Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
State v. Heard 104952No contest plea; coerced; voluntary; fair trial; fair sentence. Defendant's no contest plea was not voluntary where the plea offer was created and presented solely by the judge, and where the trial court's comments made clear the judge believed the defendant was guilty and would not get a fair sentence if he went to trial; and where the judge coerced the plea by not giving the defendant time to consult with his lawyer about the offer and telling the defendant the deal was off when the jury entered the courtroom.Keough 10/26/2017
In re Q.W. 104966R.C. 2917.21; R.C. 2903.21; sufficiency; manifest weight; telecommunications harassment; phone calls; text messages; voice identification; threat. Delinquency adjudication for telecommunications harassment based on sufficient evidence where victim's testimony identified juvenile as the source of threatening phone calls originating from same number and within same time period as threatening text messages. Delinquency adjudication for telecommunications harassment not against manifest weight of evidence where there was no evidence inconsistent with or conflicting with the state's evidence of delinquency.Stewart 10/26/2017
State v. Hicks 105083Court costs; ability to pay; community work service. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant's motion to waive court costs because there was evidence in the record to support the fact that defendant would be able to pay those costs in the future. The trial court did not violate this court's holding in State v. Anderson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102427, 2016-Ohio-7044, because it did not impose community control sanctions consecutive to a prison term.Boyle 10/26/2017
Cleveland v. Sands 105141R.C. 2903.21(A); aggravated menacing; subjective belief; serious physical harm; sufficiency of the evidence. The state presented sufficient evidence that the defendant was guilty of aggravated menacing. The evidence demonstrated that the victim, defendant's former girlfriend, subjectively believed that the defendant would cause her serious physical harm at the time of the offense. The victim testified that she took seriously the defendant's threats that he would kill her and her new boyfriend because she knew he was on probation for gun charges.Kilbane 10/26/2017
Stewart v. Woods Cove II, L.L.C. 105160Tax certificate legislation; R.C. 5721.30 through R.C. 5721.46; tax lien certificates; motion to dismiss; ripeness; real and justiciable controversy. The trial court erred when it granted defendants-appellees' motions to dismiss based upon the ripeness doctrine. Taking the allegations in the second amended complaint as true and construing all reasonable inferences drawn from those allegations in favor of plaintiffs-appellants, it did not appear beyond doubt that plaintiffs-appellants could prove no set of facts entitling them to the relief requested. Relying solely on the allegations in the second amended complaint and the attachments included with the pleading, plaintiffs-appellants' claims against defendants-appellees could not be dismissed.Boyle 10/26/2017
State v. Brown 105202Motion to suppress; search warrant; affidavit; confidential informant; identity; staleness. Court did not err by finding that affidavit filed in support of an application for a search warrant gave issuing magistrate probable cause to believe that a search of the premises would yield contraband or evidence of crime. In addition, information supplied by informant was not stale when the trash pulls of the premises uncovered potential evidence of drug trafficking consistent with informant's tip. Court did not err by refusing to order the disclosure of police informant because defendant failed to carry his burden of establishing why disclosure would be necessary.Stewart 10/26/2017
Lakewood v. Collins 105227Res judicata, suppression of evidence, probable cause, speedy trial. Appellant's assignments of error seeking to revisit the issues of probable cause, suppression of evidence, and vehicle impoundment were previously addressed in appellant's first appeal in Lakewood v. Collins, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102953, 2015 Ohio 4389. The speedy trial issue that appellant included in the instant appeal should have been brought in the prior appeal. All alleged errors are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.Laster Mays 10/26/2017
Inner City Living, Inc. v. Dept. of Dev. Disabilities 105255O.A.C. 5123:2-2-04; administrative appeal; R.C. 119.12; notice of revocation; App.R. 16(A)(7); Civ.R. 52; finding of facts. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by affirming the administrative decision of the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities, which revoked the appellant's certificate to provide services to the developmentally disabled based on numerous violations discovered during a compliance review process.Gallagher 10/26/2017
State v. Patterson 105265Manifest weight, omission, corroborated, ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to file motion to suppress, failure to call witness. Appellant's convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the victim's testimony was corroborated and not inconsistent with his previous statements to police. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress appellant's statements to police or calling a witness to the stand as both constituted trial strategy.Boyle 10/26/2017
State v. Wyatt 105332Guilty plea; Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a); maximum penalty; mandatory; prison; totality of the circumstances. Trial court complied with requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) when it accepted defendant's guilty pleas where totality of the circumstances demonstrated that the defendant understood mandatory nature of applicable prison terms.Gallagher 10/26/2017
State v. Dowdy 105396Crim.R. 11; plea colloquy; mandatory sentence; mandatory minimum sentence; good-time credit; relay accurate information; knowing, intelligent, voluntary plea; motion to withdraw plea; Crim.R. 32.1. The trial court did not err in denying a motion to withdraw guilty pleas where the trial court did not relay inaccurate information during the plea colloquy, and a court has no obligation to mention whether a prison sentence may be reduced through good-time credit.Celebrezze 10/26/2017
State v. Yates 105427Successive petition for postconviction relief; new constitutional right; retroactive application; statutory amendment; R.C. 2953.23; R.C. 2901.09. The trial court did not err in denying appellant's successive petition for postconviction relief where the grounds for relief, the postconviction amendment of a statute that did not apply retroactively, did satisfy any of the requirements of R.C. 2953.23.Celebrezze 10/26/2017
State v. Watkins 105625Jail-time credit. Defendant failed to show that the court erred in recalculating his jail-time credit.Blackmon 10/26/2017
State v. Poole 105765Res judicata, allied offenses, postrelease control. Appellant's challenge to his plea and allied offenses were barred by res judicata because the issues could have been raised in a direct appeal. Moreover, no transcript of the proceedings were filed, so the presumption of regularity exists. Pleading to separate cases involving firearm specifications do not implicate an allied offense issue. Whether postrelease control is discretionary or mandatory, and the consequences of violating postrelease control must be included in the sentencing journal entry.Keough 10/26/2017
State v. Perry 105807Conceded error; R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) and (D)/postconviction petition; jurisdiction; Anders v. California. The trial court erred where it denied appellant's timely filed postconviction petition for lack of jurisdiction.Jones 10/26/2017
State v. Shropshire 104775Evid.R. 801(C) and (D)(1)/hearsay; expert testimony; right to confrontation; prosecutorial misconduct. It was not error for the trial court to allow a witness's prior statement to be entered. The detective's testimony was based on what the witness had previously said to him, and the witness also testified. The detective's testimony on gangs was proper. He was a part of the gang impact unit, and it was determined that he had gained enough knowledge and expertise to testify about gangs. Appellant's right to confront was not violated. The witness that made statements prior to trial testified at trial and was subject to vigorous cross-examination. Appellant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are unfounded. The detective's testimony was deemed admissible and not hearsay under the prior consistent statement exclusion; and the prosecutor's inferences were reasonably based on evidence.Jones 10/26/2017
State v. Zimmer 104946App.R. 26(B); Application to reopen; and timeliness. The court denied the App.R. 26(B) application to reopen as untimely, being filed one day late.Blackmon 10/23/2017
State ex rel. Zein v. Calabrese 105985Prohibition, foreclosure, magistrate's report, tax lien certificate, general subject matter jurisdiction, judgment for foreclosure, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.Blackmon 10/23/2017
State v. Evans 106154Procedendo, jail-time credit, allied offenses, merger, mootness, adequate remedy at law, R.C. 2969.25, improper caption, and poverty affidavit. The court denied a procedendo action to apparently challenge the sentence for improperly imposing consecutive sentences for allied offenses, because appeal provided an adequate remedy at law, precluding a writ. Relator did not provide a proper poverty affidavit. Relator's lack of clarity in the caption and in the complaint also provided a sufficient basis for denying the writ. Trial court awarded jail-time credit, mooting any jail-time credit claim.Gallagher 10/23/2017