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 49 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
State v. Bracey S-16-025Anders brief. Guilty plea was entered into knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. Sentence imposed was within confines of law and amply supported by the record, and the trial court considered the relevant sentencing criteria. SingerSandusky 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-618
State v. Hall L-17-1069Appellant forfeited all but plain error by failing to argue in trial court that his convictions were for allied offenses of similar import. On appeal he failed to demonstrate reasonable probability that his convictions were for allied offenses and, therefore, cannot show that trial court committed plain error by failing to inquire into merger.MayleLucas 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-619
State v. Highsmith L-16-1183The trial court complied with all applicable sentencing statutes and appellant's sentence is not contrary to law.MayleLucas 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-620
State v. Martin S-17-021This is a brief submitted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). After a thorough and independent examination of the record, the court is unable to find an issue of arguable merit and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. OsowikSandusky 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-621
State v. Williams L-17-1063Manifest weight, sufficiency of the evidence, trespass into a habitation, clothing, one-on-one identification, tools. JensenLucas 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-622
State v. Satchel S-17-011The trial court did not impose a "trial tax" on appellant when it sentenced him. The court's single statement does not demonstrate that it acted based on actual vindictiveness, and, therefore, appellant's sentence is not contrary to law.MayleSandusky 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-623
State v. $5,839 in U.S. Currency WD-17-006Civil forfeiture of seized currency under R.C. 2981.05 was not in error where it was supported by facts alleged in the complaint and a trial to the court was held but no transcript on appeal was filed. Motion to intervene; continuance; regularity of proceedings.PietrykowskiWood 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-624
State v. Upham S-17-025Appellant's motion for postconviction relief filed four years after R.C. 2153.21 filing deadline without facts warranting an untimely filing properly denied. Judgment affirmed.OsowikSandusky 2/16/2018 2/16/2018 2018-Ohio-625
In re Maj.A. L-17-1172, L-17-1173, L-17-1174Permanent custody of minor children to agency was proper where mother failed to address a long history of opiate abuse and father failed to complete prior agency services and was domestically violent. R.C. 2151.414.PietrykowskiLucas 2/13/2018 2/14/2018 2018-Ohio-575
State v. Carrisales OT-17-007The trial court properly accepted appellant's guilty plea. The court was not required to elicit a factual basis for the charge to which appellant pleaded or tell appellant the elements of the offense. The totality of the circumstances shows that appellant understood the nature of the offense when he pleaded guilty. An appellate court cannot review a trial court's sentence for an abuse of discretion, and appellant's "near maximum" sentence is not contrary to law.JensenOttawa 2/9/2018 2/9/2018 2018-Ohio-520