09/28/2023
Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Decided | WebCite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AHIP OH Cleveland Properties, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision | 111969 | Board of Tax Appeals, reasonable and lawful, rebuttable presumption, recent, arm’s-length sale, deed, conveyance-fee statement, appraisal evidence, true value. The Board of Tax Appeals’ decision determining the value of the subject property according to the recent, arm’s-length sale is reasonable and lawful. The appellee provided a deed and conveyance-fee statement from the 2017 sale of the subject property, which created a rebuttable presumption that the sale price is the true value of the property. Appellant presented appraisal evidence to rebut the presumption and lower the value of subject property for tax year 2018. The board of tax appeals considered the evidence and determined that the appellant did not rebut the presumption in favor of the recent, arm’s-length sale price. Judgment affirmed. | Forbes | 9/28/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3470 |
| M.E.D. v. P.K. | 112070 | Civ.R. 4; Civ.R. 75; Loc.R. 19; motion to modify child support; lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court properly dismissed appellant’s motion to modify child support for lack of personal jurisdiction. Appellant failed to perfect service pursuant to Civ.R. 4, Civ.R. 75, and Loc.R. 19. | Laster Mays | 9/28/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3471 |
| Parma v. Perotti | 112089 | Motion to suppress evidence; driving under the influence; field sobriety tests; reasonable suspicion; probable cause to arrest. Trial court did not err in denying motion to suppress evidence used to convict defendant of OVI offenses. Considering the totality of the circumstances, officer had a reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts, that defendant was impaired sufficient to support administration of field sobriety tests and had probable cause to arrest defendant for OVI. | E.A. Gallagher | 9/28/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3472 |
| In re E.S. | 112199 & 112206 | Lack of jurisdiction; void judgment; action inconsistent with pending appeal; R.C. 2151.23(H). The juvenile court’s order dismissing the state’s motion for discretionary transfer of predicate offenses for the manslaughter count pending appeal in the Ohio Supreme Court for want of prosecution was inconsistent with the pending appeal. | Laster Mays | 9/28/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3473 |
| Cleveland v. Jones | 112236 | Crim R. 11, plea; petty misdemeanor; restitution hearing; merger. The trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 when appellant pled guilty to a second-degree misdemeanor petty offense. The trial court informed appellant of the effect of her plea by telling her that a plea of guilty is a complete admission of guilt. The trial court held a separate restitution hearing, heard from both the victim and appellant, and its order of restitution is supported by the evidence. The appellant’s offenses do not merge. Appellant pleaded guilty in municipal court in this case before she was charged with separate offenses, which occurred months later than the offense in this case, in common pleas court. | Ryan | 9/28/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3474 |
| M.K. v. R.K. | 112291 | Interlocutory appeal; R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) certification to juvenile court; final, appealable order; best-interest determination; unsuitability; guardian ad litem; cross-examination. The domestic relations court’s judgment certifying the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities of a minor child under R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) is a final, appealable order because it affects a substantial right in a special proceeding. R.C. 3109.04(D)(2) requires a best-interest determination, which the trial court failed to make. Further, the trial court did not make an appropriate unsuitability finding. The trial court’s reliance on the guardian ad litem’s report without affording the parties the opportunity to cross-examine the guardian ad litem was an abuse of discretion. | Ryan | 9/28/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3475 |
| State v. Chandler | 112292 | Sufficiency, manifest weight, credibility, aggravated robbery, robbery, grand theft. Judgment affirmed. Defendant’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The evidence presented at trial demonstrates that defendant instigated the fight, got into the victim’s car, locked it, and proceeded to flee the scene with the victim’s belongings in the car, all while fighting with the victim as she was on the hood of the car. | Boyle | 9/28/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3476 |
| State v. Howard | 112304 | Reagan Tokes Law; separation-of-powers doctrine; the right to a jury trial; the right to due process; constitutional. On July 26, 2023, the Ohio Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Hacker, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2535, finding the Reagan Tokes Law constitutional, and determining the law does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine, the right to a jury trial, and the right to due process. The arguments presented in this case do not present novel issues or any new theory challenging the constitutional validity of any aspect of the Reagan Tokes Law left unaddressed by the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Hacker. Accordingly, pursuant to Hacker, the defendant’s assignment of error is overruled. | Ryan | 9/28/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3477 |
| State v. Rodgers | 112353 | Felony sentencing; R.C. 2929.12 factors; impartiality of the trial court. The defendant’s 30-month prison sentence is not contrary to law. It is within the statutory range and the record indicates that the trial court considered the felony sentencing statutory factors. The defendant failed to show that the trial court was neither neutral nor impartial in sentencing to less than the maximum and concurrent prison terms. | Forbes | 9/28/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3478 |
| State v. Burgess | 112487 | Breaking and entering; attempted theft; guilty plea; Crim.R. 11; maximum potential penalty; Crim.R. 32; right to allocution; victim-impact statements; abuse of discretion; ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court did not commit prejudicial error by failing to inform appellant of the possibility of consecutive sentences in an unrelated pending case from a different jurisdiction. The trial court did not deny appellant the right to allocution where appellant addressed the court and victim at his sentencing hearing. The trial court did not commit plain error or abuse its discretion when it allowed a city councilwoman and community member to address the court at sentencing. The appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel did not object to the victim-impact statements at sentencing. | Kilbane | 9/28/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3479 |
| Usha Pillai IRA, L.L.C. v. Roseman | 112524 | Forcible entry and detainer action; R.C. 1932.01; R.C. 1932.02; subject-matter jurisdiction; color of title; res judicata; collateral estoppel; issue preclusion. Pursuant to statute, the municipal court had subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain appellee’s forcible entry and detainer action. The trial court did not err when it granted appellee’s motion for directed verdict based upon its prior determination that appellee was the present title holder of the subject property and the trial evidence that substantiated appellee’s forcible entry and detainer action. | Kilbane | 9/28/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3480 |
| Blue v Bur. of Workers' Comp. | 112652 | Change of venue; due process; summary judgment. Trial court did not err in denying appellant’s untimely motion to change venue. Further, appellant was provided due process of law and the trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. | Groves | 9/28/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3481 |
| M.C. v. Gardner | 112681 | Dating violence protection order; expired; moot. Appeal dating violence protection order is moot where the protection order is expired. | E.T. Gallagher | 9/28/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3482 |
| State v. Shannon | 112743 | Conceded error; Loc.App.R. 16(B); plea; Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c); constitutional rights. - The state concedes that the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) when it did not advise the defendant of his constitutional rights prior to accepting his guilty plea. | Keough | 9/28/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3483 |
| La Spisa v. La Spisa | 111810 | R.C. 3105.171; de facto termination date; property division; distributive awards; R.C. 3105.18; spousal support; Evid.R. 611; limitation of cross-examination; R.C. 3105.73; attorney fees. The trial court’s selection of a de facto termination date based on the totality of the circumstances was supported by the record. The trial court’s classification of marital and separate property was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and the division does not reflect that the trial court abused its discretion. The trial court’s distributive award for appellant’s faux nuptials during the marriage, and tax liability is supported by the record. The trial court’s award of spousal support does not constitute an abuse of discretion. The trial court’s decision regarding the allocation of the flood proceeds was against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Laster Mays | 9/28/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3467 |
| State v. Hubbard | 111939 | Motion to sever; joinder; plain error; hearsay; adoptive admission; statement against interest; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; felonious assault; sentence; unindicted conduct; Reagan Tokes Law; constitutional; State v. Hacker, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2535. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hubbard’s motion to sever. Hubbard failed to renew his motion at the close of all the evidence and waived all but plain error on appeal. Howard’s testimony of what Hubbard said to him is admissible as an adoptive admission, and as a result, Hubbard has failed to demonstrate plain error by the joinder of his trial. Furthermore, Hubbard’s felonious assault conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Howard’s testimony provided specific details, which were corroborated by other evidence, including the DNA evidence, the surveillance videos, the cell phone records, and the history of bad blood between Moore and Price and Hubbard. Lastly, the sentencing transcript as a whole reflects that Hubbard was not sentenced solely on the acquitted conduct and the Ohio Supreme Court, in State v. Hacker, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2535, recently found the Reagan Tokes Law to be constitutional. | Boyle | 9/28/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3468 |
| State v. Pierce | 111605 | App.R. 26(B); application for reopening; good cause; untimely application. - The untimely application for reopening was denied without addressing the merits because the application failed to establish good cause to excuse the delayed filing — the applicant did not offer any reason to excuse the delay. | Keough | 9/27/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3466 |
| State v. Meadows | 111950 | App.R. 26(B); application for reopening; ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; untimely application; good cause. An application for reopening was denied when the applicant failed to address or establish good cause for the untimely filing of the application. | Boyle | 9/26/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3469 |
| State ex rel. AIY Properties, Inc. v. Scott | 113029 | Writ of mandamus; writ of procedendo; forcible entry and detainer action; summary proceedings; mootness; pattern or practice; peremptory writ; R.C. 1923.08; bond; continuance; Cleveland Mun. Ct. R. Prac. & P. 3; declaratory judgment; R.C. 2721.03; attorney fees. Writs of mandamus and procedendo granted directing respondents to proceed to judgment expeditiously in forcible entry and detainer actions where a pattern and practice of delay was evident even though the underlying case was resolved after the filing of the complaint in the present action. Writs of mandamus and procedendo were denied for the enforcement of a provision in R.C. 1923.08 that required the posting of a bond any time a defendant requests a continuance longer than eight days. Writs of mandamus and procedendo were also denied that sought to prohibit the enforcement of local rules of court that allegedly conflicted with the summary nature of forcible entry and detainer actions. | Groves | 9/25/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3484 |
| State v. Conner | 111889 | App.R. 26(B) application for reopening; allied offenses; merger of sentences; res judicata; reasonable probability of different result on appeal; guilty plea; and waiver of error. Appellant’s application for reopening is denied. There exists no reasonable probability that, but for appellate counsel’s claimed error on appeal, the results of the appellant’s appeal would have been different. Appellant has failed to establish any prejudice through the proposed assignment of error raised in support of his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. A guilty plea waives a defendant’s right to challenge his conviction on potential error except for jurisdictional issues or that the plea of guilty was less than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. | E.A. Gallagher | 9/22/2023 | 2023-Ohio-3485 |