorded mortgage interest should take over appellee's recorded mortgage lien because appellee's assignor may have had notice of the unrecorded mortgage fails. R.C. 5301.25 does not apply to a priority determination involving an unrecorded mortgage. Appellant's equitable subrogation claim fails as a matter of law because, under Ohio law, unrecorded mortgages are ineffectual as to third parties in both law and equity.Kilbane 8/24/2017
State v. Calabrese 104151Presentence Motion to vacate guilty plea; probate guardianship. Trial court did not err in denying motion to vacate guilty plea filed by defendant who was deemed incompetent in probate proceedings and subject to guardianship because: criminal competency determinations are separate from and independent to probate competency determination; defendant was found competent to stand trial; trial court fully complied with Crim.R. 11 in taking the plea. Additionally, under 4-part test for presentence motions to vacate guilty pleas, trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion.Blackmon 8/24/2017
Force Indoor Sports L.L.C. v. Domestic Linen Supply Co., Inc. 104788Arbitration; unconscionable; loser pays; motion to stay. Judgment affirmed. Trial court's denial of motion to stay pending arbitration was proper where the complaint contained an action for declaratory relief seeking a declaration that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. The declaratory judgment issue should be resolved before proceeding with arbitration.Kilbane 8/24/2017
Anderson v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. 104858Civ.R. 56/summary judgment; disability discrimination. The trial court erred by granting summary judgment in appellee's favor. Appellant presented evidence sufficient enough to create a genuine issue of material fact.Jones 8/24/2017
Cleveland v. Lewis 104928Nuisance abatement; summary judgment; notice; service. The city provided proper notice to the owner pursuant to the city's housing and building code before demolishing a condemned structure. Although an affidavit submitted in conjunction with the city's motion for summary judgment failed to properly authenticate post office mailing documentation and a photograph depicting the city's notice posted at the condemned structure, the technical noncompliance with Civ.R. 56 authentication procedure was harmless error because the authenticity of the documents has not been called into doubt and could have been easily cured by a more precisely drafted affidavit in a refiled motion for summary judgment.McCormack 8/24/2017
Cleveland v. Jones 104965Motion to dismiss indictment; double jeopardy. The trial court erred when it denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment because double jeopardy barred further prosecution.Boyle 8/24/2017
Bank of New York Mellon v. Slover 105075Foreclosure, Civ.R. 60(B), res judicata. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to vacate judgment. Notwithstanding the fact that appellant failed to satisfy his burden under Civ.R. 60(B), the issues appellant raised could have been raised in the trial court or in a timely appeal from the trial court's decision entering an order of foreclosure and sale.Keough 8/24/2017
State v. Wallace 105123Ineffective assistance of counsel; peremptory challenge; actual bias; prejudice. In a case where the defendant was charged with rape, trial counsel was not ineffective for not exercising a peremptory challenge to excuse a juror who was a rape victim where the juror stated that she did not consider herself to be a rape victim, and that she had healed from the experience and could be fair and impartial in deciding the case. Also, even if counsel's performance were deficient, defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from counsel's performance because he failed to demonstrate that the juror was actually biased against him, and could only speculate that the result of the trial would have been different if the juror had been excused.Keough 8/24/2017
State v. Davis 105137Guilty plea; ineffective assistance of counsel; knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; plea negotiations; court's participation. The record demonstrates the appellant's plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; therefore, he fails to demonstrate the ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the plea. The trial judge's isolated inquiry into the parties' plea negotiations during the sentencing hearing did not amount to improper court participation and did not affect the voluntariness of the appellant's plea.McCormack 8/24/2017
State v. Perry 105307Anders; Loc.App.R. 16(C). - Appeal dismissed. Following our independent review of the entire record, we find there exist no meritorious arguments that could be made in this appeal. Therefore, appellant's appeal is wholly frivolous, and the appeal is dismissed.Kilbane 8/24/2017
State v. Learn 105365Terminate; revoke; grant; hearing; shall; conceded error; reverse; remand. The trial court committed reversible error by granting defendant's motion to terminate the permanent revocation of his driving privileges without a hearing.Gallagher 8/24/2017
State v. Jones 105405Petition for postconviction relief; hearing; R.C. 2953.21; alibi; ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant could not demonstrate a need for an evidentiary hearing because trial counsel's performance did not fall below the applicable standard even if the appellant's evidence, demonstrating the attorney's refusal to call an alibi witness at trial, is considered - the alleged alibi was the appellant's significant other whose claims contradicted the testimony of several witnesses, the victim, and documentary evidence.Gallagher 8/24/2017
State v. Drake 105908Motion to withdraw guilty plea; Crim.R. 32.1; postconviction; R.C. 2953.21(D); jurisdiction. Although R.C. 2953.21(D) allows the trial court to consider petitions for postconviction relief while a direct appeal is pending, a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw a guilty plea is not a collateral postconviction attack that falls under the statute. A direct appeal from the guilty plea was pending in the court of appeals when the defendant filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea, so any ruling on the merits of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea would interfere with the appellate court's jurisdiction, would be entered without jurisdiction, and would therefore be a nullity.Stewart 8/24/2017
Jones v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr. 102916R.C. 2744.05(B); offset; future economic damages; interrogatories; informed consent; installment payments. R.C. 2744.05(B)(1) requires that the collateral benefits a claimant receives be offset from damages awarded against a political subdivision. When the court is requested to offset collateral benefits received by a claimant against a damages award entered against a political subdivision, it may determine what benefits are subject to offset in a post trial hearing where the parties can offer evidence regarding collateral benefit offsets. Even though the jury returned general awards for future economic damages, the court could not assume for purposes of determining the statutory offset required by R.C. 2744.05(B)(1) that the jury intended to disregard substantial and uncontradicted evidence of loss of future income and award damages only for future medical expenses under a life care plan. Because loss of future income could have been a part of future economic damages, the court could not have determined to the requisite degree of certainty that the entire award for future economic damages should be offset. The statutory offset for collateral benefits required by R.C. 2744.05(B)(1) does not violate the right to a trial by jury, is constitutional as applied, does not violate substantive due process, is not in derogation of the open courts amendment, and does not violate the separation of powers. A viable, unborn child can bring a claim for lack of informed consent. R.C. 2744.06(B)(2) permits the court to grant a motion for installment payments on an award against a political subdivision but does not require the court to do so.Stewart 8/24/2017
State v. Newett 103518App.R. 26(B); ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; aggravated robbery; aggravated burglary; felonious assault; merger; allied offenses; manifest weight of the evidence; prejudice; and right to testify. Appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to argue that aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and felonious assault merged as allied offenses. The uncertainty as to the sequence of events made it difficult to construct a persuasive argument that such offenses should merge in this case. Also precedent has held that those offenses do not necessarily merge. Arguing additional inconsistencies would not have changed the manifest weight of the evidence argument. The record did not support the argument that the trial court deprived the defendant of his right to testify.Laster Mays 8/23/2017
State ex rel. Nicholson v. Gall 105898Procedendo; motion to withdraw guilty plea; and mootness. Application for a writ of procedendo to compel judge to rule on a motion to withdraw guilty plea was rendered moot by the judge denying the subject motion.McCormack 8/21/2017