06/08/2023
Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Decided | WebCite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chester/12, Ltd. v. Epiq Constr. Servs., Inc. | 111626 & 112198 | Summary judgment; motion to vacate; expert opinion; affidavit. Trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment where appellee met its burden under Civ.R. 56(C) of demonstrating there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding appellant’s claims and appellant did not meet its reciprocal burden of showing there were disputed issues for trial; neither the trial court nor this court in reviewing the trial court’s summary judgment ruling could consider an affidavit submitted to the trial court after the ruling; appellant forfeited for appeal any argument that the trial court applied an incorrect standard in requiring appellant to support its supplement to its Civ.R. 60(B) motion with evidence of the type allowed by Civ.R. 56(C) because appellant did not raise the issue in the trial court; trial court properly denied appellant’s motion to vacate the summary judgment ruling in favor of appellee where expert testimony was necessary for appellant to prevail on its claims but appellant neither offered any expert testimony with its motion to vacate nor alleged that an expert had opined that appellee’s work did not meet the contract requirements or was below the expected standard. | Keough | 6/8/2023 | 2023-Ohio-1886 |
| State v. Browning | 111856, 111857, 111858 &111859 | Postconviction relief; judicial bias; presumption against judicial bias; extrajudicial source doctrine; abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting the defendants’ postconviction-relief petition. Evidence presented at the hearing showed that the trial judge’s extrajudicial conversation with his wife about whether he would convict or acquit the defendants affected or appeared to affect the outcome of trial and the defendants’ prison sentences. | Forbes | 6/8/2023 | 2023-Ohio-1887 |
| Cleveland v. Barnes | 111867 | Pro se litigants; speedy-trial rights; R.C. 2945.71; R.C. 2945.72. Defendant’s convictions for misdemeanor assault and criminal damaging, and his associated sentence, are vacated, because he was not brought to trial within the statutory time frame found in R.C. 2945.71(B)(2). The municipal court improperly charged continuances to the defendant, which, in turn, improperly tolled his speedy-trial time. | Forbes | 6/8/2023 | 2023-Ohio-1888 |
| State v. Roby | 111891 | Maximum sentences; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. The trial court did not err in sentencing the appellant to a maximum sentence, because the record reflects that the sentence was not contrary to law, because the sentence is within the statutory range for the offense, and the court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. | Laster Mays | 6/8/2023 | 2023-Ohio-1889 |
| State v. Wilson | 111912 | Consecutive sentences; findings; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); clearly and convincingly supported by the record; proportionality; seriousness of offender’s conduct; danger posed to the public. The record clearly and convincingly supports the trial court’s finding that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of appellant’s conduct and the danger he poses to the public. | Celebrezze | 6/8/2023 | 2023-Ohio-1890 |
| Strongsville v. Henry | 111913 | Attempted petty theft; Crim.R. 19(D); magistrate’s decision; Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii); required notice regarding filing objections. Where magistrate’s decision failed to comply with Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii) and appellant failed to file timely objections to magistrate’s decision, appellant’s conviction vacated and case remanded to the trial court so that the magistrate could prepare and file a decision that complies with Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii) and the parties may then have the opportunity to file objections to magistrate’s decision. | E.A. Gallagher | 6/8/2023 | 2023-Ohio-1891 |
| State v. Harris | 111940 | Road rage; shooting; inconsistent verdicts; compromise; deadlocked; identification; surveillance video; Reagan Tokes Law. - Defendant’s felonious assault conviction affirmed where evidence demonstrates that he was the masked gunman who shot at a vehicle, striking the passenger, following a road-rage incident. Verdicts’ inconsistency was not attributed to jury confusion or doubt as to adequacy of the evidence, but possibly based on compromise or leniency because the jury was deadlocked on two occasions. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue a suppression of a witness’s pretrial identification because surveillance video was obtained also identifying the defendant. | Keough | 6/8/2023 | 2023-Ohio-1892 |
| JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Loseke | 111983 | Foreclosure; R.C. 5301.233; R.C. 2329.44; distribution of post-sale excess funds; Civ.R. 60(B). The mortgagee bank failed to timely submit a motion for reimbursement of advances pursuant to the decree of foreclosure. It then failed to appeal the trial court’s order confirming the sale. The Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment ultimately filed by the bank was an improper substitute for a timely appeal under the circumstances of this case. The trial court abused its discretion in granting relief from judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) and erred in denying the mortgagor’s motion for distribution of excess funds pursuant to R.C. 2329.44. | Sheehan | 6/8/2023 | 2023-Ohio-1893 |
| Townsend v. AutoNation Wickliff | 111993 | Breach of warranty; summary judgment. Plaintiff brought claim against car dealer and manufacturer alleging a defect in a vehicle purchased from the dealer. Plaintiff did not supply evidence that a warranty existed by attaching evidence of the warranty to the complaint or by attaching evidence of the warranty to a response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The complaint further alleged that plaintiff took the vehicle to defendants only once to repair the claimed defect. Plaintiff only appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer. Because plaintiff did not provide evidence that a warranty existed and did not provide evidence that manufacturer was provided a reasonable opportunity to remedy the claimed defect, the trial court properly granted summary judgment. | Sheehan | 6/8/2023 | 2023-Ohio-1894 |
| State v. Munoz | 112006 | Gross sexual imposition; R.C. 2907.05; child endangering; R.C. 2919.22; weight of the evidence; impeachment; hearsay; Evid.R. 613; ineffective assistance; sentencing review; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; judicial bias. Defendant’s convictions for sexual assault of a child under the age of 13 and child endangerment are affirmed because the defendant has not demonstrated (1) that the convictions are against the weight of the evidence, (2) that Evid.R. 613, which precluded him from introducing inconsistent statements without giving the victim the opportunity to explain any inconsistency, was inapplicable; (3) that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s alleged deficient performance at trial; or (4) that his claims of judicial bias were inextricably entwined with due process concerns for the purposes of determining whether he received a fair trial. | S. Gallagher | 6/8/2023 | 2023-Ohio-1895 |
| State v. Munoz | 112007 | Probation violation; ineffective assistance of counsel; App.R. 16(A)(7). Trial counsel was not ineffective for stipulating that appellant had violated the terms of his community-control sanctions after he was found guilty of gross sexual imposition and child endangering in a separate case; appellate court did not consider appellant’s assignment of error that the trial court erred in finding he had violated the terms of his community-control sanctions where appellant did not cite to any record evidence or make any legal argument supporting his claimed error, as required by App.R. 16(A)(7). | Keough | 6/8/2023 | 2023-Ohio-1896 |
| Worldwide Motor Sales Ltd. v. Young | 112015 | Breach of contract; summary judgment. The trial court erred by granting summary judgment to the defendant and denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The summary-judgment evidence showed that the defendant breached the unambiguous terms of the contract at issue. | Forbes | 6/8/2023 | 2023-Ohio-1897 |
| Morawski v. Davis | 112033 | Production of documents; wrongful death; negligence; medical records; physician-patient privilege; waiver; exception; relevance; discovery; in camera review; mental health; criminal trial; civil action; subpoena; interrogatories; motion to compel; abuse of discretion; de novo review; Civ.R. 26(B); Civ.R. 45; R.C. 2317.02; causally or historically related; exceptions; confidentiality; trust; psychotherapist-patient privilege; medical treatment; diagnosis; treatment; physical or mental condition; privilege log; and protective order. Trial court decision granting motion to compel discovery and motion to enforce subpoenas affirmed. Party claiming physician-patient privilege has the burden of providing sufficient information for a reviewing court to review disputed records, de novo. | Groves | 6/8/2023 | 2023-Ohio-1898 |
| State v. Bullitt | 112168 | Crim.R. 33(B); motion for leave to file motion for new trial; newly discovered evidence; Brady violation. Defendant was tried with a codefendant and found guilty of several drug-related offenses. At trial, police officers testified they arrived at the codefendant’s apartment to execute an arrest warrant for him and that no one came to the door. Within minutes of the officers’ arrival, defendant was seen throwing over 100 grams of crack cocaine and $22,000 in cash off the balcony. A search of the apartment uncovered heroin and drug paraphernalia. Defendant filed a motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence — a police report from a month prior to his arrest of a citizen complaining of drug activity at the codefendant’s apartment. The police report of the complaint was not disclosed prior to trial, and defendant argued the nondisclosure was a Brady violation. A defendant establishes a Brady violation by showing that favorable but suppressed evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict. The report of the codefendant’s prior drug activity might be considered favorable to defendant because it implicates the codefendant in ongoing drug activity without mentioning defendant. In contrast, the report is not exculpatory to the charges brought against defendant at trial because the report did not address the facts and circumstances of his charges. Further, the report did not directly contradict police officers’ testimony. That the police received a complaint of drug activity by the codefendant in the past does not contradict or impeach trial testimony, does not give rise to the conclusion that the police officers had a motive to fabricate evidence, and does not undermine confidence in the verdict rendered at trial. As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant leave to file a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. | Sheehan | 6/8/2023 | 2023-Ohio-1899 |
| In re S.F. | 112327 | Termination of parental rights; continuance; violation of due process rights; plain error; hearsay evidence; Evid.R. 801(C). Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in allowing the permanent custody trial to go forward and overruling Mother’s continuance when Mother refused the provided transportation to bring her to the trial from jail. The trial court also did not err in receiving improper hearsay testimony because all of the alleged hearsay statements were independently supported by evidence in the record. | Celebrezze | 6/8/2023 | 2023-Ohio-1900 |
| State v. Williams | 111620 | Felonious assault; aggravated assault; inferior offense; serious provocation; self-defense; manifest weight of the evidence; bench trial. Appellant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence showed that he knowingly caused serious physical harm to the victim during an ongoing argument in which both men were intoxicated, and the evidence does not support any of the elements of self-defense. | Kilbane | 6/8/2023 | 2023-Ohio-1903 |
| State ex rel. J.H. v. Jones | 112825 | Mandamus, Sup.R. 41, continuance and conflicting trial date. This court denied an application for a writ of mandamus to compel the granting of a continuance for conflicting trial dates. Sup.R. 41(B)(1) did not mandate a continuance when the relator did not timely file the motion for continuance 30 days before trial. | Kilbane | 6/7/2023 | 2023-Ohio-1902 |
| State ex rel. Shaker Hts. Apartments Owner, L.L.C. v. Scott | 112587 | Mandamus, procedendo, stay of forcible entry and detainer cases, unclean hands, mootness, and capable of repetition yet evading review. The court dismissed as moot a mandamus and procedendo action to compel the trial court judge to lift the stays of 28 forcible entry and detainer actions in municipal court, when the respondent judge lifted stays and scheduled the case for further hearing, most of them within two weeks. The judge had stayed the forcible entry and detainer actions pursuant to the principle of unclean hands; the relator had a criminal case pending in housing court. When that case was resolved, the respondent judge lifted the stays. This court ruled that the writ action was moot and that the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception did not apply. | Celebrezze | 6/2/2023 | 2023-Ohio-1901 |