08/24/2023
Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Decided | WebCite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edwards v. Jenkins | 111978 | Forcible entry and detainer; magistrate’s decision; objections; independent review of magistrate’s decision; Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d); transcript; audio recording. Judgment reversed and remanded. Based on the record and the face of the tenants’ objections, the trial court could not have meaningfully reviewed the tenants’ objections to the magistrate’s decision without the audio recording of the hearing before the magistrate. The record indicated that tenant had requested a copy of the audio recording prior to filing objections and the objections were based on factual findings that would have been elicited at the hearing before the magistrate. Therefore, independent review of the audio recording was necessary to rule on tenants’ objections. | Celebrezze | 8/24/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2952 |
| State v. Davenport | 112004 & 112005 | Weight and sufficiency of the evidence; prejudicial joinder; imposition of consecutive sentences. Trial court did not abuse its discretion when denying a motion to sever indictments where the law favors joinder, the evidence was simple and direct, and appellant did not establish that he was prejudiced by the joinder. Appellant’s convictions for tampering with evidence, failure to comply, improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle, felonious assault, and discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited were supported by sufficient evidence where there was clear evidence presented as to the element of each crime, plus video surveillance, body camera footage, and other evidence presented at trial. Appellant’s convictions were supported by the greater weight of the evidence where the testimony was supported by physical, video, and oral testimony. The jury did not lose its way or create a manifest injustice. Defendant failed to preserve disproportionality challenge to the imposition of consecutive sentences. | Groves | 8/24/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2953 |
| Hale v. Toth | 112030 | Summary judgment; de novo; R.C. Chapter 2744; political subdivision immunity; three-tiered analysis; exceptions to immunity; willful, wanton, and reckless conduct; individual capacity; official capacity; final appealable order; jurisdiction; motion for judgment on pleadings; declaratory judgment; constitutionality. Judgment is reversed and remanded. Because the errors alleged by defendants in their motion for judgment on the pleadings do not involve claims of immunity, this portion of the interlocutory appeal cannot be addressed for lack of final appealable order. We likewise cannot address the trial court’s denial of summary judgment as it relates to Count 6 of plaintiff’s complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that R.C. Chapter 2744 violates plaintiff’s constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. After construing the evidence most favorably for the plaintiff, reasonable minds can reach only one conclusion — there are no genuine issues of material fact and the defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The record is devoid of any evidence demonstrating that any of the exceptions to immunity set forth in R.C. 2744.02(B) apply to expose the city to liability, and the officers acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner. Therefore, the trial court’s judgment denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on immunity grounds is reversed. | Boyle | 8/24/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2954 |
| State v. Candelario | 112116 | Reagan Tokes Law; indefinite sentence; constitutional challenges; due process; separation of powers; right to jury trial. Trial court erred when it failed to impose an indefinite sentence as required under the Reagan Tokes Law, S.B. 201. Furthermore, pursuant to State v. Hacker, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2535, appellee’s constitutional challenges to the Reagan Tokes Law are overruled. | Groves | 8/24/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2955 |
| State v. Poole | 112125 | Reagan Tokes Law; indefinite sentence; constitutional challenges; due process; separation of powers; right to jury trial. Trial court erred when it failed to impose an indefinite sentence as required under the Reagan Tokes Law, S.B. 201. Furthermore, pursuant to State v. Hacker, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2535, appellee’s constitutional challenges to the Reagan Tokes Law are overruled. | Groves | 8/24/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2956 |
| State v. Simmons | 112179 | Anders brief; menacing by stalking; criminal damaging; history between the defendant and victim; due process; Crim.R. 29; pattern of conduct; knowingly cause another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm or mental distress; cause or create risk of physical harm to another’s property without their consent. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the state to introduce other acts evidence to demonstrate why, based on the victim’s history with the defendant, she believed he would cause her physical harm or mental distress. Further, the court specifically instructed the jury that the evidence was to be considered for that limited purpose. There was no due process violation as the defendant was on notice from the indictment (i.e., the furthermore clause attendant to Count 1) that his “history of violence toward the victim” was a subject of the within prosecution. The state presented sufficient evidence to support the menacing charges. The evidence demonstrated more than two incidents, closely related in time and within the timeframe set forth in the indictment, involving the defendant and the victim whereby a jury could find that the defendant engaged in a pattern of conduct knowing it would cause the victim fear of physical harm or mental distress. The state presented sufficient evidence to support the criminal damaging charge. The evidence demonstrated that the defendant was at the victim’s residence on the date in question without her consent and threw something at her window, causing damage to it. There are no meritorious, nonfrivolous issues for our review with respect to the defendant’s conviction. This appeal is wholly frivolous, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. | Ryan | 8/24/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2957 |
| State v. Gleason | 112200 | Misdemeanor sentencing; consecutive sentences. Appellant failed to demonstrate that trial court failed to consider the misdemeanor sentencing guidelines when it imposed consecutive sentences on him. | Groves | 8/24/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2958 |
| State v. Burgos | 112222 | Reagan Tokes Law; indefinite sentence; constitutional challenges; due process; separation of powers; right to jury trial. Trial court did not err when it imposed an indefinite sentence as required under the Reagan Tokes Law, S.B. 201. | Groves | 8/24/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2959 |
| In re I.L.J. | 112239 | Contempt; retroactive modification of child support order; special circumstance; willful and knowing violation of parenting agreement; guardian ad litem’s report; modifications to parenting agreement. - Trial court did not abuse its discretion in not find | Keough | 8/24/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2960 |
| State v. Noori | 112293 | R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); modify sentence; contrary to the law; purposes and principles of felony sentencing; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. The imposed sentence was not contrary to law where appellant’s sentence was within the statutory range, and the record reflected the trial court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12. | Kilbane | 8/24/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2961 |
| Rocky River v. Landers | 112422 | Motion to dismiss; Rocky River Codified Ordinances 335.12(a); R.C. 4549.02(A)(1); conflict; Home Rule Amendment; Ohio Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 3; invalid. Trial court did not err in dismissing charge against defendant for violation of Rocky River Codified Ordinances 335.12(a) after he allegedly left the scene of a motor vehicle accident without contacting and waiting for police. Ordinance conflicted with R.C. 4549.02(A)(1) because the ordinance prohibited what the statute permitted — i.e., leaving the scene of a noninjury accident without contacting police and waiting for police to arrive — and was, therefore, invalid. | E.A. Gallagher | 8/24/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2962 |
| State ex rel. Peterson v. Miday | 112792 | Prohibition; res judicata; Loc.App.R. 23 – vexatious litigator. The relator’s complaint for a writ of prohibition is dismissed because the claims argued in support of the complaint have been previously raised in numerous appeals and found to be without merit. In addition, the relator has been declared a vexatious litigator pursuant to Loc.App.R. 23 because of continued attempts to litigate claims that have been previously found to be without merit. | E.T. Gallagher | 8/22/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2963 |
| State ex rel. Castellon v. Gallagher | 112967 | Writ of procedendo; ruling on motion; jail-time credit; moot; Crim.R. 32; Civ.R. 58. - Relator’s complaint for writ of procedendo was dismissed as moot where respondent entered a ruling on relator’s motion to correct jail-time credit pending in an underlying criminal case. | Keough | 8/22/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2964 |
| State v. Gray | 111263 | App.R. 26(B); application for reopening; ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; stipulation; relevant evidence; admissible evidence; R.C. 2945.03; Evid.R. 402; Evid.R. 403; recording; anonymous tip; Crim.R. 16; Parson factors; discovery violation; map; ability to review discovery; sufficient nourishment. An application for reopening was denied where the application alleged that appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing that trial court abused its discretion when allowing the state to repudiate a stipulation, abused its discretion when crafting a sanction for the untimely disclosure by the state of a recording of an anonymous tip and a map of cell phone location data, was deprived a fair trial because the jail did not have sufficient resources to allow appellant to review certain discovery materials, and was deprived of a fair trial when appellant was not given sufficient nourishment during the pendency of trial. These proposed assignments of error did not present a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. | Laster Mays | 8/21/2023 | 2023-Ohio-2951 |