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 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:   What is Year Decided?
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 284 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re Contempt of Lance 102838Contempt; civil; criminal; jurisdiction, future conduct; custody; case plan; clear and convincing evidence; noncompliance; order; fine; purge; conditional; abuse of discretion. The magistrate did not have the authority to enforce an order of another court. The magistrate's purge order improperly purports to regulate future conduct and is void. Trial court abused its discretion by adopting the magistrate's decision.GallagherCuyahoga 4/28/2016 4/28/2016 2016-Ohio-2717
State v. Wilson 102921Rape; kidnapping; H.B. 86; S.B. 2; sentencing provisions; indefinite sentence; R.C. 2929.14(A)(1); R.C. 1.58; motion for separate trials; joinder; abuse of discretion; Crim.R. 8(A); Evid.R. 404(B); simple and direct evidence; other acts evidence; preindictment delay; plain error; actual prejudice; Crim.R. 52(B). The trial court properly sentenced appellant under the sentencing provisions of H.B. 86, which was in effect at the time of sentencing. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by joining appellant's rape and kidnapping offenses for trial, because joinder was proper under Crim.R. 8(A) and appellant was not prejudiced by joinder. The trial court neither abused its discretion, nor committed plain error by allowing the state to prosecute appellant on Counts 4, 5, 6, 10, and 11, because appellant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the delay in prosecution and the state's delay in prosecution was justified.CelebrezzeCuyahoga 4/28/2016 4/28/2016 2016-Ohio-2718
State v. Griffin 102929R.C. 2929.41; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); consecutive; findings; misdemeanor; felony; reasons; great or unusual harm; journal entry; sentence; record; clear and convincing. The trial court improperly ran defendant's misdemeanor jail term consecutively to his felony prison term. In imposing consecutive sentences, the trial court made sufficient findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), as it was not obligated to state the reasons to support its findings. The record supported the trial court's finding that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the seriousness of defendant's conduct and the harm that he caused. The trial court failed to incorporate its findings into the sentencing journal entry.GallagherCuyahoga 4/28/2016 4/28/2016 2016-Ohio-2719
State v. Young 103024Guilty plea; Crim.R. 11(C); constitutional rights; effect of the plea; potential penalties; ineffective assistance of counsel; evidence; access; forced; malingering. Appellant entered guilty plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily where he was advised of all of his constitutional and non-constitutional rights, and was represented by competent counsel.GallagherCuyahoga 4/28/2016 4/28/2016 2016-Ohio-2720
State v. Grove 103042Guilty plea; Crim.R. 11; knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily made; ineffective assistance of counsel during a plea; breach; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14. Where the trial court fully complied with Crim.R. 11 and the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered a guilty plea, trial counsel was not ineffective during the plea process. The prosecutor's additional comments at the sentencing did not result in the state's breach of a plea agreement. The state did not agree to stand silent, but rather, it offered additional relevant facts not previously addressed, offered such statements in response to the court's inquiry, and stood by its agreement of a recommended ten year prison term. The trial court made the consecutive sentence findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14, and this court does not clearly and convincingly find the record does not support the findings.McCormackCuyahoga 4/28/2016 4/28/2016 2016-Ohio-2721
State v. Worley 103105Aggravated murder; sufficiency of the evidence; prior calculation and design; manifest weight; ineffective assistance of counsel; flight jury instruction; motion in limine. Trial counsel's performance was not deficient based on claims that the attorney did not waive the defendant's right to a jury trial on certain counts or that he failed to object to the flight jury instruction because that allowed the jury to infer guilt. The conviction was also not against the manifest weight of the evidence based on the credible testimony identifying the defendant as the shooter, and the eyewitness testimony established sufficient time between a fight and the murder to support an inference of prior calculation and design.GallagherCuyahoga 4/28/2016 4/28/2016 2016-Ohio-2722
State v. Stump 103109Guilty plea; Crim.R. 11; plain error; domestic violence; pregnancy specification; deletion of pregnancy specification; fifth-degree felony; first-degree misdemeanor; R.C. 2919.25(A); R.C. 2919.25(D)(5) and (6). Judgment vacated and remanded. It was plain error for the court to convict and sentence defendant to fifth-degree felony domestic violence when defendant pled to first-degree misdemeanor domestic violence by the deletion of the pregnant victim specification.KilbaneCuyahoga 4/28/2016 4/28/2016 2016-Ohio-2723
State v. Prince 103265Contrary to law; prison; community control; postrelease control; felony; new; violation; sentence; prison; R.C. 2929.141; R.C. 2929.15(B); authority; range. The trial court imposed a sentence that was contrary to law. R.C. 2929.141 authorizes a court to impose a prison term or sanction for a postrelease control violation in an earlier felony case upon the conviction of or plea of guilty to a new felony. The statute has no application to a subsequent violation of community control. R.C. 2929.15(B) applies when the conditions of a community control sanction are violated and limits the court to imposing a prison term within the range of prison terms available for the underlying offense.GallagherCuyahoga 4/28/2016 4/28/2016 2016-Ohio-2724
State v. Carter 103279Sentencing; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. Trial court properly considered the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 as indicated by its stating it did so both at the sentencing hearing and in the sentencing entry.BlackmonCuyahoga 4/28/2016 4/28/2016 2016-Ohio-2725
Talmer Bank & Trust v. Schultz 103306, 103432, 103545Motion to stay execution of judgment; motion to vacate sale; motion to vacate confirmation of sale; 12 C.F.R. 1024.41(g)/loss mitigation procedures. Evidence in the record does not reflect that the motion to stay was for delay, harrassment or any other improper motive on the part of any of the parties requesting the stay - the parties were in negotiation and discussing loan modification. Further, the third-party purchaser no longer wanted to go through with the sale. The trial court's denial of the motions to stay, vacate the sale and vacate confirmation of the sale was an abuse of discretion.JonesCuyahoga 4/28/2016 4/28/2016 2016-Ohio-2726