Seal of the State of Ohio. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page. Line Drawing of the Ohio Judicial Center. Click here to return to the Supreme Court home page.
Spacer image

The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System

Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the Opinion Text Search (full-text search). To search the entire web site click here
Opinion Text Search:   What is Opinion Text Search?
Search Truncation Warning:
Source:    What is a Source?
Year Decided From:
Year Decided To:    What is Year Decided?
Year Decided Range Warning:
County:    What is County?
Case Number:    What is Case Number?
Author:    What is Author?
Topics and Issues:    What are Topics and Issues?
WebCite No: -Ohio-    What is a Web Cite No.? WebCite and Citation are unique document searches. If a value is entered in the WebCite or Citation field, all other search filters are ignored. If values are entered in both the WebCite and Citation fields, only the WebCite search filter is applied.
Citation:    What is Citation?
This search returned 456 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Adams 2018-CA-7Appellant completed his 90-day prison sentence without any of the jail-time credit to which the trial court found he was entitled having been deducted. Because he has served his sentence and been released, this issue is moot. The court costs and restitution that he was originally ordered to pay cannot be forgiven as restitution for the extra time Appellant spent in prison. Appeal dismissed.HallChampaign 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 2018-Ohio-4877
State v. Black 27888Defendant’s conviction for possession of heroin was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Circumstantial evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that defendant “knowingly” possessed the heroin in the parcel he accepted during a controlled delivery. Under former R.C. 2925.11(C)(6)(f) and R.C. 2941.1410, given the quantity of heroin involved (more than 250 grams), the trial court did not err in sentencing defendant to a mandatory maximum 11 years in prison. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 2018-Ohio-4878
State v. Eleyet 2018-CA-1The appellant’s challenge to his jail-time credit is moot where he admittedly has completed his sentence and has been released from confinement. The “interest of justice” does not favor appellate review of a moot issue. Appeal dismissed as moot.HallMiami 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 2018-Ohio-4879
State v. Hudson 2018-CA-10; 2018-CA-11In the absence of a transcript of the plea hearing, we presume regularity regarding the trial court’s compliance with Crim.R. 11(E), namely that the court advised appellant of the effect of his no contest plea on one count of failure to stop after an accident, a misdemeanor of the first degree. Regarding appellant’s conviction for failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, the initial complaint charged the offense as a felony of the third degree, and the court accepted appellant’s no contest plea to the offense as a misdemeanor of the first degree, without causing a complaint charging the misdemeanor offense to be filed, as required by Crim.R. 5(B)(6). In the absence of an amended complaint, the trial court acted without authority in convicting appellant of felony failure to comply, and analysis of whether the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(F) by failing to recite the negotiated plea agreement for that offense on the record is not required. Having found that the trial court lacked authority to convict appellant of felony failure to comply, we need not consider the alleged ineffective assistance of defense counsel regarding the absence of a new complaint pursuant to Crim.R. 5(B)(6). Appellant’s conviction for failure to stop is affirmed. Appellant’s conviction for failure to comply is vacated, and the matter is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. (Hall, J., concurring.) (Welbaum, P.J., dissenting.)DonovanMiami 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 2018-Ohio-4880
In re Adoption of V.R.K. 2018-CA-34The trial court did not err in finding the appellant-putative father’s consent to adoption was not required under R.C. 3107.07(B)(2)(b). The record supports a finding that the appellant “willfully” failed to care for and support the child as required by the statute. The finding of willful failure to care for and support the child also was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.HallGreene 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 2018-Ohio-4881
State v. Kerr 2018-CA-8Anders appeal. No non-frivolous issues for appellate review. The record reflects that the appellant entered a valid guilty plea pursuant to a favorable plea deal. The trial court lawfully imposed community control sanctions, which included placement in a residential treatment facility. The record does not portray any ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the proceedings below. Judgment affirmed.HallChampaign 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 2018-Ohio-4882
State v. Muldrew 27901The trial court did not err by not merging Appellant’s convictions. Also, it cannot be concluded that the trial court’s consecutive sentence findings are clearly and convincingly not supported by the record, and, further, there is no basis upon which to conclude that the trial court at sentencing did not appropriately consider Appellant’s mental health. Finally, Appellant, by pleading guilty, waived any error regarding the trial court’s determination that he was competent to stand trial, but, even if this were not so, the record reveals no error relating to this issue. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 2018-Ohio-4883
State v. Owens 27827The trial court erred when it prohibited defense counsel from introducing evidence of appellant’s additional tattoos, as they were directly relevant as to his identification as the man who committed the instant offenses. Because appellant’s tattoos were akin to other identifying features such as height, weight, eye color, hair color, and skin color, they were not subject to discovery under Crim.R. 16. However, in light of the other substantial evidence of appellant’s guilt, we find that the trial court’s decision to prohibit defense counsel from introducing evidence of appellant’s additional tattoos was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Because we find that exclusion of tattoo evidence was harmless, appellant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to provide the State with reciprocal discovery, including evidence of all of appellant’s tattoos. Defense counsel also did not render ineffective assistance by failing to suggest a less severe discovery sanction; the record establishes that she suggested to the trial court the alternative of introducing photographs of the tattoos in lieu of the shirt removal, which the trial court likewise rejected erroneously as a discovery violation. Judgment affirmed.DonovanMontgomery 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 2018-Ohio-4884
State v. Roberts 2017-CA-98The trial court did not err in imposing maximum sentences for Appellant’s convictions of improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation and having weapons under disability. The record indicates that the trial court properly considered relevant factors under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12. Furthermore, the record does not clearly and convincingly fail to support the court’s decision to impose maximum sentences. The trial court also did not err in imposing the sentences in this case consecutive to Appellant’s sentence for a prior conviction of having weapons under disability. The court made the proper findings for imposing consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring.)WelbaumClark 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 2018-Ohio-4885
State v. Southern 27932Defendant appealed conviction of four counts of knowingly committing an act of cruelty against a companion animal. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue defense based on statute’s non-application to hunting dogs where testimony elicited during trial negated that defense. In addition, evidence presented was sufficient to support guilty verdicts, and those verdicts were not against manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 12/7/2018 12/7/2018 2018-Ohio-4886