Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
State v. Motion 104470Public trial; spectators; aggravated murder; evidence; hearsay. Court did not violate defendant's right to a public trial and instead exercised control over the proceedings by ordering three spectators to leave the courtroom. Sufficient evidence to support a finding of prior calculation and design to commit aggravated murder when defendant and victim knew each other, there were records of phone calls the defendant made to the victim just prior to the murder; the defendant drove around the area where the murder occurred as though waiting for the victim to arrive; fingerprints on victim's car doorhandle matched the defendant; and the victim was shot execution-style from inches away.Stewart 3/1/2018
State v. Hernandez 104976Manifest weight of the evidence; Crim.R. 8; Crim.R. 14; joinder; Evid.R. 404(B); other acts evidence; immigration status; cross-examination; credibility. Defendant-appellant's argument that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence because the testimony of his minor victims lacked credibility was unpersuasive. The jury was in the best position to determine the credibility of each witness in light of inconsistent and contradictory testimony. It is well established that inconsistent or contradictory testimony alone does not render a conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant-appellant was not denied a fair trial by the trial court's denial of his motion to sever the allegations of the two minor victims, the admittance of unindicted "other acts" evidence of sexual assault allegations made by the first victim, the investigating detective's passing reference to his immigration status, nor the trial court's refusal to allow defendant-appellant to attack the statements of his minor victims through the testimony of the investigating detective.Kilbane 3/1/2018
State v. Brownlee 105116Aggravated murder; informant; mistrial; continuance; plea bargain; ineffective assistance of counsel; accomplice; presumption of guilt; allied offenses; vindictive sentence. No plain error in failure to give jury instruction on accomplice testimony because the terms of the accomplice's plea deal were made known to the jury and the court otherwise instructed jury that it could weigh each witness's testimony based in part on witness's self-interest. Counsel may have employed trial strategy and not sought jury instruction on accomplice testimony because parts of the accomplice's testimony were highly favorable to the defense, so the instruction might have undermined defense argument that accomplice was credible. Court did not err by denying motion for mistrial based on failure to submit admitted exhibit to the jury for deliberations because defense counsel failed to ensure that the exhibit, a digital video file, had been put on disk and timely given to the jury before it began its deliberations.Stewart 3/1/2018
Cleveland v. Martin 105420Motion to suppress; OVI; marked lanes violation; di minimis infraction; reasonable suspicion; intensity of alcoholic odor; Evans factors. When all the applicable factors are considered in this case, the officer articulated a reasonable suspicion justifying the administration of field sobriety tests in consideration of the defendant's driving behavior, his bloodshot eyes, the odor of alcohol, and his admission to consuming alcoholic beverages before driving. The trial court erred in suppressing the evidence.Gallagher 3/1/2018
State v. Linder 105462Ineffective assistance of counsel; disqualification of counsel. The record shows that appellant's counsel advocated for appellant during plea negotiation and that appellant was satisfied with his counsel. Appellant's counsel was not ineffective in his representation of appellant; however, because of the breakdown in appellant's relationship with his counsel during the sentencing phase, the trial court should have disqualified appellant's counsel for the purpose of sentencing only.Jones 3/1/2018
Montgomery v. Vargo 105525Civ.R. 56/summary judgment. Appellant's claims in their second complaint were not newly discovered and the trial court therefore did not err in granting appellee summary judgment.Jones 3/1/2018
Cleveland v. Amazing Tickets, Inc. 105637Administrative subpoena, special statutory proceeding. An action to enforce an administrative subpoena is a special statutory proceeding to which the Rules of Civil Procedure generally do not apply. However, administrative subpoenas must comply with Civ.R. 45(A)(1)(c). Because the City of Cleveland's administrative subpoenas failed to conform to the requirements therein the municipal court erred in ordering appellant to comply with the subpoenas.Gallagher 3/1/2018
State v. Evans 105687Drug possession; motion to suppress; limitation of cross-examination; forfeiture. Jury did not err by rejecting defendant's claim that she was innocently transporting a package, unaware that it held nearly 25 pounds of marijuana, and finding her guilty of drug possession because evidence showed that her house contained marijuana, digital scales, vacuum sealing equipment, and large quantities of cash hidden in clothing.Stewart 3/1/2018
Boaeuf v. Memphis Station, L.L.C. 105799Conversion; punitive damages; manifest weight of the evidence. Court judgment on conversion claim not against the weight of the evidence where the seller of bar assets converted those assets by selling them to a third party because the seller had obtained a cognovit judgment based on buyer's defaulting on payment for the sale of the bar assets, yet proceeding to sell the bar assets to a third party despite knowing that the buyer of the bar assets had a replevin action pending.Stewart 3/1/2018
Cleveland v. Krebs 105814Written jury waiver; Crim. R. 23(A); R.C. 2945.05; failure to comply with lawful order of police; Cleveland Codified Ordinances 403.02(A); reckless; failure to yield to public safety vehicle; Cleveland Codified Ordinances 431.21; driving on the sidewalk, street, lawn, or curb; Cleveland Codified Ordinances 431.37; sufficient evidence; manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court failed to obtain a valid jury waiver on the defendant's failure to comply charge, but because the defendant did not have a right to a jury on his two minor misdemeanor offenses, failure to yield to a public safety vehicle and driving on the sidewalk, the trial court could conduct a bench trial on those charges. The city failed to present sufficient evidence of failure to comply and failure to yield to a public safety vehicle. Defendant's conviction for driving on a sidewalk, however, was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Thus, defendant's convictions for failure to comply and failure to yield to a public safety vehicle were vacated and defendant's conviction for driving on a sidewalk was affirmed.Boyle 3/1/2018
Grill v. Artistic Renovations 105882Summary judgment; res judicata; Civ.R. 56; compulsory counterclaim; Civ.R. 13; abuse of discretion. The trial court properly granted appellees' motion for summary judgment. The claims that appellants asserted against appellees in their second complaint were compulsory counterclaims that appellants either asserted and then dismissed or failed to assert in the first lawsuit. Accordingly, the claims that appellants asserted in their second complaint were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants' motion for an extension of time to respond to appellees' summary judgment motion.Celebrezze 3/1/2018
State v. Cox 105932Community control sanctions; violation; probable cause; revoke sanctions. The trial court did not err when it revoked defendant's community control sanctions and imposed the suspended prison term because the record supported the trial court's finding that the defendant violated the terms of his community control sanctions when he failed to report to his probation officer.Boyle 3/1/2018
State v. Anglen 105976Guilty plea; sentencing; consistency; ineffective assistance of counsel; psychiatric evaluation. Defendant failed to establish that his sentence was inconsistent with sentences given to similar offenders because he failed to raise the issue at the time of sentencing or offer evidence of what sentences the similar offenders had received. Defense counsel had no duty to ask that the case be transferred to the court's mental health docket when a psychiatric evaluation found defendant competent.Stewart 3/1/2018
In re M.L. 105991R.C. 2151.414; permanent custody; legal custody. The award of permanent custody of the 18-month-old to the CCDCFS, rather than to maternal cousin was in the child's best interest where the record shows that appellant had a criminal record that included child endangering and domestic violence, other children were removed from her care, and maternal cousin recently obtained a part-time job, and lives in subsidized housing, and has an extremely limited work history.Blackmon 3/1/2018
State v. Davis 106012Civ.R. 56/summary judgment; motion to set aside judgment of conviction; R.C. 2953.21(A)(2)/postconviction relief petition/time limits; R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)/exception requirements for delayed postconvicton relief petition. Appellant failed to establish 1) the existence of any newly discovered evidence, 2) that his trial counsel was ineffective, and 3) that he would not have pled guilty but for his trial counsel's decision not to file a motion to suppress. Appellant's postconvicton petition was untimely and appellant failed to meet the exception requirements. The trial court's denial of appellant's motion for summary judgment was proper. Appellant's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata.Jones 3/1/2018
Ohio Quay 55, L.L.C. v. Cleveland 106013Summary judgment; immunity; R.C. 2744.03(A)(5); discretion; judgment. Trial court properly found the city was immune from liability under R.C. 2744.03(A)(5) on the plaintiff's negligence claim where the city's response to a water main break required the exercise of discretion and judgment, and the plaintiff's negligence claim made no allegations that the city's employees acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.Keough 3/1/2018
State ex rel. Hunt v. Sutula 106501Mandamus, App.R. 9(C) statement of proceedings, settlement and approval of App.R. 9(C) statement by the trial court, moot. The relator's complaint for a writ of mandamus, in order to compel the trial court to settle and approve an App.R. 9(C) statement of evidence or proceedings, is moot. The trial court has settled and approved the relator's proposed App.R. 9(C) statement.Celebrezze 2/27/2018
State ex rel. Young v. Gall 106533Writ of mandamus; compel ruling; R.C. 2969.25(A); R.C. 2969.25(C); summary judgment; moot. Relator's requested relief, to have the respondent judge rule on a pending motion, has been accomplished by the respondent. Therefore, the complaint is moot. Further, relator failed to comply with requirements set forth in R.C. 2969.25(A) and 2969.25(C).McCormack 2/27/2018
State v. Harris 9919Reopening; App.R. 26(B); Murnahan; untimely application; good cause; delayed notice of appellate decision. Applicant's almost four-year delay in filing to reopen his appeal meant it was untimely. Applicant failed to show good cause when he argued he was not timely notified of the appellate decision.Celebrezze 2/27/2018