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 24 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Stowers C-160724APPELLATE REVIEW - PROCEDURE/RULES - CIV.R. 58(B) - SEX OFFENSES: Where defendant had been convicted in 1978 of attempted rape and adjudicated as a sexual predator in 1997; where, in 2006, defendant filed a motion pursuant to State v. Champion, 106 Ohio St.3d 120, 2005-Ohio-4098, 832 N.E.2d 718, to set aside the order requiring him to register as a sexual predator under former R.C. Chapter 2950 ("Megan's Law"), and the trial court overruled the motion, but never ordered the clerk to serve defendant with a copy of the order overruling the motion; and where, in 2016, defendant filed a motion requesting that the trial court comply with Civ.R. 58(B) and serve him with the 2006 order overruling the motion, the trial court granted the motion and ordered the clerk to serve defendant with the 2006 order, and defendant filed a notice of appeal from the 2006 order within 30 days of service, defendant's 2016 appeal of the overruling of his 2006 motion was timely. The Ohio Supreme Court's holding in State v. Clayborn, 125 Ohio St.3d 450, 2010-Ohio-2123, 928 N.E.2d 1093, that a direct appeal from a sex-offender-classification judgment "is an appeal in a criminal case that must be filed pursuant to App.R. 4(A) within 30 days after judgment is entered," does not apply where defendant is not appealing from the initial sex-offender-classification judgment; Civ.R. 58(B) service rules apply where defendant is appealing from a judgment overruling a motion filed after conviction to vacate his sex-offender classification. Where the record showed that defendant had completed his sentence for attempted rape well before July 1, 1997, Megan's Law's effective date, but was serving time on that date for two thefts, he has no duty to register as a sex offender.MyersHamilton 3/14/2018 3/14/2018 2018-Ohio-926
State v. Smith C-170076AUTOS/CRIMINAL - UNAUTHORIZED USE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY: In a prosecution for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 2913.03(A), where the record indicated that the defendant had retained possession of and control over the victim's vehicle, but had not used or operated the vehicle, the conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence.MyersHamilton 3/14/2018 3/14/2018 2018-Ohio-927
In re $18,823.06 C-160775FORFEITURE: In a civil forfeiture proceeding, the state presented sufficient evidence for the trial court to order the forfeiture of funds in a checking account as proceeds properly seized by the state where the owner received cash from an individual engaged in a drug enterprise for renting vehicles used in drug trafficking; however, there was not sufficient evidence for the trial court to order the forfeiture of three other bank accounts where the state did not demonstrate that the funds in those accounts were tied to proceeds from drug trafficking. [But see DISSENT: The trial court erred in ordering the forfeiture of the funds in the checking account, because the state did not prove that they were connected to illegal activity.]MillerHamilton 3/9/2018 3/9/2018 2018-Ohio-876
State v. Wright C-170278ALLIED OFFENSES - SENTENCING: In sentencing defendant on eight counts of theft, the trial court erred in not merging two of the counts as allied offenses of similar import where defendant broke into a vehicle and stole two credit cards belonging to the same victim; but the court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences on the other six counts, as the trial court's findings were made in accordance with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and supported by the record.MillerHamilton 3/9/2018 3/9/2018 2018-Ohio-877
Pflanz v. Sinclair C-170172COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL - FORECLOSURE - CIV.R. 60(A): Plaintiff's cause of action against a neighboring property owner based on a claimed easement was barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, because the same issue was actually and finally litigated against plaintiff in a foreclosure action involving the neighbor's property and the resolution of the issue was essential to the judgment that set forth the property interests that would survive the foreclosure and sale of the property. A foreclosure order, which determines the property interests of the parties before the foreclosure sale, cannot be indirectly attacked in the ancillary proceedings confirming the sale. Civ.R. 60(A) provides the trial court with authority to correct clerical mistakes in its judgment at any time, but it could not authorize the foreclosure court to substantively modify a previously issued final judgment setting forth the property interests of the parties surviving the foreclosure and sale of the property.CunninghamHamilton 3/2/2018 3/2/2018 2018-Ohio-734
State v. Brogden C-170185EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER: Defendant's conviction for violating a temporary civil protection order was not supported by sufficient evidence where the state failed to prove that the temporary protection order was in effect on the date of the alleged violation.ZayasHamilton 3/2/2018 3/2/2018 2018-Ohio-735
Phipps v. State C-160795SEX OFFENSES - OUT-OF-STATE OFFENDER - PROOF OF CONVICTION - SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT - DUTY TO REGISTER: The trial court did not err in finding that the state was not required to prove defendant's New York conviction for a sexually-oriented offense with a document that complied with R.C. 2945.75(B) and Crim.R. 32(C): the procedures under former R.C. Chapter 2950 were civil in nature, and former R.C. 2950.07(F) did not require the state to prove the out-of-state sex offense in the same way it would have had to prove a prior conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case where the prior conviction was an element of a new criminal offense or was required to elevate the level of a crime or enhance a sentence. The trial court erred in holding that defendant's New York conviction for sexual misconduct required him to register as a sex offender in Ohio, because the New York sexual-misconduct statute is not substantially equivalent to Ohio's unlawful-sexual-conduct-with-a-minor statute, R.C. 2907.04(A): the Ohio statute applies to persons over 18, while the New York statute does not set an age limit for the perpetrator; Ohio's law prohibits sexual conduct with a victim between the ages of 13 and 15, while the New York prohibition extends to a victim under the age of 17; Ohio requires that the perpetrator knew the age of the victim or was reckless in that regard, while New York does not require a mens rea; and the Ohio offense is a felony, while the New York offense is a misdemeanor. [But see DISSENT: The two statutes are substantially equivalent because they both criminalize sex with a teenager regardless of consent. Further, the New York statute is substantially equivalent to Ohio's sexual-imposition offense, R.C. 2907.06(A)(4).]MockHamilton 2/28/2018 2/28/2018 2018-Ohio-720
State v. Bedell C-160911SEX OFFENSES - GROSS SEXUAL IMPOSITION - EVIDENCE - COUNSEL - PROSECUTOR - PLAIN ERROR - SENTENCING: The defendant's convictions on two counts of gross sexual imposition involving a victim under the age of 13 were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim unequivocally testified at a bench trial that the defendant had rubbed her vagina on more than one occasion when she was under the age of 13. The defendant failed to demonstrate that the prosecutor's asking of leading questions was prosecutorial misconduct that rose to the level of plain error where he failed to identify specific questions he contended were improperly leading or explain how they prejudiced him. The defendant could not establish an ineffective-assistance- of-trial-counsel claim where he failed to show any prejudice resulting from trial counsel's allegedly deficient performance. Where the record clearly demonstrates that the trial court used an incorrect and higher sentencing range when determining the defendant's sentences, and then sentenced the defendant to the minimum term within that higher range, the error rose to the level of plain error that should be corrected, even though the defendant failed to object below. [But see DISSENT: The defendant failed to demonstrate clear error because the judge's comments at the sentencing hearing could reasonably be interpreted to refer to something other than a misunderstanding of the applicable sentencing range.]CunninghamHamilton 2/28/2018 2/28/2018 2018-Ohio-721
State v. Brogden C-170184THEFT - EVIDENCE - SENTENCING - ALLOCUTION: Defendant's conviction for theft was supported by sufficient evidence where the victim testified that the car belonged to her and the defendant refused to return the keys. Defendant's sentence must be reversed and the cause remanded for resentencing where the trial court denied defendant her right of allocution and the error was not invited or harmless.ZayasHamilton 2/28/2018 2/28/2018 2018-Ohio-722
State v. Ingels C-160864SENTENCING - JURISDICTION - APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL : Defendant's kidnapping sentences were void and thus subject to correction, because the trial court had no statutory authority to enhance those sentences pursuant to sexually-violent-predator specifications charged under former R.C. Chapter 2971, when the specifications were not, as former R.C. 2971.01(H)(1) had required, based on a sexually-violent-offense conviction that had existed prior to the indictment charging the specifications: the common pleas court did not err in overruling, because the doctrine of the law of the case precluded the court from granting, defendant's postconviction motion for resentencing on that ground; but following the appeals court's decision overruling its prior decisions holding that the sentences were not void, the sentences are properly remanded to the common pleas court for resentencing under the jurisdiction to correct a void judgment. [But see DISSENT: Defendant's kidnapping sentences were not subject to correction, because the claimed error did not render those sentences void.]CunninghamHamilton 2/28/2018 3/1/2018 2018-Ohio-724