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 688 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
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.KilbaneCuyahoga 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 2017-Ohio-8222
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."GallagherCuyahoga 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 2017-Ohio-8224
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 MaysCuyahoga 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 2017-Ohio-8225
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.KeoughCuyahoga 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 2017-Ohio-8226
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.McCormackCuyahoga 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 2017-Ohio-8228
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.GallagherCuyahoga 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 2017-Ohio-8229
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.GallagherCuyahoga 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 2017-Ohio-8230
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.McCormackCuyahoga 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 2017-Ohio-8231
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.BlackmonCuyahoga 10/19/2017 10/19/2017 2017-Ohio-8232
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.GallagherCuyahoga 10/18/2017 10/19/2017 2017-Ohio-8234