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 223 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Atchison 2017-CA-76Trial court’s decision to sentence appellant to fifteen months in prison was not contrary to law and was not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. Although this was appellant’s first criminal offense, the effect of the forgery caused serious economic harm and was part of an “organized criminal activity.” Judgment affirmed. FroelichClark 6/22/2018 6/22/2018 2018-Ohio-2419
State v. Combs 2017-CA-53Defendant-appellant’s conviction for possession of heroin is supported by sufficient evidence and it is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.TuckerGreene 6/22/2018 6/22/2018 2018-Ohio-2420
State v. Dillon 27603The State presented legally sufficient evidence to support the appellant’s misdemeanor assault conviction. The victim’s testimony that the appellant punched him in the face, if believed, is legally sufficient to support the conviction. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 6/22/2018 6/22/2018 2018-Ohio-2421
James v. Hoffman 27735Appellants’ complaint asserts defamation and false light invasion of privacy causes of action against Appellees, who are not Ohio residents. The trial court dismissed the complaint finding it could not, consistent with due process, exercise personal jurisdiction over Appellees. The trial court’s personal jurisdiction conclusion is correct because the Appellees did not purposefully avail themselves of the privilege of conducting activities in Ohio and the Appellants’ claims did not arise out of Appellees’ activities in Ohio. Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 6/22/2018 6/22/2018 2018-Ohio-2422
State v. Kiinley 2016-CA-11The trial court did not err in denying petitioner’s successive petition for postconviction relief without a hearing. Because petitioner failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A) for a second or successive petition, he was not entitled to discovery as now provided in R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(d) and Crim.R. 42(C). Moreover, petitioner’s central arguments, based on recanted trial testimony, had been raised in the prior petition, albeit with a different type of evidence, and do not demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from presenting them in his first postconviction petition. Judgment affirmed. (Brogan, J., concurring.)FroelichClark 6/22/2018 6/22/2018 2018-Ohio-2423
State v. Matthews 27718The appellant’s aggravated menacing conviction is based on legally sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The conviction is supported by the testimony of prosecution witnesses who claimed the appellant had threatened to “bash” an apartment manager’s head into a wall and to “f*** her up.” Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 6/22/2018 6/22/2018 2018-Ohio-2424
State v. McCain 27533The trial court properly overruled Appellant’s request for records. Judgment affirmed.DelaneyMontgomery 6/22/2018 6/22/2018 2018-Ohio-2425
State v. McLoughlin 2017-CA-22Defendant’s convictions for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, where both the victim and her mother (who was a participant in many of the offenses) provided detailed testimony supporting the elements of the offenses. The trial court did not err in refusing to merge various counts, which were based on distinct types of sexual activity. No cumulative error was demonstrated. Judgment affirmed.FroelichChampaign 6/22/2018 6/22/2018 2018-Ohio-2426
State v. Pelfrey 27474Defendant obtained a power of attorney from his grandmother, altered the date of it, and used it, unbeknownst to the grandmother, to obtain a $75,000 mortgage loan on her home; grandmother did not receive the money. After defendant was aware of the criminal investigation, defendant had two different individuals fabricate documents to help his case. Defendant’s convictions for theft, forgery, and tampering with evidence were based on sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding defendant’s handwriting expert, whose report was not timely disclosed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to continue the trial, which was made orally immediately before jury selection and in response to the exclusion of his handwriting expert. Grandmother’s testimony regarding the power of attorney did not violate the parol evidence rule. Defendant did not demonstrate that his speedy trial rights under R.C. 2945.71 were violated. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 6/22/2018 6/22/2018 2018-Ohio-2427
State v. Shawhan 27698The trial court, based upon the parties’ merger stipulation, did not err by failing to merge the rape counts as allied offenses of similar import. Further, Defendant-appellant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by recommending that Defendant-appellant, as part of a plea agreement, agree that the rape counts did not merge. Finally, Defendant-appellant’s assertion regarding the imposition of a consecutive sentence without making the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings is not subject to appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1). Judgment affirmed.TuckerMontgomery 6/22/2018 6/22/2018 2018-Ohio-2428