01/19/2017


Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
Parma Hts. v. Owca 103606Motion to Suppress; hearsay; cross-examination; prosecutorial misconduct; allied offenses; jury instruction. Trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion to suppress because the stop and arrest of appellant without a warrant was not unreasonable. Appellant was swerving into oncoming traffic, was observed sniffing plastic, had trouble standing, and failed the field sobriety tests. Trial court did not err by refusing to allow defense counsel to cross examine the arresting officer on the contents of the NHTSA manual or the paramedic on information contained in a phlebotomy textbook because such information can only be used to impeach the credibility of the witnesses, not to prove the truth of the statements contained therein. Prosecutor's remarks in closing argument as to appellant's guilt did not constitute misconduct because the opinion was based on evidence submitted at trial. Although the trial court correctly determined the two counts merged, the manner in which it imposed the sentence was incorrect. The prosecutor is to elect which offense to proceed to sentencing. Here, the trial court sentenced on both counts and then merged. Whether a drug constitutes a "drug of abuse" is a question of law and thus can be determined by the trial court.Blackmon 1/19/2017
State v. E.A. 103829Sealing of records of conviction; expungement; R.C. 2953.32; eligible offender; offense of violence; R.C. 2901.01; R.C. 2911.02; attempt; R.C. 2953.36. The trial court erred when it granted an application to seal the records of criminal conviction where the applicant was not an eligible offender because he had been convicted of an offense of violence.Celebrezze 1/19/2017
State v. King 103947, 103948, 103949Consecutive sentence for firearm specification. Court's consecutive sentence for firearm specification was unambiguous and was not contrary to law.Blackmon 1/19/2017
Cleveland v. McCruel 103971Pretrial diversion; deferred judgment program; final appealable order. The trial court's order placing a defendant in Cleveland's Deferred Judgment Program for low-risk offenders of domestic violence was a final appealable order. The city's appeal from that order more than a year later is untimely.McCormack 1/19/2017
State v. Simmons 104080Harmless error; Crim.R. 52(A); ineffective assistance of counsel; self-defense. Even if the trial court should have redacted defendant's remark as being irrelevant and highly prejudicial, the admission constitutes harmless error in this case. There is no basis to conclude that defendant's single derogatory statement regarding her dislike for the police contributed to her conviction. Trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to raise a constitutional challenge of R.C. 2901.05(A), which places the burden on a defendant to prove self-defense.Boyle 1/19/2017
State v. Brown 104095Guilty plea; Crim.R. 11(C)(2); due process; ineffective assistance of counsel; agreed sentence. Based on the trial court's full compliance with Crim.R. 11 and the defendant's own statements during the plea colloquy, the record demonstrates that defendant's guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Aside from defendant's failure to demonstrate any prejudice due to the alleged preindictment delay to support a due process violation, defendant's guilty plea waived any argument on appeal. Defendant's trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to advance any argument to depart from the agreed upon sentence, which would have jeopardized the favorable plea agreement reached for defendant. Defendant's challenge of his sentence is beyond the scope of appellate review because the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.Boyle 1/19/2017
Braxton v. Kilbane 104166Loc.R. 21.1; Civ.R. 26(E); expert report; subject matter; demonstrative evidence; Evid.R. 401; prejudice; new trial; damages. Trial court's rulings to exclude expert testimony on an MRI report and to exclude demonstrative evidence of appellant's wrist injury were an abuse of discretion that resulted in prejudice to appellant. Neither Loc.R. 21.1 nor Civ.R. 26(E) were violated. The subject matter of the expert opinion related to the causal connection of the injuries and the accident, and the MRI report was offered to provide a more detailed account of the injuries caused by the car accident. The trial court's rulings resulted in prejudice to appellant, who was prevented from offering evidence of the full extent of his injuries. Case was remanded for a new trial only on the issue of damages.Gallagher 1/19/2017
Myocare Nursing Home, Inc. v. Hohmann 104290Final appealable order; Civ.R. 54(B); R.C. 2505.02; Civ.R. 41(A)(1); conditional dismissal. Having failed to properly invoke the jurisdiction of this court at the time of filing through compliance with Civ.R. 54(B) and R.C. 2505.02, or a proper notice dismissal, without any conditions, of the compulsory counterclaim with prejudice under Civ.R. 41(A)(1), there is no final appealable order.Gallagher 1/19/2017
McClendon v. Ohio Dept. of Edn. 104292Reliable, probative, substantial evidence; Revoke, License, Notice, Due Process. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in affirming the Board of Education's decision to permanently revoke appellant's K-8 teaching license where there was reliable, probative, and substantial evidence to support the Board's decision. The Board did not deny appellant due process by not allowing her to participate in the hearing where the Board's notice adequately advised appellant of her right to request a hearing but appellant's request was not timely received by the Board.Keough 1/19/2017
State v. Ashley 104305Murder, felony murder, felonious assault, domestic violence, conflict of interest, ineffective assistance of counsel, manifest weight, mens rea. Appellant's sixth amendment right to representation free from conflicts of interest was not violated where it was discovered during voir dire that one of appellant's two attorneys had been a magistrate and accepted a plea from appellant to a domestic violence charge roughly 8 years prior. Neither appellant or his counsel had any recollection of the event. The trial court conducted an appropriate inquiry and appellant declined the opportunity to remove his counsel and be provided a replacement. Appellant also failed to demonstrate that his counsel provided ineffective assistance at trial. Finally, appellant's convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.Gallagher 1/19/2017
Cleveland v. Catchings-El 104312No Contest plea. The trial court erred in accepting a no contest plea from the defendant where the court did not personally address him and determine from him that he was knowingly and voluntarily entering a no contest plea, and the court did not explain the effects of plea.Kilbane 1/19/2017
Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. v. Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, Inc. 104319Arbitration award; public policy; police officer; dishonesty; R.C. 2711.10; scope of arbitration; imperfect award; credibility; due process; definite award; collective bargaining agreement; clear and convincing evidence. The trial court properly confirmed the arbitration award reinstating a police officer where the award was valid and determinative of the issues submitted, drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, and did not violate clearly established public policy.Celebrezze 1/19/2017
Cleveland v. Robshir Properties, L.L.C. 104340Sanctions; community control; violations; fine; sentencing; housing; notice; building code; trial court; misdemeanor; warnings; violation hearing; maximum fine; consequences; magistrate; journal entry; void. An order finding defendant violated community control sanctions was void because defendant was not properly convicted, as the terms of community control were not incorporated into a single document, under Crim.R. 32(C), and the sentencing entry did not state the offense for which defendant was found guilty, so there was no final judgment of conviction and the community control sanctions never went into effect.Gallagher 1/19/2017
Vannucci v. Schneider 104598Civ.R. 53; objections to a magistrate's decision; transcript. The trial court abused its discretion when it overruled the defendant's objections to the magistrate's decision without waiting 30 days for defendant to file a transcript of the proceedings pursuant to Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii).Boyle 1/19/2017
State v. Jones 101258Preindictment delay; burden shifting; actual prejudice; balanced; unavailable witness; missing evidence; investigation. Appellant failed to establish actual prejudice from preindictment delay. Under the burden-shifting framework, the defendant has the burden to demonstrate actual prejudice, separate from the state's reasons for the delay. In determining actual prejudice, the unavailable evidence must be balanced against the evidence at the time of the indictment. Appellant failed to establish the loss of his mother as a potential witness would minimize or eliminate the impact of the state's evidence and bolster his defense where the testimony conceivably would have been cumulative to that of another potential witness, who was not shown to be unavailable to testify. Also, the claimed missing evidence was not the result of a delay, but rather, of an incomplete investigation.Gallagher 1/19/2017
State v. Dickerson 102461Preindictment delay; Crim.R. 12/pretrial pleadings and motions; sufficiency; ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant-appellee/cross-appellant's trial counsel was ineffective by not filing a timely motion to dismiss on preindictment grounds.Jones 1/19/2017
State v. Clark 103324App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, 6th Amendment confrontation clause, right to confront deceased victim at trial, res judicata, App.R. 26(B)(2)(d) sworn statement. The appellant, through his App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, argues that he was prejudiced by the failure of appellate counsel to argue on appeal a violation of the right to confront the victim under the 6th Amendment. The appellant's claim, that his right to confrontation under the 6th Amendment was violated, was raised and addressed in his original direct appeal. The doctrine of res judicata prevents relitigation of claims or issues that were previously raised on appeal and determined to be without merit. In addition, the appellant failed to comply with App.R. 26(B)(2)(d), which mandates that the appellant must attach to the application for reopening a sworn statement of the basis for the claim that appellate counsel's representation was deficient.Jones 1/18/2017
Green v. State 105030Mandamus; prohibition; clarity in pleading; adequate remedy at law; and basic jurisdiction. The court dismissed the relator's application for writs of mandamus and prohibition because the claims were not clear, because he has or had adequate remedies at law through appeal, a postconviction relief petition, and a motion to withdraw guilty plea; all of which preclude an extraordinary writ. Prohibition would not lie because the trial court had basic jurisdiction to hear the underlying case.Boyle 1/13/2017
Dilliard v. State 105064Habeas corpus; R.C. 2725.04; R.C. 2725.05; commitment papers; verification; jurisdiction; sentencing errors; guilty plea; and adequate remedy at law. The court denied the petition for habeas corpus because it did not attach all of the petitioner's commitment papers and was not verified as required by the R.C. 2725.04. Petitioner did not question the jurisdiction of the trial court as required by R.C. 2725.05. His claims of improper sentence and improper guilty plea should have been raised through other remedies.  1/13/2017