Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
Cleveland v. Laborers Internal. Union Local 1099 105378Arbitration; R.C. Chapter 2711; modification; jurisdiction; trial court's authority; execution of judgment; Civ.R. 52; findings of fact; some evidence. Where the arbitrator's award of "reasonable and demonstrable lost back pay" was confirmed by the trial court and affirmed on appeal, the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to revisit the award. The trial court's award thereafter of a sum certain was not a modification of the arbitrator's award but rather a proper exercise of the court's inherent authority to interpret and enforce judgments. The trial court's damage award was supported by some evidence. We therefore must presume regularity and affirm the trial court's award.McCormack 1/18/2018
State v. Jeffries 105379Prior nonconsensual sexual activity; rape shield statute; other acts evidence; grooming; kidnapping; jury instruction; released in a safe place unharmed; ineffective assistance of counsel; court costs; indigent; insufficient evidence; manifest weight of the evidence; witness testimony stricken; relevant. Ohio's rape shield statute prohibits admission of evidence of both prior consensual and nonconsensual sexual activity of the victim; testimony regarding prior sexual activity the defendant had with the child victim was not improper other acts evidence but was properly admitted to show the defendant's plan and scheme to groom the victim for sexual activity; trial court did not err in not instructing the jury that it should find whether the victim was "released in a safe place unharmed" before finding the defendant guilty of kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(C)(3)(a) because the defendant did not argue that as an affirmative defense and offered no evidence that the victim was released unharmed; counsel was ineffective for not moving to waive court costs where the trial court had found the defendant indigent and appointed counsel; defendant's convictions for rape and kidnapping were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim's testimony showed she was physically restrained while the defendant raped and kidnapped her; the evidence also showed that the defendant restrained the victim through the psychological pressure inherent in his position as a father figure to the victim; trial court did not err in striking a witness's nonresponsive testimony that was not relevant to the victim's credibility.Keough 1/18/2018
In re D.C. 105433Juvenile; rape; anal opening; penetration; buttock; ineffective assistance of counsel; allied offenses; sufficiency of the evidence; manifest weight of the evidence. Testimony that juvenile took victim's hand and "drove it" it into the victim's "bottom," without clarification as to what the victim meant by the word "bottom," is insufficient to establish penetration of the anal opening necessary for a charge of rape.Stewart 1/18/2018
State v. Young 105444Terry stop; reasonable suspicion; request for identification; warrant; search incident to arrest. Trial court does not err by allowing evidence seized pursuant to arrest after police discovered active warrant. Police request for identification is not inappropriate during a Terry stop.Stewart 1/18/2018
State v. Johnson 105505Manifest weight; sufficiency of the evidence; Evid.R. 404(B); other acts evidence; R.C. 2929.14; controlled buy; circumstantial evidence. Defendant-appellant's convictions for trafficking, drug possession, and possession of criminal tools was supported by the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. The circumstantial evidence presented by the state was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant-appellant had possessed and sold the drugs recovered from the informants. Defendant-appellant did not put forth any showing to overcome the presumption that the jury followed the court's curative instruction regarding other acts evidence, nor did defendant-appellant articulate that this error resulted in such prejudice to warrant a mistrial. The trial court made the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C) to support its imposition of consecutive sentences and incorporated these findings in its sentencing journal entry as required by State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014 Ohio 3177, 16 N.E.3d 659.Kilbane 1/18/2018
State v. Bridge 105510Gambling, R.C. 3772.99, Dice Sliding, Other Acts Evidence. Sufficient evidence was presented to convict appellant of gambling in violation of R.C. 3772.99 by means of dice sliding. Appellant and his companions engaged in a deliberate effort to covertly remove the element of chance from the game of craps to their own wagering benefit and to the detriment of both the casino and the other gamblers at the table. Other acts evidence consisting of an attempt by appellant to slide dice at another casino was admissible to establish appellant's familiarity with the rules of craps and an absence of mistake in appellant's conduct.Gallagher 1/18/2018
Cleveland v. Lucas 105521Final, appealable order; appellate jurisdiction. The imposition of a single fine and community control sanction when there are multiple counts does not create a final appealable order.Gallagher 1/18/2018
State v. Boyce 105532Remand; mandate; sexual offender classification; sexual predator; res judicata; former R.C. 2950.09(B)(2); factors; hearing; evidence. Prior mandate from the appellate court in the case did not limit the record for the trial court's determination of appellee's sexual offender classification upon the earlier remand, and the trial court erred by failing to conduct a complete hearing and by failing to consider all available evidence in rendering its determination. The trial court's classification of appellee as a sexually oriented offender was reversed, and the case was remanded for the trial court to conduct a proper sexual offender classification hearing in accordance with former R.C. 2950.09 and State v. Eppinger, 91 Ohio St.3d 158, 743 N.E.2d 881 (2001).Gallagher 1/18/2018
State v. Johnson 105560Motion to suppress; search warrant affidavit; probable cause; Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 294, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); R.C. 2929.51(A); sentence modification invalid. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress under Franks and Gates where defendant failed to support his motion by more than general denials and allegations and the controlled buy leading to issuance of the search warrant was conducted within 48 hours of the search warrant execution. The trial court lacked authority to modify defendant's sentence.Laster Mays 1/18/2018
State v. Jones 105583Manifest weight; unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. Jury verdict finding defendant guilty of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor was supported by competent credible evidence that defendant knew the victim was only 14 years of age and continued to engage in sexual conduct with her.Stewart 1/18/2018
Riddick v. Taylor 105603R.C. 2305.09/statute of limitations; Civ.R. (C)/summary judgment; Civ.R. 36/ admissions; discovery violations; sanctions; breach of contract. The trial court did not err in dismissing appellant's fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims as they were time-barred by the statute of limitations. The record shows that appellant had constructive knowledge of the facts of his diagnosis before the time he alleges he received actual knowledge. Appellant failed to timely respond to the request for admissions; by operation of Civ.R. 36, those admissions were deemed admitted. The trial court's grant of appellee's summary judgment motion based on those unanswered admissions was not an abuse of discretion. There was no error on the trial court's part where the trial court ordered appellee to respond to appellant's discovery request and appellee provided evidence that it had responded to appellant's interrogatories. There were no discovery violations. There was no breach of contract where appellant failed to sign the required authorization to disclose information form thus preventing appellee from completing the services appellant hired appellee to perform.Jones 1/18/2018
State ex rel. Allen v. Walton Hills 105608Taxpayer action; summary judgment; statute of limitations; R.C. 733.56; R.C. 733.59; R.C. 733.60; mayor's court. The trial court erred when it granted respondents-appellees' motion for summary judgment on the basis that the action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations in R.C. 733.60. Because the alleged misapplication of funds in this case was not the consequence of an illegal contract, R.C. 733.60 does not apply.McCormack 1/18/2018
State v. Austin 105712Guilty plea; mandatory prison time; sentence. Court's error in characterizing the sentence for an offense as requiring a mandatory prison sentence was not harmless because the court's statement that the mandatory aspect of the sentence put it "in a box" indicated the possibility that it might not have ordered a prison term but for mistakenly believing that it must order a prison term.Stewart 1/18/2018
State v. Weaver 105716R.C. 2951.041; intervention in lieu of conviction; eligible offense. Trial court does not err by granting ILC for offenses where the indictment also contains offenses that are ineligible for, but do not expressly preclude, ILC.Stewart 1/18/2018
State v. Johnson 105729Crim.R. 33(A)(6); motion for a new trial; leave; unavoidable delay. Court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to file a motion for a new trial because the motion for leave was made more than 120 days after the verdict was rendered and contained nothing to justify the delay in bringing the motion.Stewart 1/18/2018
State v. Clarke 105746R.C. 2929.19; impact; family; relevant; sentence; discretion; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; clear and convincing; support; contrary to law. Trial court had discretion under R.C. 2929.19 to allow victim's mother to present information relevant to the imposition of sentence in the case and was presumed to have considered only relevant, material, and competent evidence in determining the sentence. Sentence was affirmed where the sentencing transcript and the judgment entry of conviction reflected that the court considered the factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and it could not be determined by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentence or that the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.Gallagher 1/18/2018
State v. B.J. 105764Motion for expungement; R.C. 2953.32(B); hearing. Judgment reversed and remanded. Trial court erred when it denied defendant's motion for expungement without first holding a hearing as required by R.C. 2953.32(B).Kilbane 1/18/2018
State v. Johnson 105855Petition for postconviction relief; res judicata. Judgment affirmed. Trial court's denial of defendant's postconviction relief was proper as defendant's arguments are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.Kilbane 1/18/2018
State v. Thompson 105866Multiple appeals; remand; merger; de novo resentencing; res judicata. Trial court was not required to conduct a de novo resentencing on remand to address potential merger of two counts and imposition of fine, costs and restitution which had been ordered by journal entry but not imposed in open court. Res judicata barred assignments of error that had already been addressed in prior appeals or not raised in prior appeals.Gallagher 1/18/2018
State v. Willis 101052App.R. 26(B); ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; and timeliness. The court denied an application to reopen under App.R. 26(B) as untimely. Vague claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel do not provide good cause for untimely filing.Gallagher 1/17/2018
State v. Scott 103696App.R. 26(B); application to reopen; ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; jail-time credit; timeliness; good cause; transcript; and reliance on attorney. Applicant's claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to proffer a jail-time credit argument was time-barred. Lack of transcript and the appellate attorney's failure to disclose App.R. 26(B) did not show good cause.Laster Mays 1/17/2018
State ex rel. Locke v. Friedland 106330Mandamus; new sentencing entry; notification of the right to appeal; Crim.R. 32(B) and (C); Crim.R. 11(C); final order. Relator's petition does not establish that he has a clear legal right to a new sentencing entry or that respondent judge has a corresponding duty to provide one. Respondent judge possesses no duty to state in the sentencing journal entry that the relator was advised of the right to an appeal or that the resentencing hearing incorporated the requirements of Crim.R. 11(C). The resentencing journal entry complied with Crim.R. 32(C) and was a final appealable order that relator could have appealed.Stewart 1/16/2018