05/09/2024
Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Decided | WebCite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. K.W. | 113160 | R.C. 2953.32; application to seal record of conviction; competing interests; abuse of discretion; rehabilitation. The trial court abused its discretion in denying an application to seal a record of conviction where it conflated expungement with sealing a record and therefore improperly weighed the competing interests at play. | Kilbane | 5/9/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1778 |
| State v. Washington | 112872 | Presentence motion to withdraw guilty plea; Crim.R. 32.1; abuse of discretion. Summary: The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Washington’s presentence motion to withdraw guilty plea. Washington was not coerced into pleading and a mere change of heart is not sufficient reason to withdraw a guilty plea. | Boyle | 5/9/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1784 |
| McDermott v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals | 113123 | Zoning, R.C. 713.15, use variance, R.C. Chapter 2505, R.C. Chapter 2506, administrative appeal, questions of law, “grandfather clause,” C.C.O. 359.01, C.C.O. 329, unnecessary hardship, abuse of discretion. BZA denied a variance to a property owner who built a structure without a permit. The trial court affirmed. After a thorough review of all the evidence in the record, we cannot say as a matter of law that the BZA’s denial of appellant’s requested variance is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence on the whole record. As such, the trial court did not err in coming to the same conclusion. | Boyle | 5/9/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1780 |
| Song v. Rom | 112770 | Res judicata; claim preclusion; summary judgment; judgment on the pleadings. Appellants’ third lawsuit was barred by res judicata where their original lawsuit was tried to resolution and subsequent litigation attempted to reach the parties involved in the original lawsuit as well as parties in privity with the original parties where the claims arose out of the same transactions that were the basis of the original lawsuit and the claims in the current case could have or should have been raised in the original lawsuit. | Groves | 5/9/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1787 |
| Parnell v. Zielinski | 112778 | Manifest weight of the evidence; expert witness; stipulated negligence. The defense verdict rendered by the jury was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the verdict was supported by credible and competent evidence that goes to all the essential elements of the case. | Kilbane | 5/9/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1789 |
| State v. Lewis | 112730 | Sufficiency; manifest weight of the evidence; imposition of sentence on firearm specification; S.B. 201 constitutionality. Sufficient evidence was presented regarding the identity of the perpetrator where a witness who knew appellant identified him from surveillance footage of the incident and other witnesses and DNA evidence connected appellant to the additional crime of leaving the scene of an accident. Additionally, the convictions were supported by the manifest weight of the evidence where the primary witness on identification knew appellant and maintained that identification throughout the case. Although the witness received a favorable plea deal on her charges for testifying in court, the witness identified appellant prior to receiving that deal, there was no evidence of a prior statement that she changed after receiving the deal, or evidence that the witness held animosity towards appellant due to relationship issues. The trial court did not err in sentencing appellant to a firearm specification that was attached to a count that merged based on State v. Bollar, 171 Ohio St.3d 678, 2022-Ohio-4370, 220 N.E.3d 690. Finally, appellant’s sentence under S.B. 201 was not unconstitutional based on State v. Hacker, 173 Ohio St.3d 219, 2023-Ohio-2535, 229 N.E.3d 38. | Groves | 5/9/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1786 |
| Cleveland v. Brown | 113084 | Modification of community-control sanctions; final appealable order. Appeal dismissed. The trial court’s judgment removing a portion of Brown’s community-control sanctions was not a final, appealable order that is reviewable by this court. | Celebrezze | 5/9/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1782 |
| Berner v. New Leaf Residential Servs., Inc. | 112841 | Motion to dismiss; Civ.R. 12(B)(6); political subdivision immunity; R.C. Chapter 2744; de novo review; four corners of the complaint; exception to immunity; physical defect of building; notice pleading; sufficient operative facts. The trial court did not err in denying CCBDD’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) because both the amended complaint and the crossclaim alleged sufficient facts under which they might plausibly demonstrate that the R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) exception to immunity was applicable. | Celebrezze | 5/9/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1788 |
| State v. Moore | 113041 | Complicity; felonious assault; ineffective assistance of counsel; joinder; Crim.R. 14; severance; Batson; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence. Affirmed. The appellant’s four assignments of error claiming that error occurred are without merit. Appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a motion to sever under Crim.R. 14; the state’s use of a peremptory challenge did not rise to a constitutional violation, as defined under federal law, based on the prospective juror’s combined race and gender; and the conviction was based on sufficient, credible evidence. | S. Gallagher | 5/9/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1783 |
| State v. K.L. | 113168 | Motion to seal record of conviction; R.C. 2953.32; hearing. Ohio precedent that courts need not hold a hearing for ineligible offenders who have filed a motion to seal their record under R.C. 2953.32 is no longer applicable after the April 2023 amendment of the statute. | Forbes | 5/9/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1777 |
| State v. Kendricks | 113143 | Crim.R. 32.1, presentence guilty plea withdrawal. The trial court’s denial of appellant’s presentence motion to withdraw guilty plea was not an abuse of discretion. | Laster Mays | 5/9/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1779 |
| State v. Walker | 113103 | Sentencing; consecutive sentencing; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The trial court complied with the mandates of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and made the findings necessary to impose consecutive sentences, and those findings are not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. | Kilbane | 5/9/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1781 |
| A.E. v. J.E. | 112847 | Financial misconduct; spousal support; child support; marital property; marital home; temporary spousal support; attorney fees; marital debt; loan; life insurance; proposed shared parenting; parenting time; restraining orders. Trial court erred in finding that husband committed financial misconduct by dissipating marital funds when he liquidated restricted stock units when the court restrained his income and he had no other means of paying his tax liabilities. The trial court erred by ordering husband to pay wife more than half of his income as temporary spousal support. The trial court erred in substituting its own valuation for the marital home based on the court’s review of comparable home values instead of the valuation of husband’s appraiser, who appraised the property one month before trial. Trial court erred in ordering husband to pay wife’s attorney fees when there was no evidence that he was in a superior financial position or that he caused wife to incur an increase in attorney fees. Trial court erred in requiring husband to pay off a loan wife received from her parents when the loan was used to pay college tuitions for the parties’ adult children and to pay real estate taxes on the parties’ marital home, which was wife’s responsibility. Trial court erred in designating wife the beneficiary of a lapsed insurance policy. Trial court erred in not adopting the husband’s shared parenting plan and in finding that a reduction in father’s parenting time was in the child’s best interest. The trial court failed to account for funding missing from wife’s lawyer’s IOLTA account. Trial court erred in leaving all restraining orders in place without specifically identifying the restraining orders and identifying the restrained parties. | E.T. Gallagher | 5/3/2024 | 2024-Ohio-1785 |