10/19/2017


Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
State v. Davis 104574Motion to withdraw guilty plea; effective assistance of counsel; ability to pay; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; R.C. 2947.23; court costs. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's oral postsentence and subsequent written motions to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court held a hearing on defendant's motion; the evidence adduced at the hearing did not support defendant's allegations that defense counsel promised he would receive the mandatory minimum sentence. Defendant's ineffective assistance claim was without merit as he failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the trial court would have waived the mandatory fine had defense counsel filed an affidavit of indigence prior to sentencing. The trial court made all required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C) supporting the imposition of consecutive sentences. R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not fact-finding statutes; a trial court is not required to make specific findings on the record with respect to its consideration of the factors under these statutes. R.C. 2947.23 provides that notification of possible court ordered community service need only be given if the judge or magistrate imposes a community control sanction or other nonresidential sanction; the statute no longer requires such notification when a trial court imposes a prison term. A trial court need not consider a defendant's ability to pay court costs. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in imposing court costs.Kilbane 10/19/2017
State v. Jennings 104626Juror misconduct; Crim.R. 24; felony murder; proximate cause; Evid.R. 803(6); Batson; discrimination; jury instruction. Defendant's conviction affirmed because there was no demonstrated juror misconduct, the seating of the alternate juror for deliberations comported with Crim.R. 24, the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, the trial court did not err in overruling a Batson challenge, and the defendant failed to demonstrate the necessity of a jury instruction on "confirmation bias."Gallagher 10/19/2017
State v. Blevins 104704Juvenile mandatory bindover, R.C. 2152.10(A)(2)(b) and 2152.12(A)(1)(b), due process clause of Ohio and United States Constitution. Appellant challenges the constitutionality of the mandatory juvenile bindover provisions of R.C. 2152.10(A)(2)(b) and 2152.12(A)(1)(b), requiring that juveniles who commit certain classes of crimes be boundover for trial as an adult. Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court vacated on reconsideration State v. Aalim, Slip Opinion No. 2016 Ohio 8278, the opinion upon which appellant relies, and determined in State v. Aalim, Slip Opinion No. 2017 Ohio 2956, that the mandatory bindover is constitutional. Appellant's challenge fails.Laster Mays 10/19/2017
State v. Clark 105047Guilty plea; knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently made; allied offenses; ineffective assistance of counsel; consecutive sentences. Trial court did not err in accepting defendant's guilty plea where the court gave the defendant every opportunity at the plea hearing to ask questions and speak with his lawyer; defendant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made; where trial counsel conceded at sentencing that the offenses were not allied and did not merge, defendant waived the allied-offense issue for appeal; even if issue was not waived, defendant forfeited the issue except to the extent it constituted plain error; there was no plain error because the offenses were committed on separate occasions and were not allied offenses; because the offenses were not allied, counsel was not ineffective for not raising the allied-offenses issue in the trial court; the court properly imposed consecutive sentences because it made the required statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and included those findings in the sentencing entry.Keough 10/19/2017
State v. Osborn 105196Guilty plea; Crim.R. 11; nature of the offenses; knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently; R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; judicial factfinding; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); findings; firearm specifications; R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g). The trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 in ensuring appellant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made; the record demonstrates the court found appellant understood the nature of the charges; and the record supports the court's determination. The court considered the principles and purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.12 before sentencing appellant. The court did not engage in impermissible judicial factfinding. The trial court made the statutorily mandated findings prior to imposing consecutive sentences. Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g), the court's imposition of consecutive sentences on the firearm specifications was proper.McCormack 10/19/2017
Plogger v. Myers 105210Lack of jurisdiction; final, appealable order; motion in limine; attorney-client privilege; dismissed; preliminary. Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction when there was no final, appealable order. The denial of a motion in limine raising privilege grounds is a preliminary ruling and does not preserve a claimed error for review without a proper objection being raised at trial.Gallagher 10/19/2017
Blue Durham Properties, L.L.C. v. Krantz 105236 & 105394Motion for relief from judgment; frivolous conduct; Civ.R. 11; R.C. 2323.51; subject matter jurisdiction; res judicata; warrant of attorney; cognovit note; copy; duplicate; original; sanctions; evidentiary support; presume regularity; investigation. Trial court properly denied appellants' second motion for relief from judgment where there was no evidence that trial court granted judgment on cognovit notes on the basis of duplicate copies instead of originals. Trial court properly awarded sanctions for frivolous conduct where motion for relief from judgment lacked any basis in law or fact and counsel failed to properly investigate the accuracy of the allegations in the motion.Gallagher 10/19/2017
Luck v. Klayman 105239Creditor's bill; R.C. 2333.01; summary judgment; genuine issue of material fact; state court jurisdiction; federal jurisdiction; discovery; financial privacy; request for admission; collateral attack; fraud. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for plaintiff-appellee because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff-appellee satisfied the elements of R.C. 2333.01. Plaintiff-appellee acquired a valid lien on defendant-appellant's interest in the federal judgment. There is no exception to discovery based in a party's financial privacy interest. There is no evidence that plaintiff-appellee's underlying judgment against defendant-appellant was obtained through fraud.McCormack 10/19/2017
Cleveland v. Zingale 105763Conceded error; Crim.R. 43; Presence During Sentencing; Nunc Pro Tunc. Journalized sentencing order reversed and remanded for nunc pro tunc correction where it exceeded the sentence announced in open court.Blackmon 10/19/2017
State ex rel. McCall v. Gall 105972Procedendo; mandamus; moot; service, and rulings on motions. Mandamus and procedendo actions to compel rulings on motions and to compel service were rendered moot by serving copies of the relevant entries and brief upon relator and by the respondent judge ruling on the relevant motion.Gallagher 10/18/2017
State ex rel. Steele v. McClelland 105893Prohibition; mandamus; Crim.R. 48(A); good cause; adequate remedy at law. Relator failed to meet the established elements to support the granting of either a writ of prohibition or a writ of mandamus. Relator's claim that trial court judge unlawfully granted prosecutor's motion to dismiss indictment against relator without requiring a showing of good cause was not supported by the record. Relator had an adequate remedy at law by virtue of an appeal following his conviction; his failure to exercise that right does not now entitle him to an extraordinary writ.Laster Mays 10/17/2017
State v. Rodano 104176App.R. 26(B); application to reopen; ineffective assistance of trial counsel; ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; the Confrontation Clause; Grand Jury; arson; investigating agent; and expert reports. The agent who investigated a fire changed her opinion from incendiary to undetermined after the grand jury had indicted the defendant for arson. The grand jury proceedings were not unfair to the defendant because the trial jury heard the agent's full testimony. Appellate counsel argued this issue, but was not ineffective for not framing the issue in terms of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. A tangential reference to the fire marshall did not implicate the Confrontation Clause regarding the fire marshall.McCormack 10/17/2017