Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
State v. Lewis 110448Crim.R. 32.1; motion to withdraw guilty plea; abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea because Crim.R. 32.1 did not vest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider the appellant’s motion after an appeal and affirmance by the appellate court.Laster Mays 1/13/2022 2022-Ohio-70
Woodmere v. Workman 110449Disorderly conduct; R.C. 2917.11(A); noise ordinance; free speech; First Amendment; selective prosecution. Defendant’s convictions for disorderly conduct under R.C. 2917.11(A) and a violation of a local noise control ordinance were impermissibly based on the defendant’s speech in violation of the First Amendment of the federal Constitution, and therefore, the convictions are vacated.S. Gallagher 1/13/2022 2022-Ohio-71
State v. Angel 110456Third-degree felony; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; 30-month prison term. - Defendant’s sentence of 30 months in prison was not contrary to law because it was within the statutory range for third-degree felonies and the trial court properly considered the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12 when it imposed the sentence. Appellate court could not consider defendant’s argument that the record did not support the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 because nothing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits an appellate court to independently weigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court regarding R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.Keough 1/13/2022 2022-Ohio-72
State v. Hagler 110523Pro se litigant; Crim.R. 32(B); final appealable order; judgment of conviction. The trial court’s denials of defendant’s motions for a final order are affirmed. Defendant’s argument that the judgments of conviction in multiple cases be condensed to one document is unsupported by law.Forbes 1/13/2022 2022-Ohio-73
State v. Cisco 110687Notice of consequences of violation of community control sanction; final judgment. On July 15, 2021, one month after it journalized a community control sanction as sentence for a felony offense, the trial court journalized an entry containing notice of a potential prison sentence it could impose for a violation of the community control sanction. Because the trial court did not have authority to amend the final judgment of sentence, the case is remanded to the trial court to vacate the July 15, 2021 journal entry.Sheehan 1/13/2022 2022-Ohio-74
DiCarlo v. Fairview Hosp. 110766Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; negligence; duty; breach; hazard; notice; slip and fall; premises liability; invitee. The trial court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Appellant failed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact that precluded summary judgment in defendants’ favor. Appellant did not present any Civ.R. 56(C) evidence demonstrating that a hazard existed and that the hazard caused her to slip and fall. Accordingly, appellant’s negligence claim fails as a matter of law.Celebrezze 1/13/2022 2022-Ohio-75
State v. Yates 109821Sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence; Evid.R. 801; hearsay; Evid.R. 803(2); excited utterance; Evid.R. 803(3); present sense impression; ineffective assistance of counsel; jury irregularities; R.C. 2945.71; speedy trial. Appellant’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Reviewed for plain error, the witness’s statement to the victim’s mother made immediately after the shooting qualified as an excited utterance and present sense impression to the hearsay rule. Appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails where the errors complained of were found to lack merit.Laster Mays 1/13/2022 2022-Ohio-76
MetroHealth Sys. v. Khandelwal 109913Preliminary injunction; modification; noncompete agreement; doctor; specialized; abuse of discretion; likelihood of success on the merits; irreparable injury; unjustifiable harm to third parties; public interest; reasonable; legitimate business interest; undue hardship; injury to the public. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it modified the noncompete agreement between appellant and appellee. Appellant did not have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its breach-of-contract claim against the appellee with the noncompete agreement as written, however it did have a substantial likelihood of success under the trial court’s modified noncompete agreement. As modified by the court, the noncompete agreement protected appellant’s legitimate business interests, did not impose and undue burden on the appellee, and did not injure the public. Further, the modified noncompete agreement would not cause the appellant to suffer irreparable injury. Finally, third parties would be harmed, and the public interest would not be served by enforcing the noncompete agreement as written by appellant. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it modified the noncompete agreement between the parties.Forbes 1/13/2022 2022-Ohio-77
State v. Johnson 110205Postconviction relief; R.C. 2953.21; R.C. 2953.23; untimely; exception; unavoidably prevented from discovering; witness testimony; de novo. The trial court did not err by denying appellant’s petition for postconviction relief because it was untimely pursuant to R.C. 2953.21. Additionally, appellant did not qualify for an exception to the timeliness requirement pursuant to R.C. 2953.23 because he did not demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts upon which he relies, nor did he establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty but for the alleged constitutional error. Accordingly, the trial court was without jurisdiction to entertain appellant’s petition.Forbes 1/13/2022 2022-Ohio-78
Metron Nutraceuticals, L.L.C. v. Thomas 110280Motion to show cause; contempt; sanction; manifest weight of the evidence; abuse of discretion; attorney fees. - Trial court’s judgment granting motion to show cause and finding defendant in contempt was neither against the manifest weight of the evidence nor an abuse of discretion where the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing on the motion was undisputed that defendant had not complied with the agreed judgment entry; plaintiff’s request for attorney fees was properly submitted with its post-hearing brief; trial court’s decision granting attorney fees without an evidentiary hearing did not violate defendant’s due process rights because defendant offered no evidence challenging plaintiff’s entitlement to attorney fees nor the reasonableness of the fees and never requested a hearing.Keough 1/13/2022 2022-Ohio-79
Myers v. John A. Hudec Cleveland Dental Ctr., Inc. 110328Summary judgment; expert testimony; Loc.R. 21.1; Civ.R. 26(B)(7). The trial court did not err in granting the appellees’ summary judgment motion because the appellant failed to provide expert testimony in compliance with Loc.R. 21.1 and Civ.R. 26(B)(7).Laster Mays 1/13/2022 2022-Ohio-80
State v. Johnson 110347Petition for postconviction relief; recantation; successive; untimely; abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s successive and untimely petition for postconviction relief, based on an alleged recantation of witness testimony, because appellant was unable to show that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the recantation and unable to establish a constitutional error.Kilbane 1/13/2022 2022-Ohio-81
State v. Robinson 110358Guilty plea; immigration consequences of a guilty plea; findings of fact and conclusions of law; ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant failed to timely appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw the guilty plea because there is no authority allowing the 30-day appeal time from a judgment denying a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to be tolled by a motion for factual findings and conclusions of law. Even if the appeal had been filed timely, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to withdraw the guilty plea predicated on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. The totality of circumstances did not establish a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s allegedly deficient performance, appellant would have chosen to go to trial.Sheehan 1/13/2022 2022-Ohio-82
Mundy v. Golightly 110382Partition; Civ.R. 12(C); pleading requirements. In an action for partition of property acquired during cohabitation, judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C) was properly granted where plaintiff did not allege any fact other than cohabitation to establish that defendant had an ownership interest in the property because Ohio law precludes an action for partition of personal property acquired solely on account of cohabitation.Sheehan 1/13/2022 2022-Ohio-83
State v. Lucas 110421Postrelease-control sanctions; jail-time credit. The trial court erred by failing to reduce the postrelease-control sanction because the sanction should have been reduced by the prison term that was imposed by the parole board. The trial court did not err by not awarding the appellant jail-time credit because the court’s calculation shall not include the number of days, if any, that the appellant served in the custody of the department of rehabilitation and correction arising out of any prior offense for which the appellant was convicted and sentenced.Laster Mays 1/13/2022 2022-Ohio-84