Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
Black v. Hicks 105248Jurisdiction; jury trial; final appealable order; notice of appeal. The trial court entered the May 9, 2016, June 3, 2016, and July 7, 2016 orders, commenced a jury trial on May 25, 2016, and accepted the jury's verdict on May 31, 2016, while it was divested of jurisdiction because of pending appeals. These orders and the jury's verdict are null and void, and therefore, must be vacated.Celebrezze 2/22/2018
State v. Campbell 105488Abuse of discretion, presentence motion to withdraw guilty plea. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the appellant continued with pleading guilty after being allowed to recite his version of the facts.Mays 2/22/2018
Cleveland v. Kalish 105557Motion to suppress; reasonable suspicion; traffic stop; field sobriety tests. Trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to suppress results of field sobriety tests where, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had a reasonable suspicion after a valid traffic stop that the defendant was driving while intoxicated, sufficient to extend the initial stop and administer field sobriety tests.Keough 2/22/2018
State v. Curry 105638Preindictment delay; commencement of prosecution; summons; Crim.R. 6(F); R.C. 2901.13(F); manifest weight; sufficiency of the evidence; rape; aggravated robbery; kidnapping; allied offenses. A summons was issued on the final day of the statute of limitations, commencing the action for the purposes of R.C. 2901.13(F). The defendant did not demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the preindictment delay because the lost or missing DNA evidence did not pertain to his guilt or innocence, only that of the unknown accomplice. There was sufficient evidence in support of the convictions, and the trier of fact did not lose its way so as to create a manifest injustice.Gallagher 2/22/2018
State v. Stewart 105649Guilty plea; right to counsel; motion to withdraw as counsel; motion to withdraw guilty plea; Crim.R. 32.1; competency evaluation; R.C. 2945.37; due process; abuse of discretion; Crim.R. 11. Appellant was not denied his constitutional right to counsel. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's counsel's motions to withdraw as counsel or appellant's requests for new counsel. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion and requests to withdraw his guilty plea. Appellant stipulated to the court psychiatric clinic's report, and thus, his due process rights were not violated with respect to the results of the report.Celebrezze 2/22/2018
Vuyancih v. Jones & Assocs. Law Group, L.L.C. 105727Ohio Consumer Sales Practices (CSPA); R.C. 1345.09(B)/class actions; R.C. 1345.05(B)(2)/prior notice. Appellants failed to establish that, either by legislation or a publicly available court decision, appellees had prior notice that appellees' actions were in violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.Jones 2/22/2018
State v. Taylor 105775Sentence contrary to law. The trial court did not err in sentencing the appellant to 24 months incarceration because the sentence was not contrary to law.Mays 2/22/2018
U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Franko 105832Foreclosure decree; standing; assignment; R.C. 1303.38; Civ.R. 56; material alteration; personal knowledge; affidavit. Summary judgment in favor of financial institution is affirmed because a mortgagor lacks standing to challenge the assignment of a mortgage, a missing allonge does not constitute a material alteration of the instrument, and the opposing party failed to demonstrate that an affiant lacked personal knowledge for the purposes of demonstrating genuine issues of material fact.Gallagher 2/22/2018
State v. Williams 105873Vacate; void; judgment; firearm specifications; Crim.R. 32(B); former R.C. 2929.71(B); R.C. 2941.25; allied offenses; direct appeal; postconviction; untimely; res judicata. Affirmed trial court's decision that denied appellant's motion to vacate void judgment, which made a blanket assertion that the judgment of conviction did not conform with Crim.R. 32(B), and which claimed that the trial court violated R.C. 2929.71(B) when it imposed consecutive sentences for firearm specifications and that the offenses constituted allied offenses of similar import pursuant to R.C. 2941.25. The trial court correctly construed appellant's motion as a petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 and found it was untimely and otherwise barred by res judicata.Gallagher 2/22/2018
In re Da.B. 105886Motion for extension of temporary custody, abuse of discretion, R.C. 2151.353, R.C. 2151.415, permanent custody, R.C. 2151.414, clear and convincing evidence. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it denied father's motion to extend temporary custody. Further, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it granted CCDCFS permanent custody of father's three children because the children could not be placed with father and permanent custody was in the children's best interests.Boyle 2/22/2018
State v. Harper 105961Motion to suppress; blood test; R.C. 4511.19; driving while under the influence; Evid.R. 702; Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3701-53; health care provider; R.C. 2317.02. The state's expert witness failed to demonstrate that the results of appellee's blood test were valid, accurate, or reliable to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellee's motion to suppress the results of the blood test.Celebrezze 2/22/2018
Bradshaw v. New Village Corp. 105977Motion to dismiss; Civ.R. 12(B)(6); sovereign immunity; political subdivision immunity; governmental function; sidewalk. Trial court erred in denying city's motion to dismiss where allegations in the third-party complaint supported finding that city was immune from liability for injuries caused by alleged failure to properly maintain public sidewalk under R.C. Chapter 2744.Gallagher 2/22/2018
State ex rel. Gray v. McDonnell 106455Prohibition, res judicata, R.C. 2931.03, Loc.App.R. 23, vexatious litigator. The relator seeks a writ of prohibition in an attempt to require the trial court to vacate his criminal conviction and sentence. A writ of prohibition is designed to prevent a tribunal from proceeding in a matter in which it is not authorized to hear and determine, or in which it seeks to usurp or exercise jurisdiction with which it has not been invested by law. If a court patently and unambiguously lacks general subject-matter jurisdiction, a writ of prohibition will issue to correct the results of prior unauthorized actions. However, if a court does not patently and unambiguously lack general subject-matter jurisdiction, prohibition will not issue and the issue of jurisdiction must be addressed through an appeal. Herein, the trial court possessed the necessary subject-matter jurisdiction to preside over the relator's criminal case pursuant to R.C. 2931.03. In addition, the claims raised by the relator, in support of his complaint for a writ of prohibition, have been previously addressed through numerous prior appeals and thus are barred from further consideration by the doctrine of res judicata. Finally, the relator has been declared a vexatious litigator pursuant to Loc.App.R. 23.Gallagher 2/22/2018
Reynolds v. Ivey 106608Original action for habeas corpus and mandamus, judicial notice of findings and judgments, effect of guilty plea, moot. The petitioner has filed a petion for a writ of habeas corpus and a complaint for a writ of mandamus. A court of appeals is permitted to take judicial notice of findings and judgments rendered in other Ohio cases. In addition, judicial notice may be taken of public records available on the internet. Herein, the court takes judicial notice of the fact that the petitioner entered a plea of guilty in the underlying criminal action and was released from incarceration. A guilty plea effectively waives all appealable errors that are unrelated to the entry of the plea of guilty. Thus, no basis exists to issue a writ of habeas corpus or writ of mandamus. The petitioner's requests for a writ of habeas corpus and a writ of mandamus are moot.Mays 2/22/2018