01/25/2024
Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Decided | WebCite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Howard | 112109 | Ineffective assistance of counsel; withdrawal of guilty plea; involuntary plea; knowing; intelligent; medication; legitimate basis; change of heart; hybrid representation; Crim R. 11. Judgment affirmed. A trial court does not abuse its discretion when it denies a pro se motion to withdraw a plea, where counsel simultaneously represents the defendant. Hybrid representation is not allowed. The defendant was afforded a full Crim.R. 11 hearing before entering his guilty plea. The trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 and found that the guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Defendant understood the proceedings and offered no legitimate reason to vacate his plea. A defendant’s claims of innocence alone are not sufficient grounds for vacating a plea that was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered. Nothing in the record indicates a substantial possibility that the defendant would have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. | Groves | 1/25/2024 | 2024-Ohio-243 |
| Trunk v. Coleman | 112392 | California marriage laws; Ohio marriage laws; complaint for annulment; ex parte petition; delayed marriage certificate; California residency; consent; nullity of marriage; void ab initio; vexatious litigator; service of process. Judgment affirmed. An ex parte petition establishing the fact of marriage in California is not proof of a valid marriage when it was obtained without the consent of both parties. The nonconsenting party is entitled to an annulment, and the marriage is void ab initio. | Groves | 1/25/2024 | 2024-Ohio-244 |
| Reld & G Ents., Inc. v. Eldanaf | 112531 | Final appealable order; motion to intervene; preliminary injunction; receivership. Trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to intervene was not a final appealable order where appellant had filed a separate civil case raising the same issues raised in its intervenor complaint. Additionally, the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for preliminary junction was also not final and appealable. At the time the trial court denied the motion, appellant was not a party to the case and did not have standing to appeal. Finally, the trial court’s order requiring appellant to pay rent to the court was an order intended to maintain the receivership property and was likewise not final and appealable. | Groves | 1/25/2024 | 2024-Ohio-245 |
| State v. Harris | 112549 | Felony sentencing; impartiality of trial court; Reagan Tokes Law. The trial court considered the appropriate statutory factors when sentencing the defendant to an aggregate prison term of five-to-six years. Despite the trial court’s harsh comments, the defendant’s right to a fair proceeding was not prejudiced because his prison sentence, after pleading guilty to several felonies, is not contrary to law. The Reagan Tokes Law is not facially unconstitutional. | Forbes | 1/25/2024 | 2024-Ohio-246 |
| Williams v. Grayson | 112575 | Spousal support; R.C. 3105.18; equity. Reversed and remanded. The spousal support award does not contain sufficient details to conclude that the support award is fair, equitable, and in accordance with the law, and accordingly, the award cannot be affirmed in this appeal. | S. Gallagher | 1/25/2024 | 2024-Ohio-247 |
| State v. Chaney | 112647 | Motion for continuance; abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Chaney’s motion for continuance. Chaney had ample time to retain new counsel, assess the plea agreement, strategize, and obtain potential mitigation evidence before and after his plea hearing. A continuance would have inconvenienced the defendants, victims, family members, and counsel, who were all present for the sentencing hearing, as well as the court, which was prepared to sentence Chaney and his codefendant. Moreover, the trial court had information regarding the mitigation evidence Chaney sought to obtain through his presentence-investigation report. Additional information would have little to no impact on Chaney’s plea deal or sentence, which was within an agreed-upon sentencing range, in light of the seriousness of the crimes he committed. Finally, Chaney chose to be represented by two attorneys at his sentencing hearing and his right to be represented by counsel of his choice was not violated. | Boyle | 1/25/2024 | 2024-Ohio-248 |
| State v. Shelton | 112649 | Robbery; R.C. 2911.02(A)(2); manifest weight; physical harm; R.C. 2901.01(A)(3); bruise; reasonable inference; corroborate; victim; credible testimony. Affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The appellant’s conviction for robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The victim provided credible testimony that she sustained a bruise when the appellant pushed her onto a paved street when physically taking a cell phone from her. The victim was not required to seek medical treatment or present photographs to corroborate her testimony. All of the elements for the robbery offense were satisfied. | S. Gallagher | 1/25/2024 | 2024-Ohio-249 |
| State v. Sims | 112671 | Gross sexual imposition; sufficient; indictment; manifest weight; evidence; vacate; credible; allied offense; merger; plain error; separate; dissimilar; harm. Defendant’s convictions on two counts of gross sexual imposition were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. However, the state failed to adduce evidence demonstrating that defendant committed a third act of gross sexual imposition. The trial court did not commit plain error by imposing separate sentences on the two counts of gross sexual imposition. | E.T. Gallagher | 1/25/2024 | 2024-Ohio-250 |
| State v. Pampley | 112672 & 112673 | Presentence motion to withdraw guilty plea; abuse of discretion; Reagan Tokes Law. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court’s imposition of an indefinite sentence pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Law is not a violation of appellant’s constitutional rights. | Kilbane | 1/25/2024 | 2024-Ohio-251 |
| State v. Quigley | 112783 | Guilty plea; strict compliance; constitutional right; restitution; invited error; allocution. The trial court strictly complied with its advisement to the defendant of his constitutional right of compulsory process when it asked if the defendant understood that he had the right to subpoena witnesses to testify in his favor at trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion with its restitution order because the defendant invited any error there may have been with it by agreeing to it. Further, the victim provided a statement about her damages. Although the trial court did not allow the defendant to present a PowerPoint presentation, the defendant was afforded full and fair allocution. The defendant was permitted to speak at length to express his remorse, describe the state he was in at the time he committed the crimes, describe the network of support he has, and state his hope for his future. | Ryan | 1/25/2024 | 2024-Ohio-252 |
| State v. Hanshaw | 112904 | Felony sentencing; R.C. 2929.11, 2929.12; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); failure to comply; R.C. 2929.14(C)(3), 2921.331(B) and (D). The court properly considered the felony sentencing statutes, R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, when imposing defendant’s prison sentence. The court properly imposed a consecutive sentence for failure to comply. However, the court failed to make the mandatory findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when imposing consecutive sentences for the other felonies of which defendant was convicted. | Forbes | 1/25/2024 | 2024-Ohio-253 |
| Chabek v. Gajdos | 112996 | Declaratory judgment; adversarial action; estate; father; natural son; adoption; birth certificate; birth record; declaration of paternity; acknowledgment; paternity; R.C. 3705.09; R.C. 3705.09(G); R.C. 2105.06; out of wedlock; illegitimate; R.C. 3111.04; R.C. 3111.05; next of kin; parent-child relationship; parentage; decedent. Affirmed probate court’s decision against the appellant in a declaratory judgment action. An adversarial action was brought by the appellant, who was seeking to be declared a legal son of a decedent with a right to inherit from the decedent’s estate. The appellant’s birth record, which identified another man as his father, was established pursuant to R.C. 3705.09(G) upon a declaration of paternity, not by adoption. There is no legal basis for an amended birth certificate to effectuate an adoption. The declaration of paternity was legally determinative of the issues raised in the case. | S. Gallagher | 1/25/2024 | 2024-Ohio-254 |
| In re S.D-S | 113010 | Permanent custody; R.C. 2151.414; 12 of 22 consecutive months; best interest; clear and convincing evidence; ineffective assistance of counsel. - Juvenile court’s judgment awarding permanent custody of the minor child to the agency pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the child had been in agency custody for at least 12 of 22 consecutive months and the evidence clearly and convincingly established that a grant of permanent custody was in the child’s best interest; Mother failed to satisfy the two-prong test for demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel because she failed to demonstrate that she suffered any prejudice due to counsel’s alleged deficiencies. | Keough | 1/25/2024 | 2024-Ohio-255 |
| State v. W.A.R. | 113057 | R.C. 2953.32; motion to seal records; interpretation of statute. The trial court improperly denied offender’s motion to seal his records without first setting and conducting a hearing on the motion as statutorily required under R.C. 2953.32. | Kilbane | 1/25/2024 | 2024-Ohio-256 |
| State v. Malfregeot | 113339 | Marsy’s Law; early termination; community-control sanctions; notice; opportunity to be heard. Trial court abused its discretion and violated R.C. 2930.161(A) and 2930.161(B) when it terminated the defendant’s community-control sanctions and failed to give the victim notice of the early termination and an opportunity to be heard. | E.T. Gallagher | 1/25/2024 | 2024-Ohio-257 |
| State v. Munoz | 112006 | App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, res judicata, prosecutorial misconduct. The appellant’s App.R. 26(B) application for reopening is denied because appellate counsel was not ineffective on appeal. The issues raised in support of the application for reopening, with the exception of the claim of prosecutorial misconduct, are barred from further review by the doctrine of res judicata. In addition, the appellant has failed to demonstrate any prosecutorial misconduct. The appellant has failed to establish that he was prejudiced by appellate counsel on appeal. Application for reopening is denied. | S. Gallagher | 1/24/2024 | 2024-Ohio-242 |
| State ex rel. Harris v. Duhamel | 113567 | Mandamus; procedendo; failure to state a claim; R.C. 2969.25(A); affidavit of prior civil actions; R.C. 2969.25(C); certified institutional cashier’s statement; moot. The relator has failed to state a claim for relief. In addition, the relator has failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25, which requires the inclusion of a sworn affidavit of prior civil actions and a certified copy of the institutional cashier’s statement setting forth the balance in the inmate’s account. | Ryan | 1/24/2024 | 2024-Ohio-259 |
| State ex rel. Parker v. Cosgrove | 113389 | Mandamus, pending motion, Civ.R. 58(B), moot. - The relator’s complaint for mandamus is moot because the respondent - judge has fulfilled her duty, under Civ.R. 58(B), and ordered the clerk to serve notice of the subject judgment entry. An action for a writ of mandamus becomes moot when the requested relief is attained. | Keough | 1/23/2024 | 2024-Ohio-258 |