Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
State v. Miller 109130R.C. 2945.71; speedy trial act; mistrial; recusal; manifest weight of the evidence; sufficiency of the evidence; lesser included offense. Appellant could not show that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to dismiss based on Ohio’s Speedy Trial Act and the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the emotional outburst did not warrant declaring a mistrial. Appellant also failed to show that counsel was ineffective below in not moving for a mistrial based on questions asked by the prosecuting attorney. This court has no jurisdiction over recusal. The court finds that appellant’s convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s request for a lesser included offense instruction for reckless homicide.E.A. Gallagher 8/26/2021 2021-Ohio-2924
State v. Lee 109215App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, manifest weight, sufficiency of the evidence, attorney-client conflict, structural error, severance of counts for trial, prejudicial testimony, autopsy photographs, flight jury instruction, self-defense jury instruction, and proposed assignments of error not argued. The applicant has failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the failure of appellate counsel to argue nine proposed assignments of error on appeal that include the issues of denial of request for new trial counsel, severance of counts for trial, exclusion of testimony, testimony of police officer, autopsy photographs, flight instruction to jury, self-defense instruction to jury, manifest weight of the evidence, and sufficiency of the evidence. Finally, the failure of the appellant to present any cognizable argument regarding many of his proposed assignments of error results in the failure to demonstrate that his appellate counsel was deficient and that he was prejudiced by the alleged deficiency. Application for reopening is denied.Mays 8/26/2021 2021-Ohio-2925
State v. Thompson 109253App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) 90-day period to file timely application, untimely filed, failure to establish good cause for untimely filing of application, App.R. 26(B)(2)(d) – sworn statement that details how applicant was prejudiced by appellate counsel, and App.R. 26(B)(4) – ten-page limitation. The applicant has filed an App.R. 26(B) application for reopening beyond the 90-day period for filing a timely application per App.R. 26(B)(2)(b). The applicant has failed to establish good cause for the untimely filing of the application for reopening. In addition, the application for reopening exceeds the ten-page limitation established by App.R. 26(B)(4). The applicant has failed to contain a sworn statement that sets forth the basis of the claim alleging that appellate counsel’s representation was deficient and the manner in which the deficiency prejudiced the outcome of the appeal as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(d). Application for reopening is denied.Forbes 8/26/2021 2021-Ohio-2926
State v. Jabbar 109642App.R. 26(B); Loc.App.R. 13.2(B); application to reopen; ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; victim of a sexual offense; and untimely. This court denied the application to reopen as untimely. It was filed seven days late, and the applicant offered no good cause for untimely filing. The court struck the application because it identified the victim of a sexual offense who was a juvenile at the time contrary to Loc.App.R. 13.2(B).Celebrezze 8/26/2021 2021-Ohio-2927
State v. Stewart 109867; 109868Fourth Amendment; seizure; search; warrantless; traffic stop; concealed carry violation; plain view; immediately apparent; inadvertent. Trial court erred in granting motion to suppress evidence where traffic stop was constitutionally valid and police observed contraband in plain view.E.T. Gallagher 8/26/2021 2021-Ohio-2928
Westlake v. Cleveland 109894Declaratory judgment; R.C. 2721.04; law-of-the-case. The trial court did not err in determining that the previous decision of this court foreclosed any notice of cancellation period longer than the term of the contract.E.A. Gallagher 8/26/2021 2021-Ohio-2929
Legacy Village Investors, L.L.C. v. Bromberg 109991Summary judgment; guaranty agreement; interpretation of contract; waiver; sufficiency of evidence. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in an action to enforce a guaranty of a lease. A guaranty is a contract, and its terms will not go beyond the terms of the contract where those terms are clear and unambiguous. The guaranty provided that it would remain in effect notwithstanding amendments to the lease. By amending the lease with the tenant, the landlord did not waive its rights under the guaranty where the guaranty provided enforcement of the lease could be made from the tenant without affecting the guaranty. The uncontested facts presented in the motion for summary judgment were sufficient for the grant of summary judgment.Sheehan 8/26/2021 2021-Ohio-2930
Oko v. Cleveland Div. of Police 110025C.C.O. 435.09(e); C.C.O. 405.02(d); strike motion; abuse of discretion; supplemental complaint; Civ.R. 15(E); summary judgment; de novo standard of review; genuine issue of material fact; R.C. 4513.61(C)(1); pro se; bias; failure to file affidavit of prejudice. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on his claims, striking his motion for declaratory judgment, denying without hearing his motion for immediate possession, or denying his leave to file a supplemental pleading. Further, because he failed to raise any issue of bias in the lower court, this issue cannot be considered on appeal. Finally, appellant failed to demonstrate that he was treated improperly because he was acting pro se. Celebrezze 8/26/2021 2021-Ohio-2931
Huntington Natl. Bank v. Slodov 110113Foreclosure; mailing of the notice of acceleration; postage; business records. The bank employee testifying about the business records regarding the mailing of the acceleration notice need not have firsthand knowledge of the mailing. The trial court's determination that the envelope containing the acceleration notice was mailed with first-class postage was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.Sheehan 8/26/2021 2021-Ohio-2932
Edwards v. Kelley 110116Legal malpractice; Civ.R. 12(C); pleadings; written instrument; Civ.R. 10(C). The trial court erred in considering evidence outside the pleadings that did not constitute a “written instrument” under Civ.R. 10(C), in the process of granting judgment in favor of the defendant upon the pleadings.S. Gallagher 8/26/2021 2021-Ohio-2933
In re A.T. 110123Delinquency; aggravated burglary; R.C. 2911.11; trespass; assault; R.C. 2903.13; physical harm; R.C. 2901.01; criminal damaging; sufficiency; manifest weight; authentication; photographs; Evid.R. 901; duplicate; original; Evid.R. 1001; Evid.R. 1002; best evidence rule; harmless error. The juvenile court’s judgment adjudicating appellant delinquent of aggravated burglary, assault, and criminal damaging is affirmed. Appellant’s adjudications of delinquency were supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The juvenile court did not err or abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs of the victim and her neck into evidence. The photographs constituted “originals” under Evid.R. 1001(3), and the photographs were properly authenticated by the victim. Celebrezze 8/26/2021 2021-Ohio-2934
State v. Washington 110298Conceded error; guilty plea; Crim.R. 11; strict compliance; constitutional rights; knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Appellant’s convictions and sentence are vacated because the trial court failed to strictly comply with the constitutional requirements of Crim.R. 11 by failing to inform the appellant that he would be waiving his privilege against self-incrimination by pleading guilty.Kilbane 8/26/2021 2021-Ohio-2935
In re I.J.G. 110408Permanent custody; mental health; suitable housing; parenting; best interest; remedy; reasonable time; case plan; abuse of discretion; termination; parental rights; clear and convincing evidence. The juvenile court did not err by awarding permanent custody of the mother’s child to Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services because the juvenile court properly engaged in the two-prong analysis prescribed by R.C. 2151.414 and clear and convincing evidence supported the court’s decision granting permanent custody of the child to the agency.E.T. Gallagher 8/26/2021 2021-Ohio-2936
State ex rel. Dissell v. Cleveland 110425R.C. 149.43; summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; Public Records Act; all communications; public records request; overly broad; vague; emails; temporal limitation; subject-matter limitation; complete duplication; call logs. A reporter’s request for writ of mandamus was denied where she requested all communications sent to the city of Cleveland’s Mayor’s Action Center for a 34-month period because the request was overly broad — constituting a complete duplication of voluminous records.Sheehan 8/26/2021 2021-Ohio-2937