Case Caption

Case No.Topics and IssuesAuthorDecided
State v. Freeman 103660R.C. 2903.02(B), felony murder, predicate offense, plea agreement, R.C. 2967.28, postrelease control, nunc pro tunc. The trial court erred in sentencing appellant to postrelease control as part of the sentence for appellant's felony murder plea under R.C. 2903.02(B), where postrelease control did not apply under R.C. 2967.28, and a nunc pro tunc entry is appropriate. Appellant's felony murder plea agreement waived all errors, including that the plea to felony murder required that appellant be found guilty of the underlying felony which was nolled under the plea agreement, except for the argument that appellant's plea was not knowing, intelligent or voluntary.Laster Mays 12/15/2016
State v. Jackson 103957Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Miranda Rights, Child Advocate, Agent of Law Enforcement, Custodial Interrogation, Interrogation of a Defendant Outside the Presence of Counsel. The trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a child advocate who operated as an agent of law enforcement and conducted a custodial interrogation of appellant in jail without providing Miranda warnings or obtaining a waiver of appellant's sixth amendment rights after he was assigned counsel at his arraignment.Gallagher 12/15/2016
State v. Jones 104152Consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); cruel and unusual; time served. The defendant's sentence, imposed to be served consecutive to several other convictions, is not contrary to law, and the sentence is not cruel or unusual within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. There was no error in failing to credit the defendant for time served when the sentences were imposed to be served consecutively.Gallagher 12/15/2016
Henson v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth. 104274Administrative appeal; failure to file notice of appeal in timely manner. Court dismissing administrative appeal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed. Appellant failed to file notice of appeal with agency within 30 days of final order as required by R.C. 2505.07.Blackmon 12/15/2016
State v. Murphy 104297R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); R.C. 2929.12; otherwise contrary to law; specific rationale for sentence; due process. Defendant's ten-year sentence for kidnapping was not "otherwise contrary to law" under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) due to the trial court's failure to provide a specific rationale as to why it imposed that particular sentence. The trial court fulfilled its obligations under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when it stated in its sentencing journal entry that it considered all of the relevant sentencing factors in sentencing defendant. Further, the transcript from the sentencing hearing demonstrates that the trial court did, in fact, consider both R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 in sentencing. The defendant's constitutional right to due process did not impose an obligation on the trial court to explain why it imposed a particular sentence that the trial court did not have under Ohio's sentencing statutes, particularly, where, as here, the defendant did not otherwise challenge his sentence.Gallagher 12/15/2016
State v. G.D. 104317 & 104328Application to seal records of criminal indictment; R.C. 2953.52; conversion of dismissal without prejudice into dismissal with prejudice; due process; Crim.R. 48(B); frivolous appeal; App.R. 23; Loc.R. 23(A). Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's application to seal official records under R.C. 2953.52 in two cases where indictments were dismissed, no charges were pending against defendant at the time he filed his application to seal the records and the trial court adequately weighed the competing interests of the parties before determining that defendant's interest in having the records sealed was outweighed by any legitimate needs of the government to maintain the records. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in vacating prior dismissal of indictment without prejudice and ordering dismissal with prejudice where the state's criminal prosecution of defendant for conduct that was not illegal violated his constitutional right to due process. Where the state did not oppose the sealing of the records at issue, its appeal of order granting application to seal records so that it could challenge, as a matter of "office policy," the trial court's authority to dismiss case with prejudice, was frivolous.Gallagher 12/15/2016
Humble v. Boneyard Westlake, L.L.C. 104348Negligence; premises liability; open and obvious danger; attendant circumstances; summary judgment. The court did not err in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's negligence claim, because the steps that plaintiff missed on the way out of a room were open and obvious, and he had no issues with the same steps on entering the room earlier in the day.Blackmon 12/15/2016
State v. Carter 104351Postconviction; R.C. 2953.21; ineffective assistance of counsel; record; guilty plea; incorrect statement of law; prejudice; evidentiary hearing. The court abused its discretion in failing to hold a hearing on petitioner's petition for postconviction relief asserting ineffective assistance of counsel when the findings of fact and conclusions of law did not conform to the record and trial court did not appear to conduct an independent, thorough review.Stewart 12/15/2016
State v. Chapman 104379R.C. 2929.11(B)(1)(a); indeterminate sentencing; R.C. 5145.01/indefinite sentence; S.B. 2. Under R.C. 5245.01, appellant's aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary sentences are indeterminate; the trial court's sentencing entry should reflect the correct indeterminate sentences.Jones 12/15/2016
In re Estate of Demsey 104398The duplicated brief filed in this case addresses issues pertaining to a separate proceeding and trial court decision, and therefore, no arguments or assigned errors were presented for reviewing the trial court's decision appealed in this case.Gallagher 12/15/2016
OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Unknown Heirs of Gorgeny 104503Foreclosure; reverse mortgage; advances; R.C. 5301.233; motion for supplemental order of distribution; confirmation of sale; manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court did not err in denying mortgagee's motions for supplemental orders of distribution for advances mortgagee allegedly made for appraisals, insurance and reverse mortgage costs after the filing of its foreclosure complaint where mortgagee did not timely submit a request for supplemental order of distribution that was supported by sufficient evidence establishing its entitlement to the advances requested.Gallagher 12/15/2016