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

Reporter of Decisions - Opinions & Announcements

Opinion Search Filter Settings
Use standard search logic for the full-text search.
Opinion Text Search:    What is Opinion Text Search?
Source:   What is a Source?
Year Decided:   What is Decided?
County:   What is Decided?
Case Number:   What is Case Number?
Author:   What is Decided?
Topics and Issues:   What is Decided?
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 201 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Damron 2014-CA-15The trial court did not err in accepting the appellant's guilty plea by failing to comply with Crim.R. 11 and North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). Although the appellant initially protested her innocence at her plea hearing, she recanted those protestations before pleading guilty. Therefore, her plea was not an Alford plea. The plea-hearing transcript reflects compliance with Crim.R. 11, and the appellant cannot rely on statements she made more than one month later at sentencing to establish error in the plea process. Judgment affirmed.HallChampaign 5/29/2015 5/29/2015 2015-Ohio-2057
State v. Ellington 26335Appellee failed to establish a speedy trial violation, and the trial court erred in granting Appellee's motion to dismiss on that basis. Judgment reversed and remanded.DonovanMontgomery 5/29/2015 5/29/2015 2015-Ohio-2058
State v. Faulkner 2013-CA-43Defendant pled guilty to operating a vehicle under the influence, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), a first-degree misdemeanor. Defendant's guilty plea waived any argument that his conviction was based on insufficient evidence or was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court's failure to inform defendant of the effect of his guilty plea, as required by Crim.R. 11, did not render the plea invalid, where no prejudice was shown. The trial court repeatedly characterized defendant's offense as an "OVI - 2nd within 20 years" under R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), which is not addressed by the OVI sentencing provisions, and the record does not reflect what sentencing provisions were applied by the trial court in imposing sentence. Judgment reversed and case remanded for resentencing.FroelichChampaign 5/29/2015 5/29/2015 2015-Ohio-2059
State v. Greene 26138Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress drugs retrieved from his pocket. The evidence at the suppression hearing, as credited by the trial court, demonstrated that the officer initiated a consensual encounter when he called to the defendant and that the defendant voluntarily consented to a pat down. The officer recognized the drugs in defendant's pocket by plain feel. Judgment affirmed.FroelichMontgomery 5/29/2015 5/29/2015 2015-Ohio-2060
State v. McKelvy 26269Defendant's Felonious Assault conviction is supported by sufficient evidence, and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Affirmed.FainMontgomery 5/29/2015 5/29/2015 2015-Ohio-2061
State v. Uruci 26160Trial court did not err in overruling motion to suppress. Officers' observations gave rise to a reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant was engaged in Soliciting, which justified their stopping the defendant. Before the defendant was arrested, he made spontaneous statements establishing probable cause for the arrest. Affirmed.FainMontgomery 5/29/2015 5/29/2015 2015-Ohio-2062
State v. Wagerman 2014-CA-36Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel based on a conflict of interest because Appellant never alleged that his trial counsel's representation was affected by conflicting duties to other clients whose interests opposed his. Affirmed.WelbaumGreene 5/29/2015 5/29/2015 2015-Ohio-2063
State v. Ward 2014-CA-28The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Most of Appellants' arguments are barred by res judicata. For those arguments that are not barred, Appellant failed to provide the trial court with evidence supporting his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. Affirmed.WelbaumChampaign 5/29/2015 5/29/2015 2015-Ohio-2064
State v. Wood 26341The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant's combined motion to suppress/motion in limine, which was directed toward field-sobriety tests. The arresting officer was entitled to testify about and to rely on his observations of the appellant's performance on an "alphabet" test and a "finger-to-nose" test. These tests may not be as reliable as the validated and standardized "horizontal gaze nystagmus" (HGN) test, the "walk-and-turn" test, and the "one-leg stand" test. Nevertheless, a suspect's inability to recite the alphabet or to touch his nose may be considered, under the totality of the circumstances, along with observations of slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, or an odor of alcohol to determine whether he was driving under the influence of alcohol. Finally, the trial court did not err in failing to find that the results of the appellant's HGN test were inadmissible and could not be relied on to establish probable cause due to the arresting officer's alleged lack of substantial compliance with NHTSA standards. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 5/29/2015 5/29/2015 2015-Ohio-2065
State v. Younker 26414The trial court's imposition of mandatory imprisonment is not authorized by law for three counts of gross sexual imposition, felonies of the third degree. Appellant's guilty pleas were entered knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. Appellant's concurrent sentences of three years are not contrary to law. Based upon our determination that the trial court erred in imposing a mandatory term of imprisonment, the matter is remanded for resentencing consistent with our opinion regarding the mandatory nature of Younker's sentence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all other respects.DonovanMontgomery 5/29/2015 5/29/2015 2015-Ohio-2066