Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
State v. Harris 105284Motion to suppress; Evid.R. 702; sufficiency; manifest weight; R.C. 2945.71(C)/speedy trial, Crim.R.7(D)/oral motion to amend indictment. The language in the search warrant was sufficient enough that seizure of the towel was not unconstitutional. The witness qualified as an expert in the area of child sex abuse; her testimony was not for the purpose of validating the truth of the victim's statements but rather to establish that the techniques used by appellant were techniques typically used by child abusers. Sufficient evidence was presented to support appellant's convictions and appellant's convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant failed to raise his claim of violation of his speedy trial rights both at the trial court level and on appeal and it is not properly before this court. Appellant's defense was not that the dates and times of the offenses were incorrect, but rather that the offenses did not occur at all. Amending the dates and times to specifics did not prejudice appellant.Jones 2/15/2018
State v. Parker 105361Sentencing; consecutive sentence; failure to comply; R.C. 2921.331; R.C. 2929.14; change of plea; attempted felonious assault; drug trafficking; statutory interpretation. The trial court relied on a misinterpretation of R.C. 2921.331(D) in imposing consecutive sentences on defendant-appellant Ramadii Parker for charges of drug trafficking and attempted felonious assault. Because the trial court did not make the requisite findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences, Parker's sentence is contrary to law and this case is remanded for resentencing.McCormack 2/15/2018
In re O.P. 105429R.C. 2152.83(B); juvenile sex offender; secure facility; disposition. Trial court erred in holding a juvenile sex offender classification hearing upon the offender's release from a nonsecure facility; because the trial court did not commit the juvenile offender to a secure facility, under R.C. 2152.83(B), the trial court was limited to holding the classification hearing at the time of the offender's disposition.Keough 2/15/2018
Booker v. Beauty Express Salons, Inc. 105456Jurisdiction; motion to stay pending arbitration. The trial court did have jurisdiction to determine the validity and conscionability of the arbitration agreement and it was error to not do so prior to staying the proceedings.Jones 2/15/2018
State v. M.H. 105589Application to seal record of conviction; expungement; R.C. 2953.32; R.C. 2953.31; R.C. 2953.36; rehabilitation; nature of offense; theft in office. The trial court's judgment denying defendant's application to seal his record of convictions was reversed because the trial court based its decision only upon the fact that the defendant was convicted of theft in office. Theft in office, however, is not exempt from being expunged under R.C. 2953.36. The trial court failed to consider the fact that the defendant established that he had been rehabilitated since he committed the acts in his criminal case, and thus, abused its discretion when it denied defendant's application.Boyle 2/15/2018
Cleveland v. Edwards 105600Crim.R. 11(E); no contest; plea; petty offense; misdemeanor; effect of the plea. Trial court erred in convicting defendant of petty misdemeanor where court failed to inform defendant of the effect of the plea and the defendant never entered a plea in open court and on the record.Gallagher 2/15/2018
In re Estate of Abraitis 105657Probate court/jurisdiction; R.C. 2113.18(a) and 2109.24/removal of fiduciary; abuse of discretion/attorney standing. Under R.C. 2109.24 and 2113.18, the trial court had authority to pursue appellant's removal as executor of the estate. The trial court's findings, each one of them, were supported by the record and it was not an abuse of discretion where the trial court removed appellant as executor. At the hearing, the questions presented by the executor's successor were appropriate and did not have the appearance of being intimidating or harassing. The trial court committed no prejudicial error in allowing the questions.Jones 2/15/2018
Flynn v. Cleveland Clinic Health Sys.-E. 105720Civ.R. 10(D)(2); affidavit of merit; dismissal; extension of time. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant a second extension of time to file an affidavit of merit in support of causes of action based on medical malpractice when motion for an extension of time claimed a need to conduct more discovery, but did not state what discovery was required and why discovery had not been completed.Stewart 2/15/2018
State v. Allen 105757Guilty Plea; Crim.R. 11; R.C. 2905.32; Trafficking in Persons; R.C. 2923.02(E); Attempt. Where defendant was charged with trafficking in persons in violation of R.C. 2905.32, and she subsequently pled to attempted trafficking in persons, trial court properly advised her, during plea colloquy that the original charge carried a mandatory prison term of 10-15 years, but amended charge was subject to sentencing within standard range for second-degree felonies.Blackmon 2/15/2018
Deutsche Bank Trust Co. of Ams. v. Jones 105778Foreclosure; standing; conditions precedent. Trial court did not err by adopting the magistrate's decision that granted judgment in favor of the bank in the foreclosure action. The bank's representative had personal knowledge of the appellants' loan showing that the appellants defaulted on the note secured by the mortgage and that the bank possessed both the note and mortgage at the time the complaint was filed.Blackmon 2/15/2018
Flemco, L.L.C. v. 12307 St. Clair, Ltd. 105956Mechanics' lien; summary judgment; underlying debt. Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to holders of mechanics' liens where the holders produced no evidence to demonstrate there was a valid claim underlying the lien.Keough 2/15/2018
Estrella v. Dr. Gupta, Eye M.D., L.L.C. 105999Default judgment, Civ.R. 60(B), excusable neglect. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants' Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate judgment because the surrounding facts and circumstances demonstrate that their conduct was not excusable neglect, rather it was a disregard for the judicial system. Appellants admitted they were aware of the complaint, but chose to disregard the complaint to give priority to other financial matters.Keough 2/15/2018
Cord v. Victory Solutions, L.L.C. 106006Civ.R. 12(B)(6), fraud, corporate-officer liability. The trial court properly dismissed the appellant's claim for fraud because her claim was factually intertwined with her breach-of-contract claim and she failed to assert separate damages.Boyle 2/15/2018