02/09/2017


Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
State v. Adhikari 103935Sexual imposition; R.C. 2907.06; sufficiency; sexual contact; R.C. 2907.01; recklessness; R.C. 2901.22; Crim.R. 29; manifest weight; sentencing; community control sanctions; journal entry; clerical error. Appellant's sexual imposition convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court's sentencing journal entry does not accurately reflect the penalty for violating community control sanctions. Thus, we remand the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of issuing a nunc pro tunc journal entry that accurately reflects the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing.Celebrezze 2/9/2017
State v. Lewis 104283R.C. 2945.37; Crim.R. 33; new trial due to error of law; competency to stand trial; competency hearing not required when, discovery unavoidably prevented. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a new trial due to a mental health diagnosis filed four years after appellant began treatment with medication for psychosis, and finding that appellant failed to demonstrate entitlement by clear and convincing evidence. Appellant was examined for competency three times during his murder trial, twice within six months of his murder conviction while another action was pending in the same court, and found to be competent in all cases. Defense counsel stipulated to competence during the murder trial, thus a hearing was not required.Laster Mays 2/9/2017
State v. King 104293R.C. 2925.03/driver's license suspension; void sentence. The trial court did not include suspension of appellant's driver's license as part of appellant's sentence, and that portion of appellant's sentence is void.Jones 2/9/2017
State v. Smith 104403Crim.R. 11; nunc pro tunc; felony; degree; ineffective assistance; sentence; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); sentencing factors; 2929.11; 2929.12; discretion; statutory range; consecutive; findings; clear and convincing. Appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld. A nunc pro tunc entry could be used to accurately reflect the degree of a felony offense to which appellant pled guilty and upon which he was sentenced. The trial court complied with Crim.R. 11, and the record reflected that appellant's guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. Appellant failed to demonstrate his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competency evaluation. The trial court had full discretion to impose a sentence within the statutory range. With regard to consecutive sentences, the trial court engaged in the correct analysis: it made the appropriate findings, its findings were supported by the record, and the sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.Gallagher 2/9/2017
Besman v. Leventhal 104414Civ.R. 65.1; domestic violence civil protection order; appeal; finality. Motion for findings of fact filed after the court had issued a domestic violence civil protection order is inconsistent with Civ.R. 65.1 and does not extend the running of the time for appeal.Stewart 2/9/2017
Miller v. Horizons Health Servs., L.L.C. 104423Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56; workers' compensation; R.C. 4123.01; arising out of employment; causal connection; idiopathic injury. In order to survive defendants-appellees' motion for summary judgment, plaintiff-appellant had the burden of producing evidence demonstrating that a condition, risk, or hazard of her employment caused or contributed to her injuries. The record reflects that appellant failed to meet her burden. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted appellees' motion for summary judgment.Celebrezze 2/9/2017
State v. Walter 104443Nunc pro tunc; res judicata. Appellant was not denied dues process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry after the appellate court significantly altered the judgment of conviction because the trial court properly prepared a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect this court's decision. Additionally, we find that there was no need to resentence appellant because the term of imprisonment for aggravated burglary ran concurrent with the other terms of imprisonment. Appellant is not entitled to a new trial under the due process protections afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment because appellant's claims are barred by res judicata.Laster Mays 2/9/2017
In re R.H. 104455Adjudication; delinquent; disposition; juvenile; consecutive; findings; parole; felony; adult; excessive; discretion. The court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning an order of disposition that involved the imposition of consecutive terms. The court's order of disposition was not excessive.Gallagher 2/9/2017
State v. Hull 104464Conceded error; court costs; Crim.R. 36/nunc pro tunc; R.C. 2967.28(C)/postrelease control. The trial court's journal entry did not reflect that, at appellant's sentencing hearing, the trial court waived court costs. Appellant's sentence regarding postrelease control was void where the trial court improperly sentenced appellant to a five-year term of postrelease control.Jones 2/9/2017
Middleburg Hts. v. Kneip 104565Community control; violation hearing; jurisdiction; termination; R.C. 2951.07; R.C. 2929.25. The trial court no longer had jurisdiction to impose a jail term for violations of community control after the term of community control expired.Celebrezze 2/9/2017
State v. Frazier 104596Community control revocation; hearing; violation of community control; Due Process Clause; notice; opportunity to defend; presentation of evidence; plain error; waiver; invited error; allocution; Crim.R. 32. Appellant's constitutional rights were not violated when he admitted to a violation of the terms of community control and relieved the state of its responsibility to present evidence or to provide appellant with an opportunity to defend. However, the court erred when it failed to offer appellant an opportunity to speak during sentencing.Celebrezze 2/9/2017
State ex rel. Cowan v. Gallagher 104972Writ of mandamus, summary judgment. Respondent is entitled to summary judgment on relator's complaint for mandamus where relator had adequate remedies at law through direct appeals to raise alleged sentencing errors.Jones 2/8/2017
State v. Halstead 102723App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, 90-day deadline to timely file application for reopening, good cause for untimely filing, App.R. 26(B)(2)(d) sworn statement. App.R. 26(B)(2)(b) requires than an appellant must establish a showing of good cause for the untimely filing, if the App.R. 26(B) application for reopening is filed more than 90 days after journalization of the appellate judgment that is subject to reopening. The appellant did not file his application for reopening within 90 days of the appellate judgment that is subject to reopening. The appellant has not provided this court with any showing of good cause for the untimely filing of his application for reopening. In addition, the appellant has failed to provide this court with a sworn statement of the basis for the claim that appellate counsel's representation was deficient, as required by App.R. 26(B)(2)(d). The application for reopening is denied.Laster Mays 2/6/2017
State v. Cedeno 102327 & 102328App.R. 26(B); untimely application; good cause. Difficulty in obtaining trial transcript or appellant counsel's failure to provide records does not constitute good cause for failing to timely file an application to reopen pursuant to App.R. 26(B).Keough 2/3/2017