Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
State v. Fry 109593R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(c); R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b); rape of a child; felonious assault; indictment; guilty plea; Sixth Amendment; sentencing; not contrary to law. A defendant convicted of violating R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) can only be sentenced to a mandatory minimum 25 years to life pursuant to R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(c) when the facts to establish the factors listed in (c) are either submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or admitted to by the defendant. Here, defendant’s guilty plea to rape and to a felonious assault with a sexual motivation specification the same day as the rape offense establishes that the defendant during or immediately after the commission of the offense caused serious physical harm to the victim. Defendant’s guilty plea admits the necessary facts to establish the prerequisite factors of R.C. 2971.03(B)(1)(c) such that a sentence of 25 years to life is required by law; however, the trial court did not have authority to add additional years to that sentence, such that the defendant’s sentence of 30 years to life was contrary to law.Kilbane 8/19/2021 2021-Ohio-2838
State v. Carswell 110033Maximum sentences; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; contrary to law; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); nunc pro tunc. The trial court did not err in sentencing the appellant to maximum sentences because the sentences were not contrary to law. The sentences were within the statutory range and the trial court considered all of the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. The trial court made the required findings for the imposition of consecutive sentences and the court’s findings are supported by the record. However, the trial court failed to incorporate its consecutive-sentence findings in the journal entry. The case is remanded for the limited purpose of having the trial court issue a nunc pro tunc entry to incorporate its consecutive-sentence findings.Laster Mays 8/19/2021 2021-Ohio-2839
Victor v. Kaplan 110091Arbitration; motion to stay pending arbitration; waiver; abuse of discretion. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by granting a motion to stay pending arbitration where based on the totality of the circumstances, the party requesting arbitration has not acted inconsistently with the right to arbitrate. A trial court does not abuse its discretion finding that party has not waived its right to arbitrate where the facts in the case demonstrate: (1) the delay caused by the requesting part was reasonable and justified, (2) the requesting party’s action in the case was not inconsistent with arbitration, (3) the requesting party has not invoked the trial court’s jurisdiction and (4) the non-requesting party has not been prejudiced by the requesting party’s inconsistent acts.E.A. Gallagher 8/19/2021 2021-Ohio-2840
Tax Ease Ohio, II., L.L.C. v. Leach 110119Tax certificates; summary judgment; Evid.R. 803(14); affidavit. - Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to owner of tax certificates where the tax certificates were admissible under Evid.R. 803(14) as records of documents affecting an interest in real property; the affidavit of the owner’s agent attached to the owner’s motion for summary judgment authenticated the tax certificates, establishing that the owner was the holder of the tax certificates; under R.C. 5721.37(F), the certificates were presumptive evidence of the amount, validity, and nonpayment of the liens represented by the certificates; and appellant produced no evidence to rebut the owner’s evidence.Keough 8/19/2021 2021-Ohio-2841
State v. Marneros 109258Turn signal; lane change; probable cause; Fourth Amendment; search and seizure; motion to suppress properly denied; sufficient evidence; ineffective assistance of counsel; expert witness; qualified to testify regarding firearm operability; manifest weight; jury instruction; constructive possession of a firearm; maximum sentences; proper sentence within statutory range. Officers had probable cause to effectuate a traffic stop when an officer witnessed the defendant pull out of a gas station onto a highway without using a turn signal in violation of the traffic code. Because there was probable cause, any motion to suppress alleging an improper stop would have been denied. Therefore, trial counsel was not ineffective for deciding not to file a motion to suppress. Similarly, counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to testimony regarding the operability of the firearm as the witness was qualified to do so. The defendant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court gave the correct jury instruction on constructive possession and its imposition of the maximum sentences within the proper statutory framework were not contrary to law.Kilbane 8/19/2021 2021-Ohio-2844
State v. Marriott 109339Ineffective assistance of counsel; prejudice; no contest plea; guilty plea; appellate review; motion in limine; ruling; docket silent; presumed denied. A trial court speaks through its docket. For appellate review, if the docket does not reveal a ruling on the motion it is presumed denied. Here, appellant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel regarding her guilty plea, arguing if she pled no contest that she could challenge the court’s ruling on the state’s motion in limine on appeal. However, a review of the docket reveals that the court never ruled on the state’s motion in limine. As such, we presume the state’s motion in limine was denied and thus appellant can demonstrate no prejudice.Forbes 8/19/2021 2021-Ohio-2845
State ex rel. IdeaStream Pub. Media v. Cleveland 110345R.C. 149.43; Public Records Act; video records; mootness; production of records; statutory damages; costs; bad faith. A request for writ of mandamus was denied as moot where the respondent released records responsive to a request that sought any videos that captured an officer-involved shooting that occurred on the premises of a public housing authority. The requester was not entitled to statutory damages because it failed to show that the request was delivered by certified mail, hand delivery, or electronic means. A request for costs was also denied because the court does not find that the city acted in bad faith when it withheld the video based on an argued exception to the Public Records Act.Keough 8/17/2021 2021-Ohio-2842
State ex rel. IdeaStream Pub. Media v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. 110346R.C. 149.43; Public Records Act; police officer personnel file; video records; mootness; production of records; statutory damages; costs; bad faith. A request for writ of mandamus was denied as moot a public housing authority released records responsive to two records requests that sought any videos that captured an officer-involved shooting that occurred on the premises of the public housing authority and a police personnel file from the same housing authority. The requester was entitled to the maximum award of statutory damages and an award of costs in the action.Keough 8/17/2021 2021-Ohio-2843