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 692 rows. Rows per page: 
Case CaptionCase No.Topics and IssuesAuthorCitation / CountyDecidedPostedWebCite
In re T.R. 102071Abused and neglected child; dispositional hearing; continuance; due process; legal custody; due process; best interest of the child - Mother's due process rights were not violated and trial court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with dispositional hearing in legal custody case without the presence of the child's mother where mother had been served and had notice of the hearing, did not request a continuance and did not explain her failure to appear. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting magistrate's decision and entering an order of legal custody to child's father. Court was presented with competent, credible evidence which supported the determination that committing the child to the legal custody of his father was in the child's best interest.GallagherCuyahoga 10/8/2015 10/8/2015 2015-Ohio-4177
State v. Bell 102141Prosecutorial misconduct; 20-year preindictment delay; pre-S.B. 2 sentencing law; H.B. 86; postrelease control; ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant's due process rights were not violated by a nearly 20-year preindictment delay as the state obtained new DNA evidence against him. While the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments comparing defense counsel's arguments to an octopus emitting a murky ink were somewhat denigrating to defense counsel, they did not violate the defendant's right to remain silent and right to presumption of innocence, nor did they affect the outcome of the trial. Defendant's counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments. The trial court erred when it sentenced defendant to an indefinite sentence under pre-S.B. 2 sentencing law as it should have sentenced him under H.B. 86.BoyleCuyahoga 10/8/2015 10/8/2015 2015-Ohio-4178
State v. Marks 102168Community control violation; due process. The trial court erred in sentencing the defendant on an alleged violation of community control without a hearing and when the defendant was not on community control at the time of the alleged violation.KeoughCuyahoga 10/8/2015 10/8/2015 2015-Ohio-4179
State v. Hunter 102245Court costs; waiver; res judicata. Court that imposed court costs prior to the effective date of current version of R.C. 2947.23(C) had jurisdiction to waive those court costs after sentence had been imposed because the statute provided that the court could waive costs at "any time" following their imposition.StewartCuyahoga 10/8/2015 10/8/2015 2015-Ohio-4180
In re I.B. 102373, 102853Guardian; guardianship; legal custody; dependent child; exclusive jurisdiction; concurrent jurisdiction; ward; R.C. 2151.12(A)(1); R.C. 2101.24(A)(1)(e); Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i); interim order; objections; magistrate's decision; limited guardian; hearsay; character evidence; undisclosed witnesses; Civ.R. 26; Civ.R. 37; sanction; harmless error; best interest of the child; nomination; last will and testament. Juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to hear complaint for legal custody where application for guardianship was filed in probate court before complaint for legal custody and child was a ward of the probate court. Judgment awarding guardianship to appellee was a final, valid judgment even though court rendered decision simultaneously with magistrate's decision because appellant was still afforded right to object to magistrate's decision, and trial court overruled objections and adopted the magistrate's decision. Probate court did not abuse its discretion in allowing undisclosed witnesses to testify at trial where witnesses were related to appellant and there was no showing that appellant was surprised or prejudice by their testimony. Admission of letter from principal of ward's school was harmless error where the evidence was duplicative of other evidence admitted at trial. Probate court acted within its discretion when it appointed a non-relative male to serve as minor child's guardian where mother nominated him to serve as guardian in her last will and testament, and evidence showed he acted as a loving father throughout ward's entire life.GallagherCuyahoga 10/8/2015 10/8/2015 2015-Ohio-4181
State v. Moore 102400plea, maximum penalty, substantial compliance misstatement, prejudice. Trial court's initial misstatement that a first degree felony was punishable by eleven months and subsequent correction that the possible penalty was eleven years did not render defendant's plea invalid.KeoughCuyahoga 10/8/2015 10/8/2015 2015-Ohio-4182
State v. Carson 102424Consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); R.C. 2953.08(G)(2); findings; intoxication. Appellate court could not clearly and convincingly find that the record on appeal did not support the sentencing judge's finding that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to defendant's conduct and to the danger defendant poses to the public in light of incident where the intoxicated defendant struck three motorcyclists, severely and permanently injuring two of them, and had a lengthy history of criminal offenses related to intoxication.StewartCuyahoga 10/8/2015 10/8/2015 2015-Ohio-4183
State v. Fye 102494Revocation of community control; statutory interpretation; plain meaning. Court erred by finding that an objectionable Facebook post violated a condition of community control that "[u]pon reporting to the Probation Department and when in Court you shall conduct yourself in an orderly manner." The plain meaning of the probation department rule required the offender to be present at the time of the offending conduct. The Facebook posting occurred before the poster reported to the probation department and the poster was not "in court" at the time.StewartCuyahoga 10/8/2015 10/8/2015 2015-Ohio-4184
State v. Reid 102536Guilty plea; return of property. The police department's failure to keep the appellant's vehicle, which was ordered returned by the court, and instead send it to the scrap yard, did not "void" the appellant's guilty plea. The return of the vehicle was not a condition of appellant's plea. However, appellant may be entitled to be reimbursed for the value of the car.BlackmonCuyahoga 10/8/2015 10/8/2015 2015-Ohio-4185
State v. Armstrong 102545R.C. 2929.15(B); R.C. 2929.19(B); community control sanctions violation hearing. The trial court did not err when it sentenced defendant to prison after a community control violation hearing because the trial court notified the defendant at the third sentencing hearing that it would impose "one year on each case" and that he faced "three years" if he violated again, to be a proper notification under R.C. 2929.15(B)(4).BoyleCuyahoga 10/8/2015 10/8/2015 2015-Ohio-4186