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 686 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Wilson 105876Crim.R. 14, joinder; severance; waiver; effective assistance of counsel; consecutive sentences; nunc pro tunc. Defendant’s guilty plea waived his right to challenge the denial of his Crim.R. 14 motion to sever, and he failed to demonstrate how the joinder of his cases affected his decision to enter into a guilty plea. Defendant failed to demonstrate how the trial court’s decision denying his motion for removal of counsel affected the knowing and voluntary nature of his plea. He was not denied effective assistance of counsel when counsel agreed to a recommended sentence. The record demonstrated that the sentence was only a recommendation and not binding, and the defendant could have advocated for a lesser sentence. Consecutive sentence findings were properly made and supported by the record; the issuance of a nunc pro tunc is the proper remedy when the trial court fails to incorporate those findings in the sentencing journal entry.KeoughCuyahoga 9/13/2018 9/13/2018 2018-Ohio-3666
State v. Oliver 106305Right to confrontation; Skype; motion to suppress; hotel guest; search. Trial court did not err in allowing a witness who was unavailable to testify at trial via Skype. Trial court committed harmless error in allowing another witness who was merely inconvenienced to testify at trial via Skype. Appellant’s burden of proving on appeal whether a motion to suppress would have been granted is difficult based on the trial transcript record. But even looking at the record as presented, there was not a reasonable probability that a motion to suppress would have been granted.KeoughCuyahoga 9/13/2018 9/13/2018 2018-Ohio-3667
State v. Buehner 106319Motion for leave to file motion for new trial; Crim.R. 33; motion for new trial; Brady; material; unavoidably prevented; newly discovered evidence; exculpatory evidence; reasonable probability; postconviction relief; ineffective assistance of counsel. Denial of motion for leave to file a motion for new trial without a hearing was an abuse of discretion where the state failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in pretrial. However, because it was unclear whether the exculpatory evidence would have changed the outcome of the trial, the case was remanded for a hearing on the motion for new trial.GallagherCuyahoga 9/13/2018 9/13/2018 2018-Ohio-3668
State v. Walker 106414Preindictment delay; due process; actual prejudice; burden of proof; unavailability. Trial court erred in finding actual prejudice caused by preindictment delay where defendant failed to establish that two of the three “missing” witnesses were truly unavailable and failed to show actual prejudice as a result of the actual availability of the third witness.GallagherCuyahoga 9/13/2018 9/13/2018 2018-Ohio-3669
State v. Johnson 106450Attempted felony murder; R.C. 2923.02 and 2903.02(B); cognizable claim; void; vacate; merged; resentence; aggravated arson; R.C. 2909.02(A)(1); R.C. 2909.02(A)(2); knowingly; R.C. 2901.22(B); substantial risk; R.C. 2901.01(A)(8); serious physical harm to persons; R.C. 2901.01(A)(5); expert; Evid.R. 702; abuse of discretion; qualified; reliable; Crim.R. 52(B); plain error; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); restitution; R.C. 2929.18(A)(1); reasonable degree of certainty; competent, credible evidence; evidentiary hearing; remand. Vacated appellant’s conviction and sentence for felony attempted murder under R.C. 2923.02 and 2903.02(B) because it is not a cognizable claim and is void. Appellant’s convictions for aggravated arson were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the challenged convictions were based upon sufficient evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting expert to testify as to the cause and origin of the fire, and no plain error occurred. Trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences was upheld. The amount of restitution ordered was arbitrary because the state did not present sufficient competent, credible evidence from which the trial court could discern the appropriate amount of restitution to a reasonable degree of certainty. Case was remanded to the trial court for resentencing on Count 2 only, which had been merged with the vacated count, and for an evidentiary hearing to determine the appropriate amount of restitution.GallagherCuyahoga 9/13/2018 9/13/2018 2018-Ohio-3670
State v. Carter 106462Dying declaration; excited utterance; other acts evidence; motive; limiting instruction; felony murder; independent-felony/merger doctrine; jury instructions; lesser included and inferior offenses; provocation; manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant’s conviction for murder and felonious assault affirmed where (1) the victim’s statement to his cousin made immediately after the shooting that the defendant had shot him, although not a dying declaration, was properly admitted as an excited utterance; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting other acts evidence of an incident between the defendant and the victim that created a motive for defendant to shoot the victim; (3) the trial court did not err in not giving a limiting instruction regarding the other acts evidence because there was no evidence the jury used the other acts evidence to convict the defendant because he was a bad person; (4) the defendant’s conviction for felony murder was not unconstitutional because this court does not recognize the independent-felony/merger doctrine; (5) there was no plain error in the trial court’s failure to instruct on involuntary manslaughter and aggravated assault because there was no evidence the defendant had been provoked to shoot the victim; and (6) the defendant’s convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.KeoughCuyahoga 9/13/2018 9/13/2018 2018-Ohio-3671
State v. Hernandez 106483Allied Offenses, consecutive sentences, potential deportation. Trial court erred in failing to merge allied offenses at sentencing after the parties had previously stipulated to merger. Trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences. The potential deportation of the defendant following the conclusion of his prison terms was not a valid reason to preclude the imposition of consecutive sentences.GallagherCuyahoga 9/13/2018 9/13/2018 2018-Ohio-3672
State v. White 106490Aggravated murder; prior calculation and design; sufficiency of evidence; ineffective assistance of counsel; allied offenses. Court had sufficient evidence to show that defendant acted with prior calculation and design to commit aggravated murder when he gave a confession to the police in which he said he made the decision to kill his wife, spent time smoking a cigarette with her and waited until she fell asleep, went to his daughter’s room to block her door to keep her inside her room, and folded a blanket for use as a muffle before shooting her in the head while she slept. Defense counsel did not violate any essential duty to client by admitting that defendant killed the wife and trying the case solely on the issue of prior calculation and design. Although trial court erred by imposing sentence on allied offenses before then merging the counts into aggravated murder count, an appellate court can modify the sentence by vacating the sentences imposed on the allied offenses that were merged.StewartCuyahoga 9/13/2018 9/13/2018 2018-Ohio-3673
State v. Brown 106518Self-representation; Sixth Amendment; repeat violent offender; collateral attack; sufficiency of the evidence; R.C. 2903.11; inference stacking; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). The defendant’s right to self-representation was not violated because he abandoned his request for self-representation after a second attorney was appointed and the defendant accepted the representation; the finding of guilt on the repeat violent offender specification is not contrary to law because a defendant cannot collaterally attack the entry of conviction underlying the specification; there is sufficient evidence in support of the conviction for felonious assault under R.C. 2903.11(A)(2); and the trial court did not err in sentencing.GallagherCuyahoga 9/13/2018 9/13/2018 2018-Ohio-3674
State v. Samuels 106520Allied offenses; sentence; void; res judicata; findings. Where the trial court made no findings that the offenses were allied prior to imposing separate sentences for each offense, the sentence was not void and the defendant should have raised any issue regarding allied offenses in his direct appeal. Because he did not do so, his postconviction motion to correct his sentence was barred by res judicata, and the trial court therefore properly denied the motion.KeoughCuyahoga 9/13/2018 9/13/2018 2018-Ohio-3675
12345678910...>>