03/28/2024
Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Decided | WebCite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Foster | 112564 | Crim.R. 11; guilty plea; knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily; Sierah’s Law, R.C. 2903.41 through 2903.44; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), consecutive sentences; firearm specification, R.C. 2941.145(A); mandatory prison term; Reagan Tokes Law. Appellant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. The trial court partially complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) regarding mandatory imprisonment and consecutive service of the firearm specification, but appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice. The trial court failed to make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence findings on the record or in the judgment entry, advise the appellant of Sierah’s Law’s registration obligations, and apply the Reagan Tokes Law to the involuntary manslaughter sentence. | Laster Mays | 3/28/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1160 |
| State v. Sims | 112860 | Anders brief; motion to withdraw. The trial court dismissed two of appellant’s multiple rape convictions after, on appellant’s direct appeal, this court found insufficient evidence to support those convictions. Counsel filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Based on our review of the record, there are no meritorious claims and the appeal is wholly frivolous. | Ryan | 3/28/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1161 |
| Bukovec v. Keger | 113024 | Motion for relief from judgment; Civ.R. 60(B); default judgment; bootstrapping. Appeal dismissed. By appealing the June 29, 2023 journal entry denying appellants’ second motion for relief from judgment, appellants are attempting to bootstrap arguments that are time barred. Appellants are attempting to utilize the instant appeal (their second Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment) to improperly seek review of alleged errors that they failed to timely appeal (the grant of default judgment). As a result, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. | Boyle | 3/28/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1162 |
| State v. Johnson | 113034 | As-applied; constitutional; Second Amendment; firearm; having weapons while under disability; freedom to marry; sufficient; constructive possession; plain error. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to conclude that the defendant’s convictions for having weapons while under disability were unconstitutional as applied. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a constitutional challenge to R.C. 2923.13(A)(2)-(3). The having-weapons-while-under-disability statute does not infringe on an individual’s fundamental freedom to marry. Defendant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. | E.T. Gallagher | 3/28/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1163 |
| In re A.M. | 113083 | Permanent custody; R.C. 2151.414; best interest; Kinship Caregiver Law; R.C. 2151.4116 - 2151.4119; legal custody; constitutional rights; substantive due process. There is no reversible error with respect to the Kinship Caregiver Law. The trial court’s judgment denying mother’s motion for legal custody to maternal aunt and granting permanent custody to the agency was affirmed. The trial court’s judgment finding that it was in the child’s best interest to be placed in the permanent custody of the agency was supported by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court did not violate mother’s substantive due process rights as applied to the facts of her case. | Sheehan | 3/28/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1164 |
| Halton v. Halton | 113090 | Divorce; equal division; assets; debt; marital home; real property; retirement assets; future date; R.C. 3105.171(C); R.C. 3105.171(J)(1). Reversed in part the division of property in a divorce action. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing assets and debts in accordance with the parties’ stipulations on nearly all issues or in ordering an equal division of the remaining assets and debts, which included retirement assets and the marital home. However, the trial court abused its discretion in using a future date after the end of the marriage for determining an equal division of the real property. The case was remanded with instructions for the trial court to equally divide the equity in the marital home that existed on the termination of marriage date. | S. Gallagher | 3/28/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1165 |
| SoFi Lending Corp. v. Williams | 113153 | Breach of loan agreement; default judgment; Civ.R. 55; abuse of discretion; sovereign citizen; Moorish American National; frivolous arguments; debt evasion. Judgment affirmed. Appellant’s argument against the trial court’s judgment granting default judgment against appellant that he is a “Moorish American National” and therefore not subject to common law contractual rights is summarily overruled. | Celebrezze | 3/28/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1166 |
| State v. St. Valle | 113191 | Felony sentencing; appellate review; agreed sentence; sentencing range; R.C. 2953.08(D)(1); trafficking; R.C. 2925.03(A)(2); possessing criminal tools; R.C. 2923.24(A); mandatory fine; R.C. 2929.18(B)(1); R.C. 2925.03(D)(1); indigency; plain error. The prison sentences imposed on the defendant for drug trafficking and possession of criminal tools are not reviewable on appeal by operation of R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). The sentences were authorized by law and the aggregate sentence was within the range jointly recommended by the defendant and the state pursuant to a plea agreement. While the defendant disagreed with the trial court’s weighing of certain sentencing factors, he made no argument that the sentences fell outside the statutory ranges for the offenses or failed to comport with any mandatory sentencing provision. Nor did the defendant challenge his sentence on constitutional grounds or assert any argument with respect to the validity of his plea. The imposition of a mandatory fine on the trafficking count was not plain error. The trial court considered the defendant’s present and future ability to pay the fine and the defendant failed to show he was unable to pay it. He had been employed, had stable housing and close family ties, retained counsel at the trial and appellate levels and was arrested while in the possession of multiple cell phones and hundreds of dollars in cash. | E. A. Gallagher | 3/28/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1167 |
| In re A.M. | 113284 | Parental rights; permanent custody; manifest weight of the evidence; R.C. 2151.414; clear and convincing evidence; best interests of the child; abuse of discretion. The record contains clear and convincing evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that the child was in the agency’s custody for 12 months or longer for a consecutive 22-month period and that it was in the best interests of the child to grant permanent custody to the agency. The juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody of the child to the agency was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Sheehan | 3/28/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1168 |
| State v. Grimes | 110925 | App.R. 26(B), application to reopen, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, timeliness, reliance on counsel, reliance on clerk, lack of notice, and good cause. This court denied an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen because it was untimely. Lack of notice of the decision from appellate counsel does not state good cause. Lack of notice from the clerk does not state good cause. Proposed assignments of error were not persuasive. The trial court made the necessary findings to impose consecutive sentences. Defendant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. | Laster Mays | 3/25/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1157 |
| State v. Kronenberg | 111840 | App.R. 26(B); ineffective assistance of counsel; allied offenses, violation of a protection order; menacing by stalking, telecommunications harassment; incorporating argument; and genuine issue. The court granted the application to reopen because appellate counsel’s attempt to “short-cut” an argument by merely incorporating it into the brief was deficient representation. The argument that violating a protection order merged with telephone harassment presented a genuine issue that deserved to be heard on the merits. | Celebrezze | 3/25/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1159 |
| State v. Gardner | 111506 | App.R. 26(B); ineffective assistance of trial counsel; ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; murder; complicity; cross-examination; proof beyond a reasonable doubt; perjury; inconsistencies in testimony; defendant’s decision to testify; and record support. This court denied an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen. The applicant’s claims concerning perjury and withholding exculpatory evidence did not have record support. Inconsistencies in witnesses’ testimonies do not show perjury. The applicant’s decision not to testify was confirmed by the record and does not support the claim that counsel did not allow her to testify. Moreover, the decision whether or not to testify is a strategic decision not questionable through a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Applicant’s counsel followed the strategy of trying to show a reasonable doubt through the absence of certain evidence. This court will not second-guess such strategic decisions. | Ryan | 3/22/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1158 |