Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
Branden v. Branden 104523Magistrate's decision; objections; abuse of discretion; show cause; contempt; nunc pro tunc; spousal support; judgment; debt; Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 15; modification; R.C. 3105.73(D); R.C. 3121.03(B)(1); 401(k); change in circumstance; R.C. 3105.18(F)(b); R.C. 3105.18(C); attorney fees; interest; arrearage; R.C. 3123.17(A)(2). Trial court's ruling on objections to magistrate's decision pertaining to contempt, modification of spousal support, attorney fees, and interest was affirmed. No abuse of discretion was found.Gallagher 9/7/2017
State v. Gindlesperger 104539DUI; failure to comply; furthermore specification; sufficiency of evidence; manifest weight; flight or consciousness of guilt jury instruction. Judgment affirmed. Sufficient evidence supported defendant's DUI and furthermore specification convictions and his convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The record revealed that the defendant was speeding. His eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Defendant sped off instead of exiting his vehicle. The pursuit was captured on the trooper's dash-cam video. Furthermore, the flight instruction was appropriate based on the trooper's testimony as well as the defendant's testimony that he fled the traffic stop, drove approximately a mile before exiting the freeway, and sat in his car on the side of the road for approximately an hour and a half until his girlfriend came to pick him up. During that time, he spoke to his mother who told him that the troopers were at his house looking for him.Kilbane 9/7/2017
Heaton v. Ford Motor Co. 104636Civ.R. 26(E), Civ.R. 37(C), abuse of discretion, summary judgment. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a witness's deposition testimony as a sanction for failing to comply with Civ.R. 26(E). Without the deposition testimony, the appellant could not prove its case against the appellee; thus, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the appellee.Keough 9/7/2017
State v. Lewis 104765Manifest weight, Evidence Rule 801(D)(1); Batson challenge. The convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; witness prior statement was properly admissible and the trial court conducted proper Batson analysis.Blackmon 9/7/2017
In re M.B. 105168Best interest of the child, abuse of discretion. The juvenile court used the correct standard in determining the permanent custody of the children and did not abuse its discretion by placing them with a relative instead of the foster parents.Laster Mays 9/7/2017
State v. Masters 105241Court costs, certificate of indigency, R.C. 2947.23. The trial court did not err by ordering appellant to pay court costs and properly complied with R.C. 2947.23(A)(1). Even though the appellant did not file a certificate of indigency, the trial court found him indigent, but retained the discretion to impose court costs.Laster Mays 9/7/2017
State v. Davis 105404Anders brief; motion for leave to withdraw; frivolous appeal. Appellate counsel's motion to withdraw is granted where there are no nonfrivolous arguments to raise on appeal.Stewart 9/7/2017
State v. Parker 105472Notice of Prior Conviction; R.C. 2901.08; R.C. 2929.13(F)(6), juvenile delinquency adjudication; jury trial; retroactive. Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Hand, 149 Ohio St.3d 94, 2016 Ohio 5504, 2016 Ohio LEXIS 2106, concluding that R.C. 2901.08 impermissibly includes juvenile delinquency adjudications as penalty enhancing prior convictions under R.C. 2929.13(F)(6), sub silentio reversed Corey Parker's conviction in part, so trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate portion of defendant's sentence. Hand is also a substantive decision so it applies retroactively to cases on collateral review.Blackmon 9/7/2017
State ex rel. Lessam v. Saffold 105828Procedendo; jail-time credit; mootness; R.C. 2969.25(C); and poverty affidavit. Procedendo action to compel ruling on motion for correction of jail-time credit was rendered moot by the judge granting the relator 22 days of jail-time credit. Relator did not attach a proper poverty affidavit as required by R.C. 2969.25(C).Gallagher 9/6/2017
State ex rel. Davis v. Sutula 105868Procedendo; mandamus; mootness; no legal duty; findings of fact and conclusions of law; untimely petition for postconviction relief; adequate remedy of law. Procedendo and/or mandamus action to compel ruling on a petition for postconviction relief was rendered moot by the judge issuing a ruling. Respondent had no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on an untimely petition for postconviction relief even though relator claimed an exception to the time limit. Writs also denied on the grounds that relator has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by way of direct appeal.McCormack 9/6/2017