12/14/2023
Case Caption | Case No. | Topics and Issues | Author | Decided | WebCite |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rocky River v. Sanford El | 112484 | Failure to comply with appellate rules. Judgment affirmed. Pro se appellant’s failure to (1) provide any cogent argument in support of her assignment of error, (2) cite to the record, (3) provide relevant legal authority, and (4) make the transcript part of the record renders her assignment of error beyond our consideration. | Ryan | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4534 |
| Hal Fab, L.L.C. v. Jordan | 112508 | Breach of contract; guaranty; fraud; pierce the corporate veil; attorney fees. Trial court erred in piercing the corporate veil and holding employee of corporation personally liable for alleged fraud committed by corporation where there was no evidence of fraud or that the employee owned an interest in the corporation, was an officer of the corporation, or had the authority to bind the corporation by his actions. Parol evidence was admissible to interpret alleged contract where it was written in response to an earlier writing that explained the circumstances for the subsequent document. | E.T. Gallagher | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4535 |
| Dolbin v. Colahan | 112545 | Magistrate’s decision; objections; failure to file transcript; Civ.R 53; Loc.R. 27 of the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Domestic Relations Division; plain error. Judgment affirmed. Appellant failed to file a transcript with his objections to the factual findings in the magistrate’s decision. As a result, Civ.R. 53 provides that appellant waived the issue he raises on appeal and we decline to find plain error. Appellant has failed to argue and demonstrate that this is an “extremely rare case” in which exceptional circumstances exist warranting application of the plain error doctrine in order to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. | Boyle | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4536 |
| State v. Thomas | 112562 | Guilty plea; Crim.R. 32.1; Reagan Tokes Law; constitutionality. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The record failed to establish that appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his lawyer did not advise him of the mandatory sentence, where both the prosecution and the trial court advised of the mandatory sentence during the plea, appellant was given an opportunity to ask questions or raise issues, and elected not to, and then entered a plea of guilty. Appellant failed to establish that but for counsel’s deficient representation, he would not have entered a guilty plea. Additionally, the trial court had the discretion to determine the type of hearing necessary to address the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The court did not abuse its discretion by hearing the argument of counsel. The court did not dispute the appellant’s allegations but focused on whether, despite the alleged errors, the appellant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered a guilty plea. The record does not establish that the trial court failed to consider the factors in favor of the appellant’s motion to withdraw the plea. Finally, the appellant did not object to the sentence before the trial court, challenge the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes sentence, nor did the trial court affirmatively find that Reagan Tokes was constitutional. Accordingly, the appellant’s second assignment of error challenging the trial court’s finding of constitutionality and challenging the sentence need not be considered for the first time on appeal. | Groves | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4537 |
| State v. Sims | 112598 | State appeal; R.C. 2953.08(B)(2); sentence contrary to law; Reagan Tokes Law; constitutional. The trial court erred in finding that the Reagan Tokes Law was unconstitutional and declining to sentence appellee thereunder. | Celebrezze | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4538 |
| State v. Hall | 112626 | Motion to withdraw guilty plea; Crim.R. 32.1; manifest injustice; advice of counsel; Crim.R. 11; plea colloquy; totality of the circumstances; prediction; ineffective assistance of counsel. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in denying defendant-appellant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea where the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that defendant-appellant failed to demonstrate that a “manifest injustice” occurred when his trial counsel erroneously predicted the amount of prison time that he would receive, but the trial court adequately informed him of the maximum sentence he could receive during the Crim.R. 11 colloquy. Defendant-appellant also claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his counsel’s erroneous prediction as to the prison term that defendant-appellant would receive. However, defendant-appellant failed to argue that but for his counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance, he would have elected to proceed to trial, foreclosing our analysis of the issue. | Celebrezze | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4539 |
| Williams v. Hung | 112645 | Disqualification of an attorney; abuse of discretion. An appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision to disqualify an attorney for an abuse of discretion. Disqualification is a drastic measure that interferes with a party’s right to choose his or her counsel and, therefore, should not be imposed unless absolutely necessary. Because the trial court neither held an evidentiary hearing on the motion to disqualify nor expounded on its reasons for the disqualification, its judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings. | Ryan | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4540 |
| MRN Ltd. Partnership v. Gamage | 112656 | Complaint; misidentification of plaintiff; motion to substitute plaintiff; sanctions; abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for sanctions where the plaintiff was misidentified in the complaint, which ultimately resulted in the dismissal of the complaint after the parties engaged in litigation for over 15 months seemingly unaware of the misidentification. The trial court found the misidentification to be a result of oversight and acted within its discretion in denying sanctions. | Sheehan | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4541 |
| Cleveland v. Byers | 112682 | Petty misdemeanor; effect of guilty plea; Crim.R. 11(B)(1); Crim.R. 11(E); plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Where trial court completely failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(E) by failing to inform defendant that the effect of his guilty plea to petty misdemeanor was a complete admission of guilt as set forth in Crim.R. 11(B)(1), defendant’s guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made and his conviction was vacated. | E.A. Gallagher | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4542 |
| State v. Fields | 112693 | Petition for postconviction relief; res judicata; R.C. 2953.21; hearing; abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed. Appellant’s petition for postconviction relief is barred by res judicata. The portions of the transcript relied upon by appellant were available to him at the time of trial and his direct appeal. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the petition without an evidentiary hearing. | Boyle | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4543 |
| Lewicki v. Grange Ins. Co. | 112705 | Motion for summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; R.C. 2305.09(D); insurance; professional negligence; statute of limitations; discovery rule; delayed-damage rule; LGR Realty, Inc. v. Frank & London Ins. Agency, 152 Ohio St.3d 517, 2018-Ohio-334, 98 N.E.3d 241; Kunz v. Buckeye Union Ins. Co., 1 Ohio St.3d 79, 437 N.E.2d 1194 (1982); App.R. 12(A)(2); App.R. 16(A)(7); vicarious liability; respondeat superior. Judgment affirmed. No genuine issues of material fact remain as to appellant’s negligence, fraud, breach-of-implied-contract, detrimental-reliance, and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims against the insurance agent; negligence, breach-of-implied-contract, and detrimental-reliance claims against the insurance agency; and vicarious-liability/respondeat-superior, breach-of-implied-contract, and detrimental-reliance claims against the insurance company. Appellant’s claims against the insurance agent and agency are time-barred pursuant to the statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.09(D). Because summary judgment was properly granted on the underlying claims challenged on appeal against the insurance agent and agency, the insurance company cannot be vicariously liable for any of those claims under the doctrine of respondeat superior. For that same reason, appellant’s argument that the insurance company is responsible for his alleged determinantal reliance on the insurance agent’s alleged negligent advice also fails. Finally, appellant failed to cite any legal authority or develop his argument that the insurance company is bound by an implied contract under the circumstances of this case. | Boyle | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4544 |
| State v. Kusinko | 112817 | Conceded error; termination of community control; R.C. 2929.15(C); abuse of discretion; notice and opportunity to be heard. Trial court abused its discretion in, sua sponte, terminating defendant’s community control without providing the state with notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the issue. Appellee conceded the error. | E.A. Gallagher | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4545 |
| In re Che.A | 112893 | Legal custody; abuse of discretion; best interest; R.C. 2151.414(D) permanent custody factors. - Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting legal custody of Mother’s minor children to Mother’s relatives where the record demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mother had not resolved her mental health, domestic violence, and anger management issues, as well as her inability to provide for her children’s basic needs during the two years the cases were pending, and the relatives, who were already caring for the children, had demonstrated that they were willing and able to care for the children. The trial court is not required to weigh the R.C. 2151.414(D) permanent custody factors when it makes a best-interest determination in legal custody matters. | Keough | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4546 |
| Marrs v. Mickel | 112221 | Irrelevant evidence; Evid.R. 401; Evid.R. 402; magistrate’s decision; plain error; Civ.R. 53; Civ.R. 61; cumulative-error doctrine. Where appellant did not claim that any evidence was improperly admitted by the magistrate in her objections to the magistrate’s decision and did not raise any objection to any factual finding or legal conclusion in the magistrate’s decision based on the admission of any such evidence, she forfeited appellate review of all but plain error as to the evidentiary challenges raised in appeal under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv). Appellate court need not analyze plain error where the appellant has failed to make a plain-error argument. Cumulative-error doctrine did not apply where, because appellant did not challenge any of the trial court’s determinations in the divorce proceedings on appeal, appellant failed to show that she was in any way harmed or prejudiced by any of the trial court’s alleged evidentiary errors — regardless of whether those alleged errors were considered individually or together. | E.A. Gallagher | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4528 |
| State v. Lenard | 112283 & 112966 | Leave to file a new-trial motion; post conviction; Crim.R. 33(A)(6); Crim.R 33(B); clear and convincing proof; unavoidably prevented; hearing. Defendant-appellant’s motion for leave to file a new-trial motion was properly denied because defendant-appellant failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing proof that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering and collecting evidence relating to one of the jurors from his trial. Additionally, the claims surrounding the juror have been considered and rejected by both this court and the trial court on multiple occasions, so res judicata applies. Because defendant-appellant did not demonstrate that his evidence was newly discovered or presented a strong probability that a new trial would yield a different result, the trial court also did not err in not holding a hearing on the motion. | Celebrezze | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4529 |
| 1277 W. Sixth St., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision | 112290 | Board of tax appeals; request for remission of penalties; late payment; R.C. 5717.04; reasonable and lawful; R.C. 323.12(B); R.C. 5703.056(C). The Board of Tax Appeals’ decision denying appellant’s request for remission of penalties was reasonable and lawful. The appellant did not demonstrate that it timely paid its 2019 property taxes pursuant to R.C. 323.12(B). Judgment affirmed. | Forbes | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4530 |
| State v. Johnson | 112387 & 112462 | Aggravated robbery; robbery; theft; having weapons while under disability; Crim.R. 33; motion for a new trial; abuse of discretion; prosecutorial misconduct; closing arguments; ineffective assistance of counsel; cumulative error; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; App.R. 12(A)(2). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion for a new trial based on an isolated comment made by a witness. A comment made during closing arguments did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct, and defense counsel’s decision not to object to this comment did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. There was no cumulative error. | Kilbane | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4531 |
| State v. McMahon | 112426 | Decision of the magistrate; Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii). Magistrate’s decision failed to comport with the requirements of Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii). Additionally, inconsistencies between the charges listed on the citation, on the court file, and in the magistrate’s decision raise questions as to what charge appellant was convicted on. Convictions vacated and case remanded for magistrate to file an order compliant with Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii) and for the parties to file objections if they so choose. | Groves | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4532 |
| In re B.S. | 113014 | Permanent custody; R.C. 2151.414; best interest; manifest weight of the evidence; guardian ad litem; written report; plain error. The juvenile court’s decision to grant the agency’s motion for permanent custody was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the court made appropriate findings pursuant to R.C. 2151.414 and those findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Mother’s argument regarding the GAL’s failure to submit a written report is reviewed for plain error where Mother failed to object, or participate in the proceedings at all, in the trial court. The GAL fulfilled his duties, and the lack of a written report does not constitute plain error. | Kilbane | 12/14/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4548 |
| Roseman v. Costello | 113146 | Writ of prohibition, forcible entry and detainer, motion for stay, motion to vacate stay, transfer-of-jurisdiction principle, and mootness. This court dismissed an application for a writ of prohibition, based on the transfer-of-jurisdiction principle, as moot. The resolution of the pending appeal returned the case to the trial court. | Forbes | 12/12/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4549 |
| State ex rel. Martin v. Shabazz | 112477 | Civ.R. 56(C) motion for summary judgment; quo warranto; R.C. 121.22 Ohio Open Meetings Act (“OMA”); Section 100 of the East Cleveland Council — replacement of vacant council position; Rule 23(B) of East Cleveland Codified Ordinances, Section 113 — reorganization of council; Section 99 of East Cleveland Charter — removal of councilperson for gross misconduct, malfeasance, disqualification from office, conviction of a crime of moral turpitude; laches. The relators’ request for quo warranto is denied. The relators have failed to establish that the positions of East Cleveland Councilpersons are being unlawfully held. In addition, the East Cleveland Charter provides that the East Cleveland Council position, such as president of council, can occur at any time based upon a quorum vote of three-fifths of East Cleveland members. The East Cleveland Charter also provides that any member of the East Cleveland Council can be removed for gross misconduct, malfeasance, disqualification from office, or conviction of a crime of moral turpitude. Finally, laches prevents the granting of quo warranto. | Celebrezze | 12/12/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4533 |
| Thompson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Common Pleas Clerk of Courts | 112982 | R.C. 2969.25(A) — affidavit of prior civil action; R.C. 2969.25(C) — certified copy of institutional cashier’s statement. The complaint for mandamus is procedurally defective because the relator failed to file an affidavit of prior civil actions as required by R.C. 2969.25(A). In addition, the relator has failed to provide a certified copy of the institutional cashier’s statement, where he is incarcerated, setting forth the balance in his inmate account, as required by R.C. 2969.25(C). Complaint dismissed. | Forbes | 12/12/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4547 |
| State ex rel. Hollo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Council | 113155 | Writ of mandamus; motion to dismiss; Civ.R. 12(B)(6); R.C. 709.023; R.C. 709.021; R.C. 709.04; type-2 annexation; provision of services; statutory construction; unambiguous statutory language. Complaint dismissed. A complaint for writ of mandamus filed by landowners who filed a petition for type-2 annexation was dismissed where the landowners’ petition did not satisfied the provisions of R.C. 709.023(E), because the municipality passed an ordinance that refused to provide any services to the territory. | Boyle | 12/8/2023 | 2023-Ohio-4550 |