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 245 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
Bishop v. Bishop 26397The trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the Appellee's spousal support obligation, and the court's finding that there was a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Affirmed.WelbaumMontgomery 7/2/2015 7/2/2015 2015-Ohio-2711
State v. Lane 2014-CA-54The trial court did not err in overruling Appellant's post-conviction motion to vacate and correct sentence because the motion was untimely filed and the allied-offense and ineffective assistance arguments contained in the motion were barred by res judicata and without merit. Affirmed.WelbaumGreene 7/2/2015 7/2/2015 2015-Ohio-2712
State v. Miller 26371Trial court erred in admitting other-bad-acts evidence when that evidence failed to establish that the defendant had acted with the same two individuals, or had performed a similar role, in a prior theft. Trial counsel's failure to object to hearsay testimony is moot. Reversed and Remanded.FainMontgomery 7/2/2015 7/2/2015 2015-Ohio-2714
State v. Rammel 25899 and 25900The trial court did not err by changing the length of some of Appellant's sentences when it resentenced Appellant on remand. The total length of the new sentence is within the range that Appellant agreed to in his plea agreement. The trial court did not engage in vindictive sentencing on remand when Appellant's total sentence is shorter than it was originally, and still within the agreed range. Lastly, Appellant fails to show that appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Judgment affirmed.HallMontgomery 7/2/2015 7/2/2015 2015-Ohio-2715
State v. Roberts 26431Tenant had consent to use air-conditioning units in her residence, but exceeded the scope of that consent by pawning them as a collateral for a loan. Although State succeeded in proving a violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(2), it failed to prove a violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), the offense with which the defendant was charged, because the defendant did have the consent of the owner of the air-conditioning units to exert some control over them. Therefore, the trial court erred by overruling the defendant's Crim.R. 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal. Reversed and Discharged.FainMontgomery 7/2/2015 7/2/2015 2015-Ohio-2716
State v. Smoot 26297The trial court did not err in overruling Smoot's motions to suppress. The trial court did not err in overruling Smoot's motion to dismiss based upon the automatic deletion, pursuant to MCSO policy, of the video of Smoot's traffic stop after 45 days, since any evidence therein was not materially exculpatory and bad faith is not demonstrated. Appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. The trial court did not err in overruling Smoot's Crim.R. 29 motion, and his convictions are supported by sufficient evidence. Judgment affirmed. DonovanMontgomery 6/30/2015 7/2/2015 2015-Ohio-2717
State v. McGlothan 2014-CA-120; 2014-CA-121; 2014-CA-122Trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing maximum, consecutive sentences, where defendant had a felony criminal record, including a prior prison sentence, and the plea agreement dismissed several charges and specifications. We cannot clearly and convincingly find that the sentence was contrary to law or constituted an abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed.FroelichClark 6/30/2015 7/2/2015 2015-Ohio-2713
State v. Caldwell 2013-CA-76The jury's verdict, finding Appellant guilty of drug possession and drug trafficking, is supported by sufficient evidence, and is also not against the manifest weight of the evidence. In addition, trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel by withdrawing a motion to suppress statements Appellant made after service of a search warrant. The record is devoid of evidence that the motion would have succeeded, and the evidence of Appellant's guilt was sufficient. Affirmed.WelbaumGreene 6/26/2015 6/26/2015 2015-Ohio-2551
W. Carrollton v. Camel 26554The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant's Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal because the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to establish that she was guilty of criminal damaging. As the individual in possession of the motor vehicle at the time it was vandalized, the victim's testimony that she did not consent to the damage was sufficient to support appellant's conviction for criminal damaging. Judgment affirmed. DonovanMontgomery 6/26/2015 6/26/2015 2015-Ohio-2552
State v. Conley 26359The State adduced sufficient evidence to sustain appellant's conviction for felonious assault with a deadly weapon. The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to warrant the trial court's flight instruction to the jury. The trial court did not err when it failed to sua sponte instruct the jury on either the inferior degree offense of aggravated assault and/or the lesser included offense of simple assault. Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. The record establishes that the trial court considered appellant's ability to pay when it ordered restitution. However, the trial court erred when it ordered restitution in the amount of $600.00 without a hearing. The order of restitution is reversed, and this cause is remanded for a hearing on the issue of restitution. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. DonovanMontgomery 6/26/2015 6/26/2015 2015-Ohio-2553