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 131 rows. Rows per page: 
12345678910...>>
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Adams 2014-CA-13Defendant pled guilty to three counts of burglary and one count of possession of heroin, for which he received consecutive sentences totaling 20 year in prison. Trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences where the record clearly and convincingly does not support the trial court's finding that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public or punish the defendant and are not disproportionate to the seriousness of defendant's conduct and to the danger he poses to the public. Further, the record does not demonstrate that 20 years in prison was the minimum sanction to accomplish the purposes of sentencing without imposing an unnecessary burden on the State. Judgment reversed and case remanded for resentencing. (Hall, J., dissenting).FroelichClark 3/27/2015 3/27/2015 2015-Ohio-1160
State v. Beavers 26036The trial court did not err in overruling Appellant's motion to suppress, because the traffic stop of the automobile Appellant was driving, and the patdown search of Appellant, were reasonable. In addition, the State's inability to provide tapes of the incident involving Appellant was not done in bad faith, nor did the tapes contain potentially useful evidence. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion in failing to re-instruct the jury after receiving a question during deliberations. The court accurately answered the jury's question, and the instruction the defense requested had already been given to the jury. Finally, the trial court properly complied with Evid.R. 615 by allowing the State's representative to remain present during a hearing on the motion to suppress evidence. Affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 3/27/2015 3/27/2015 2015-Ohio-1161
State v. Bowman 26162At a sentencing hearing to correct a partially void judgment, the trial court did not err in failing to merge several convictions. Defendant's claim that these convictions should have merged is barred by res judicata, since the defendant did not raise the merger issue in his appeal from the original sentence. Affirmed.FainMontgomery 3/27/2015 3/27/2015 2015-Ohio-1162
State v. Brown 26219There was probable cause for the defendant's arrest. Therefore, the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as the result of his allegedly unlawful arrest. The identification of the defendant as a perpetrator by reference to surveillance videos and descriptions by an eyewitness, together with damaging admissions he made implying that he was a perpetrator, are sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to find him guilty of the alleged offenses, beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant's convictions are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Affirmed.FainMontgomery 3/27/2015 3/27/2015 2015-Ohio-1163
State v. Hagen 2014-CA-63Anders brief filed. No potential assignments of error having arguable merit found. Affirmed.FainClark 3/27/2015 3/27/2015 2015-Ohio-1164
State v. Kelley 2014-CA-22Anders brief filed. Defendant and State reached a plea agreement, including an agreement as to sentence; the trial court imposed the agreed sentence; the sentence was authorized by law. No potential assignments of error having arguable merit found. Affirmed.Per CuriamClark 3/27/2015 3/27/2015 2015-Ohio-1165
Ratonel v. Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A. 26259There are genuine issues of material fact whether the defendants' alleged legal malpractice occurred within the scope of their representation of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the trial court erred by rendering summary judgment for the defendants. Reversed and Remanded. (Hall, J., dissenting.)FainMontgomery 3/27/2015 3/27/2015 2015-Ohio-1166
State v. Robinson 26441Appellant's conviction for aggravated robbery was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and was supported by sufficient evidence. In addition, the trial court did not err in prohibiting Appellant from introducing impeachment testimony concerning alleged prior inconsistent statements made by the victim. Defense counsel failed to lay a proper foundation for the impeachment testimony and the victim's prior statements were not inconsistent with his trial testimony. Affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 3/27/2015 3/27/2015 2015-Ohio-1167
State v. Bowlin 26142Appellant's convictions for aggravated robbery and assault were not against the manifest weight of the evidence and thus were necessarily supported by sufficient evidence. In addition, Appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim has no merit because Appellant failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel provided deficient representation. Affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 3/20/2015 3/20/2015 2015-Ohio-1039
Coles v. I-Force 26385The trial court did not err in entering summary judgment against the appellant on his claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The claim failed as a matter of law because the record reveals no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the appellant was discharged in violation of any clear public policy manifested in a state or federal constitution, a statute or administrative regulation, or the common law. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 3/20/2015 3/20/2015 2015-Ohio-1040
12345678910...>>