02/09/2023
Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Decided | WebCite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Menter Family Trust v. Menter | 111405 | Mandatory arbitration provision; motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration; R.C. 2711.02; R.C. 2711.03; hearing. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering appellees’ reply brief. The reply brief did not advance allegations; rather it rebutted appellant’s opposing brief. Appellees did not move to strike the reply brief or seek leave to file a surreply brief. Because appellant is challenging the execution of the arbitration provision itself and there is no evidence in the record that the trial court took this into consideration when granting appellees’ motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, the case is remanded to the trial court for a hearing. If, after the trial court conducts its hearing pursuant to our mandate herein and determines that the subject issues are arbitrable, because R.C. 2711.02 calls for a stay, not a dismissal, of an action referable to arbitration, the trial court should stay the case. | Ryan | 2/9/2023 | 2023-Ohio-367 |
| State v. McCutchen | 111406 | R.C. 2907.02(D); rape shield law; R.C. 2907.02(E); evidentiary hearing; Evid.R. 608; evidence of character and conduct; ineffective assistance of counsel; cumulative error. The trial court properly conducted an in camera proceeding to determine whether the victim’s prior allegation of sexual activity involving another individual was prohibited by the rape shield law or was wholly unsubstantiated and admissible under Evid.R. 608. The defense bears the burden of demonstrating the accusations were totally false. Defense counsel’s decision not to request a limiting instruction regarding appellant’s prior conviction testimony was tactical and not in error where the trial court issued a general instruction on credibility. Appellant’s argument that his constitutional rights were violated by the cumulative errors in this case fails where this court has found no errors were committed. | Laster Mays | 2/9/2023 | 2023-Ohio-368 |
| State v. Angers | 111481 | Violation of community-control sanctions; driver’s license suspension. Under R.C. 2929.15(B), when a defendant violates the conditions of his or her community control, a trial court has the option of imposing a longer period of community control, a more restrictive community-control sanction, or a prison term of any length within the range of that available for the original offense, up to the maximum that the trial court specified at the first sentencing hearing. A driver’s license suspension under R.C. 2925.22 is part of a defendant’s prison sentence; it is not a community-control sanction. Thus, the suspension should have been imposed, if at all, at the original sentencing hearing. The trial court’s imposition of a driver’s license suspension for a violation of community-control sanctions is contrary to law. | Ryan | 2/9/2023 | 2023-Ohio-369 |
| State v. Scott | 111461 | R.C. 2950.06(F); sex offender failure to verify address. Appellant’s conviction for failure to verify address under R.C. 2950.06(F) was in error where appellant’s Adam Walsh Act classification was unconstitutional and the Ohio Supreme Court had specifically mandated six years before appellant’s conviction that appellant was to be properly classified under Megan’s Law. | Laster Mays | 2/9/2023 | 2023-Ohio-370 |
| State v. Johnson | 111448 | Pro se litigant; guilty plea; presentence request to withdraw plea; abuse of discretion. The trial court admonished the defendant about proceeding pro se, but despite the admonishments, defendant opted to represent himself. Although presentence motions to withdraw a guilty plea should be liberally granted, there is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s presentence motion to withdraw his plea. The record demonstrates that the defendant had a full and fair Crim.R. 11 hearing at which he understood the nature of the charges and possible penalties. He was given an opportunity to state his ground for withdrawal of his plea, which demonstrated only that he had a change of heart. | Ryan | 2/9/2023 | 2023-Ohio-371 |
| State v. Carlson | 111534 | Sex offenses; S.B. 201; Reagan Tokes Law; constitutionality; ineffective assistance of counsel; sentence mitigation; trial strategy. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in sentencing the defendant pursuant to S.B. 201, the Reagan Tokes Law because this court’s en banc opinion in State v. Delvallie, 2022-Ohio-470, 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist.), held that the Reagan Tokes Law is constitutional. Defendant also did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing stage. Trial counsel’s decisions concerning the presentation of mitigating evidence were matters of trial strategy and within the range of reasonable professional assistance. | Celebrezze | 2/9/2023 | 2023-Ohio-372 |
| State v. Hill | 111554 | Motion to withdraw plea; Crim.R. 32.1; ineffective assistance of counsel; abuse of discretion; manifest injustice; trial court lacked jurisdiction following affirmance of conviction and sentence. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw plea because the trial court had no jurisdiction to consider appellant’s motion after his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. | Celebrezze | 2/9/2023 | 2023-Ohio-373 |
| Hathaway Brown School v. Cummings | 111566 | Personal jurisdiction; improper service; motion to vacate; certified mail; regular mail. The trial court erred when it determined that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendant when he filed a motion to vacate, supported by an affidavit rebutting the presumption of proper service, by stating that he did not live at the address where service was sent. | Forbes | 2/9/2023 | 2023-Ohio-374 |
| State v. Williams | 111583 | Reagan Tokes Law; constitutionality. Pursuant to this court’s decision in State v. Delvallie, 2022-Ohio-470, 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist.) (en banc), the Reagan Tokes Law is constitutional. The trial court did not err in imposing an indefinite sentence on appellant’s offense of felonious assault. | Sheehan | 2/9/2023 | 2023-Ohio-376 |
| State v. Cox | 111636; 111640; 111651 | Reagan Tokes Law. The appellant’s sentence in accordance with Reagan Tokes Law has been ruled constitutional. | Laster Mays | 2/9/2023 | 2023-Ohio-377 |
| Woodrow v. Krukowski | 111753 | Motion for sanctions; R.C. 2323.51; frivolous conduct; wholly unwarranted in law; hearing; abuse of discretion. Appellant’s claims were insufficient to satisfy the frivolous-conduct standard without allegations of egregious misbehavior, harassment, or a demonstration that there was no evidence supporting appellee’s claims. The trial court was not required to hold a hearing on appellant’s motion for sanctions and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. | Celebrezze | 2/9/2023 | 2023-Ohio-378 |
| State v. Jones | 110742 | Confrontation Clause; non-testimonial statements; testimonial statements; objective witness test; primary purpose test; ongoing emergency; hearsay; excited utterance; Evid.R. 803(2); Crim.R. 29(A) motion for acquittal; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; allied offenses of similar import; R.C. 2941.25; imposition of consecutive sentences; indefinite sentence; Reagan Tokes Law; reopening case; App.R. 12(A)(2); App.R. 16(A)(7). Declarant’s statements to neighbor, 911 operator, and EMS dispatcher were nontestimonial and admission of such statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause where declarant was in need of medical assistance and the primary purpose of statements was to obtain medical assistance. Declarant’s statements to neighbor, 911 operator and EMS dispatcher were admissible as excited utterances under Evid.R. 803(2) where declarant personally observed a startling event, statements related to the startling event, and statements were made while declarant was still under the stress of excitement from the startling event. Declarant’s statements to police officers while in the custody of EMS personnel, receiving medical care in the back of an ambulance, at the hospital, and at a nursing facility were testimonial and admission of police officer testimony and body camera footage of such statements violated the Confrontation Clause where the primary purpose of the interrogation was to document past events for a later criminal investigation or prosecution. However, the erroneous admission of such evidence was harmless error where it was duplicative and cumulative of other, properly admitted evidence of declarant’s statements to neighbor, 911 operator, and EMS dispatcher. Defendant’s convictions for aggravated arson, felonious assault, arson, and domestic violence were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant cited no legal authority and made no argument in support of claim that trial court erred in allowing state to reopen its case to present additional evidence relating to repeat violent specifications after rendering its verdict on matters not tried to the jury. Aggravated arson and felonious assault offenses of which defendant was convicted were allied offenses of similar import and trial court erred in failing to merge the offenses for sentencing; case remanded for a new sentencing hearing on those counts. Assignments of error challenging imposition of consecutive sentences and imposition of indefinite sentence under the Reagan Tokes Law were moot. | E.A. Gallagher | 2/9/2023 | 2023-Ohio-380 |
| State ex rel. Chapman v. Gallagher | 112156 | Mandamus; moot; final appealable order; R.C. 2969.25(C). The complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court judge to issue a final appealable order in a criminal case is moot. The trial court judge has vacated the original judgment of conviction and sentence and resentenced the relator. In addition, the relator failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which mandates that the complaint for a writ of mandamus contain a statement certified by the institutional cashier setting forth the balance in the inmate’s account for the preceding six months. | S. Gallagher | 2/8/2023 | 2023-Ohio-379 |
| State v. Dudas | 110573 | App.R. 26(B) application for reopening; untimely filed application; good cause; delay in mailing by prison mail room. The application for reopening has been filed more than ninety days after journalization of the appellate judgment subject to reopening. The appellant has failed to establish any good cause for the untimely filing of the application. In addition, the appellant possesses no right to file a successive application for reopening. | E.A. Gallagher | 2/7/2023 | 2023-Ohio-366 |
| Lakewood v. Hocter | 111572 | Crim.R. 11; Crim.R. 11(E); Crim.R. 11(B); Crim.R. 11(B)(2); no-contest; plea; effect; complete failure; inform; vacated. Reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Because the trial court failed to provide any explanation of the effect of a no-contest plea as required by Crim.R. 11(E) and in accordance with the language of Crim.R. 11(B)(2), appellant’s plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made and was required to be vacated. | S. Gallagher | 2/3/2023 | 2023-Ohio-375 |