02/03/2022


Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
WebCite
State v. Jenkins 109421Preindictment delay; actual prejudice; justifiable delay; law-of-the-case doctrine; ineffective assistance of counsel. Trial court erred in finding that defendant failed to establish actual and substantial prejudice based on the period of preindictment delay. Defendant established that he suffered actual prejudice in the form of a deceased witness who was present for a portion of the incident and would have provided testimony that minimized or eliminated the impact of the state’s witness. Nevertheless, even though the trial court erred in finding no prejudice, the trial court was correct, given its finding, in deciding not to address the issue of the state’s reason for the delay. The case is thus affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the state provided sufficient reason to justify the period of preindictment delay.Groves 2/3/2022 2022-Ohio-297
State v. Dickerson 109434Preindictment delay; actual prejudice; justifiable delay; law of the case; ineffective assistance of counsel. Trial court erred in finding that defendant failed to establish actual and substantial prejudice based on the period of preindictment delay. Defendant established that he suffered actual prejudice in the form of a deceased witness who was present for a portion of the incident and would have provided testimony that minimized or eliminated the impact of the state’s witness. Nevertheless, even though the trial court erred in finding no prejudice, the trial court was correct, given its finding, in deciding not to address the issue of the state’s reason for the delay. The case is thus affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the state provided sufficient reason to justify the period of preindictment delay.Groves 2/3/2022 2022-Ohio-298
Smith v. Smith 110214, 110245, 110274Domestic relations cases; abuse of discretion; de facto termination date of marriage; equitable division of marital property; spousal support. We review a trial court’s determination in domestic relations cases for an abuse of discretion. Since it is axiomatic that a trial court must have discretion to do what is equitable upon the facts and circumstances of each case, it necessarily follows that a trial court’s decision in domestic relations matters should not be disturbed on appeal unless the decision involves more than an error of judgment. Appellant’s main argument is that the trial court erred and abused its discretion when it determined that the de facto termination date of the marriage was November 23, 2015. Generally, a trial court uses a de facto date for termination of marriage only in cases where the parties have separated; have made no attempts to reconcile; and have continually maintained separate residences, separate business activities, and separate bank accounts. In this matter, the record indicates that during the five-plus years since the parties’ separation on November 23, 2015, they ceased to vacation together, did not socialize together, or attend business events together. The parties made no attempts to reconcile, but instead, bilaterally attempted to terminate the marriage, first through mediation, and then through a collaborative divorce process, both of which were unsuccessful. In addition, the parties began filing separate tax returns in 2015, and continued this practice in the ensuing years, and maintained separate bank accounts. All these actions underscores that the parties lived separate lives after their separation on November 23, 2015. As such, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion when it used the date of separation as the de facto termination date of the marriage. Appellant also takes issue with the trial court’s division of the marital estate and the amount of and duration of spousal support. Our review indicates that the trial considered the appropriate statutory factors to equitably divide the marital assets and to award spousal support.Groves 2/3/2022 2022-Ohio-299
State v. Pittman 110272Manifest weight of the evidence; witness credibility; sufficiency of the evidence; court witnesses; cruel and unusual punishment. The defendant’s conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of witnesses are primarily for the finder of fact. The finder of fact is in the best position to weigh witness credibility. The defendant’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. The state presented sufficient evidence that the defendant acted alongside the codefendant with the same purpose. A trial court’s decision to treat a witness as a court’s witness is reviewed for abuse of discretion. It is not an abuse of discretion for a court to call a witness where the record demonstrates that the witness was not going to abide by his or her plea agreement to testify truthfully and consistent with prior statements. The defendant’s sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. He was sentenced within the statutory range for each of his convictions, the sentences were not ordered to be served consecutively, and he did not receive the maximum sentence on any one particular count.Kilbane 2/3/2022 2022-Ohio-300
Cuyahoga Cty. Treasurer v. Holloway 110433R.C. 5721.18; foreclosure; R.C. 5723.01 forfeiture; R.C. 5723.03 redemption; Civ.R. 62(B); stay upon appeal; supersedeas bond. Appellant’s appeal dismissed as moot because appellant did not obtain a stay or post a bond to prevent execution of the court’s foreclosure and forfeiture decrees, the property was sold to a third party, and the proceeds were distributed, extinguishing the matter through satisfaction of the judgment.Boyle 2/3/2022 2022-Ohio-301
Gerace v. Biotheranostics, Inc. 110440Wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss; choice of law; place of injury; tort action; tortious interference with employment relationship; prohibiting deceptive trade practices. The trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiff’s California-law-based claims when Ohio law controlled the case. In a wrongful termination case, the place where the plaintiff lost his or her employment is the place of injury, and the place of injury presumptively controls the choice of law. In this case, Gerace lived and worked in Ohio when he was terminated from his job. The trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiff’s claim for wrongful discharge in violation of Ohio public policy because he failed to allege facts that jeopardized a clear public policy.Forbes 2/3/2022 2022-Ohio-302
State v. Tutte 110508Speedy trial; R.C. 2945.71; toll; R.C. 2945.72; COVID-19; Administrative Orders; dismiss. - Trial court erred in finding that the state violated the defendant’s right to a speedy trial and thus, dismissing the indictment. The Administrative Orders issued by the Administrate Judge of the common pleas court, general division, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, tolled the speedy trial time pursuant to R.C. 2945.72.Keough 2/3/2022 2022-Ohio-303
Lok Home v. Robbins Co. 110544Civ.R. 60(B); relief from judgment; excusable neglect; procedural outcomes; adjudication on the merits. Trial court properly denied a motion for relief from judgment where the moving party failed to demonstrate excusable neglect.E.T. Gallagher 2/3/2022 2022-Ohio-304
State v. Cintron 110600Misdemeanor; conviction; community-control sanction; condition; child support; reasonably related; rehabilitation. The trial court abused its discretion by ordering the defendant to establish a child-support order as a condition of his community-control sanctions. The condition was not reasonably related to the goals of rehabilitation and shared no relationship with the underlying conviction.E.T. Gallagher 2/3/2022 2022-Ohio-305
Cuyahoga Cty. Treasurer v. Unknown Heirs of Russell 110540Motion to intervene; foreclosure; distribution of excess sale proceeds. Appellant, a third party who was assigned the mortgage after Deutsche Bank defaulted on a tax foreclosure complaint and the property was sold in a sheriff’s sale pursuant to a decree of foreclosure, cannot claim any interest in the excess sale proceeds to be protected by Civ.R. 24 through a motion to intervene. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to intervene.Sheehan 2/3/2022 2022-Ohio-309
State v. Young 109169App.R. 26(B), ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, timeliness, good cause, and delay in obtaining transcripts. The court denied an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen as untimely because counsel’s delay in sending the transcripts does not state good cause for untimely filing.Laster Mays 2/2/2022 2022-Ohio-308
State ex rel. Swopes v. McCormick 110860Mandamus; DNA testing, discovery; Crim.R. 16; Crim.R. 42; R.C. 2969.25(A); R.C. 2969.25(C); violation of due process rights; violation of equal protection rights; judicial discretion; prohibitory injunction; declaratory judgment. The relator has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus and seeks an order from this court that requires the relator-judge to overturn his judgment with regard to a discovery matter and DNA testing. A review of the relator’s original complaint for mandamus fails to reveal compliance with R.C. 2969.25. R.C. 2969.25(A) requires the relator to file an affidavit listing each civil action or appeal of a civil action he has filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court, as well as information regarding the outcome of each civil action or appeal. Compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory and the failure to comply subjects the complaint to dismissal. In addition, the relator has failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which requires that an inmate file a certified statement from his prison cashier setting forth the balance in his private account for each of the preceding six months. The failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) constitutes sufficient reason to deny a writ claim, deny indigency status, and assess costs against the relator. Noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) and 2969.25(C) cannot be cured by amendment of the original complaint. This court possesses original jurisdiction over a complaint for a writ of mandamus pursuant to Article IV, Section 3(B)(1) of the Ohio Constitution, R.C. 2731.01 and 2731.02. The requisites for mandamus are well established: 1) the relator must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief; 2) the relator must establish that respondent-judge possesses a clear legal duty to perform the requested relief; and 3) the relator possesses no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is to be exercised with great caution and granted only when the right is absolutely clear. Mandamus should not issue in doubtful cases. The relator has failed to establish that his rights under Crim.R. 16 and 42, due process, and equal protection have been violated. The relator has also failed to establish the duty owed by the respondent-judge with regard to Crim.R. 16 and 42, due process, and equal protection. In addition, mandamus cannot be used to control the discretion of the respondent-judge via discovery orders. Finally, the real purpose of the complaint for a writ of mandamus is a prohibitory injunction to prevent the state from conducting addition DNA testing and to declare the rights and duties of the relator and the respondent-judge with regard to discovery and additional DNA testing. A complaint for mandamus that seeks a prohibitory injunction or a declaratory judgment does not state a cause of action in mandamus and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Complaint dismissed.E.T. Gallagher 1/28/2022 2022-Ohio-306
Willis v. Cuyahoga Cty. Common Pleas Court 111112Habeas corpus, failure to state a claim, R.C. 2969.25(C), R.C. 2725.04, and verification. The court dismissed a petition for habeas corpus because the petitioner misinterpreted the court’s journal entry and did not state a claim for relief. Petitioner also did not verify the petition as required by R.C. 2725.04 and did not file a proper poverty affidavit as required by R.C. 2969.25.Kilbane 1/28/2022 2022-Ohio-307