02/23/2017


Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
State v. Waters 103932Motion to suppress electronic data; Stale information is search warrant; Speedy trial rights; Subsequent indictment; Severance of joined offenses; Other acts evidence; Course of criminal conduct; Proper venue; Sexually violent predator specification; Effective assistance of counsel; Victim impact testimony; Improper answer to a jury question; Election of offenses for felony sentencing; Access to grand jury transcripts; Admission of social worker testimony; Life in prison without the possibility of parole. Defendant's convictions for various sex offenses related to the continuing abuse of three minor females and his sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole are affirmed.Blackmon 2/23/2017
State v. Vega 104058Motion to suppress. Trial court's granting defendant's motion to suppress odorless hard candy containing THC affirmed when police officer was looking for raw marijuana because of the strong odor of raw marijuana in defendant's vehicle.Blackmon 2/23/2017
Connors v. Target Automotive Group, Inc. 104230Attorney fees award; Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act; R.C 1345.09(F)(2); abuse of discretion; denial of fees; trial court did not state reasons for denying attorney fees. The judgment of the trial court denying attorney fees is reversed and the matter is remanded with instructions for the trial court to determine an amount of attorney fees. It was unreasonable for the trial court to not award plaintiff her attorney fees. The trial court determined that defendant intentionally committed acts that violated the CSPA, as well as committed fraud, and awarded Connors economic damages, noneconomic damages, and treble damages. Given that there is nothing in the record to contradict an award of attorney fees, we find the denial of attorney fees was unreasonable.Kilbane 2/23/2017
Miller v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr. 104296Motion for summary judgment; Civ.R. 56(B); battery; medical malpractice. Judgment reversed. The trial court erred in striking plaintiff's brief in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment where plaintiff advised the trial court of difficulties it experienced in e-filing and also personally served its brief in opposition on the court. Genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to plaintiff's medical malpractice claims.Kilbane 2/23/2017
State v. Wittenberg 104591Community control sanctions. The record does not support that the trial court made the necessary findings to justify sentencing the appellee to community control. The trial court needs to state on the record the required findings pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(1).Laster Mays 2/23/2017
Franklin v. BHC Servs., Inc. 104695Workers' compensation; coming-and-going rule; totality of the circumstances. Trial court erred in awarding employer summary judgment by application of the coming-and-going rule where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether accident arose out of and in the course of employee's employment.Blackmon 2/23/2017
State v. Arios 104821Untimely petition for postconviction relief; postrelease control notifications. The trial court did not have jurisdiction to address defendant's untimely petition for postconviction relief except for defendant's argument that the trial court did not properly advise him of postrelease control. If a defendant's sentence is void due to postrelease control, a defendant can raise the issue at any time. Here, however, the trial court properly advised defendant of postrelease control and of the consequences for violating it.Boyle 2/23/2017
In re L.W. 104881Permanent custody; temporary custody; legal custody; best interests of the child; visitation; trial court; custody; grandmother; factors; foster; clear and convincing evidence; parental rights; social worker; standing; record; terminate; investigation; guardian ad litem; case plan; failed; benefit; dependency; parenting; drug; vacate; reasonable time; journal entry, recommendation. There was clear and convincing evidence supporting the trial court's determination that the child could not and should not be placed with either parent within a reasonable period of time, pursuant to R.C. 2151.414(B)(1). However, limitations in the record have precluded the reviewing court from determining whether the trial court's best interests findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence.Gallagher 2/23/2017
State ex rel. Ellis v. Burnside 105120Mandamus, postrelease control, sentencing hearing, nunc pro tunc correction. The relator's request for a writ of mandamus, based upon the failure of the trial court to include postrelease control in the sentencing journal entry, is moot. When notification of postrelease control was properly given at the sentencing hearing, the essential purpose of notice has been fulfilled and there is no need for a new sentencing hearing. The original sentencing journal entry can be corrected to reflect what actually occurred at the sentencing hearing, through a nunc pro tunc entry. Herein, the relator was informed of postrelease control at the sentencing hearing and the original sentencing journal entry, through a nunc pro tunc entry, was corrected to indicate the imposition of postrelease control.Blackmon 2/22/2017
State v. Wynn 105205Mandamus; appellate counsel; private right alleged against a private person; discretion; and uncertainty. Mandamus will not lie to compel a private right against a private person, such as a client demanding that his appellate attorney include certain arguments in the brief or send copies of the file. Mandamus will not issue in uncertain cases; it was not certain what the relator was seeking in his third claim.Stewart 2/17/2017
State v. Worley 103105App.R. 26(B); ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; no prejudice; accomplice instruction; R.C. 2923.03(D); trial strategy; Fifth Amendment; motion to continue; sworn statement; page limitation. Application for reopening denied where applicant failed to show a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Applicant's proposed assignments of error failed to demonstrate that appellate counsel was deficient or there was a reasonable probability of success had appellate counsel presented those claims on appeal. The trial court's failure to provide an accomplice cautionary instruction did not constitute plain error. Matters of trial strategy do not provide grounds for ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Appellate counsel is not required to raise meritless arguments on appeal. Applicant's failure (1) to attach a sworn statement and (2) to comply with ten-page limitation also supported denial of application for reopening.Gallagher 2/17/2017