Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
State v. T.S. 102648Expungement; sealing of the record; R.C. 2953.32 and 2953.36; eligibility. Where the defendant's conviction was an offense involving victim under 16 years of age and the offense is a misdemeanor of the first degree, the conviction was ineligible for expungement under R.C. 2953.36. The trial court therefore did not have authority to seal the records of defendant's conviction.Blackmon 8/31/2017
State v. R.M. 104327R.C. 2953.32(A)(1)/expungement/sealing of the record; R.C. 2953.36(A)(3)/ineligibility of expungement. Appellant's offense is considered an offense of violence and he is therefore prohibited from having his record expunged and sealed.Jones 8/31/2017
In re Z.P. 104395R.C. 2151.23(A)(2)/juvenile court/jurisdiction/custody of child; Juv.R. 27(A)/ hearings; Juv.R. 40(C)(2)/magistrate's authority to regulate proceedings; manifest weight. The trial court did not violate appellant's due process rights in denying appellant's motion for leave to file supplemental objections to the magistrate's decision. Appellant failed to show how filing supplemental objections would advance his cause. The record lacks competent, credible evidence showing that it would be detrimental to the child to grant legal custody to Father. The trial court's judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence.Jones 8/31/2017
State v. Cantrall 104576R.C. 2901.01(A)(14); affirmative defense; not guilty by reason of insanity; severe mental defect or disease; knew the wrongfulness of the act; manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court's finding that defendant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time of the act was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Reasonable minds could conclude, as the state's expert did, that despite defendant's severe mental defect or disease, defendant knew the wrongfulness of his actions.Boyle 8/31/2017
State v. Ortiz 104689Motion to withdraw guilty plea; hybrid representation; ineffective assistance of counsel; court costs and fines. The court did not err in denying defendant's pro se oral motion to withdraw guilty plea prior to sentencing, because defendant was represented by counsel at the time and defendant failed to offer a reasonable and legitimate basis for withdrawing his plea. Case remanded for nunc pro tunc to correct the sentencing journal entry to reflect the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing regarding court costs and fines.Blackmon 8/31/2017
McNair v. Brecksville 104706Ohio Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 3, Home Rule Amendment, R.C. 2721.01, declaratory judgment, R.C. Chapter 718, municipal income tax, Brecksville City Charter, Chapter 1525 of Brecksville City Ordinances, referendum, emergency legislation. Brecksville Ordinance 4890, containing emergency legislation language, which reduced the income tax credit granted to Brecksville residents paying income taxes in the city of employment from 100 percent to 87.50 percent is validly enacted legislation. The failure to obtain the requisite super-majority vote did not render the legislation void because the legislation was validly enacted as non-emergency legislation pursuant to the Brecksville City Charter and Youngstown v. Aiello, 156 Ohio St. 32, 100 N.E.2d 62 (1951).Laster Mays 8/31/2017
Dech-Noble v. Ammons 104896Civ.R. 11; R.C. 2323.51; frivolous conduct; motion for attorney fees and sanctions. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's motion for attorney fees and sanctions.Boyle 8/31/2017
State v. Shaw 105111Sufficient evidence; tampering with evidence; knowingly; unmistakable crime; jury instruction; discharging firearm on or near prohibited premises; verdict form; misdemeanor; ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant's tampering with evidence conviction was supported by sufficient evidence where totality of circumstances indicated the defendant knew the police were likely to investigate a shooting incident. Defendant's discharging a weapon on or near a prohibited premises was modified and reduced from third-degree felony to first-degree misdemeanor to conform to the verdict form that did not provide elevating language or the form of the offense. Defendant's right to counsel was not violated even though his trial counsel did not request special jury instructions because the court's charge was a complete and accurate statement of Ohio law.Gallagher 8/31/2017
State v. Boros 105173 & 105174Intervention in lieu of conviction; R.C. 2951.041; hearing; abuse of discretion; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant's motion for intervention in lieu of conviction without a hearing. R.C. 2951.041(A)(1) specifically states that a court may reject a request for intervention in lieu of conviction without a hearing. And the trial court properly imposed consecutive sentences in accordance with R.C. 2929.14.Boyle 8/31/2017
State v. Hudson 105177Guilty plea; knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; plea colloquy. The record demonstrates the appellant's plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.McCormack 8/31/2017
In re Z.I. 105233Parental rights; R.C. 2151.414(D); best interests. Court abused its discretion by finding it to be in the best interests of the children to terminate a mother's parental rights and grant permanent custody of the children to agency based on the children sleeping on mattresses placed on the floor.Stewart 8/31/2017
In re Chrosniak's Petition For Relief From Disability 105459Disability; weapon; application for relief; convictions; abuse of discretion; arbitrary; offense of violence; sexual battery; rehabilitation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's application for relief from weapons disability.Gallagher 8/31/2017
State ex rel. Brown v. Sutula 105871Mandamus; motion for new trial; mootness; poverty affidavit; and R.C. 2969.25. Mandamus action to compel ruling on motion for new trial was rendered moot by the respondent judge denying the subject motion. Relator did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), because he did not file a poverty affidavit.Celebrezze 8/30/2017
State v. Eddy 104417App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, failure to object to jury instruction constitutes waiver on appeal, plain error, jury instruction with regard to flight, jury instruction with regard to self-defense, jury instruction failed to identity victim with regard to charge of felonious assault, jury instruction with regard to cause, jury instruction with regard to unanimity, jury instruction with regard to attempt, motion to suppress, probable cause, res judicata. The appellant has filed a timely application for reopening. In support of his application for reopening, the appellant raises ten proposed assignments that deal with the issues of defective jury instructions and a motion to suppress. The trial court's jury instruction with regard to flight, self-defense, cause, unanimity, and attempt were not defective nor was the appellant prejudiced by the trial court's jury instructions. In addition, the appellant was not prejudiced by the failure of trial counsel to file a motion to suppress. Finally, we find no plain error associated with any of the appellant's proposed assignments of error.Boyle 8/30/2017
State v. Cosper 104832App.R. 26(B); self-representation; untimely; good cause; sworn statement. Application to reopen direct appeal was denied because applicant represented himself on appeal and therefore cannot satisfy the standard for reopening under App.R. 26(B)(1). The failure to establish "good cause" for an untimely application as required under App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) and failure to attach a sworn statement as required under App.R. 26(B)(2)(d) also supports denial of application to reopen.Gallagher 8/29/2017
State v. Shearer 92974App.R. 26(B); application to reopen; ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; successive applications; untimely. The court denied this App.R. 26(B) application to reopen because appellate counsel could not argue errors made after the appeal on remand, because the application was untimely, and because successive applications are not allowed.Gallagher 8/25/2017