Volume 168 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

SENTENCING – PLEAS – COUNSEL: Defendant's guilty pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered where the trial court clearly informed defendant that it was not bound to the negotiated sentence. Defendant did not substantiate that his trial counsel was ineffective where defendant did not point to any evidence in the record to support his claim.

Motion for judgment on the pleadings violation of bankruptcy discharge consumer sales practices act federal preemption. The trial court did not err by granting the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, because plaintiff's claim that defendant violated the consumer sales practices act rests squarely on whether the defendant violated plaintiff's bankruptcy discharge, and determinations concerning a bankruptcy discharge must be made in federal bankruptcy court.

Motion to disqualify abuse of discretion motion to compel final appealable order substantial hardship Prof.Cond.R. 37 waiver. We overturned the decision of the trial court granting the defendant-appellee's motion to disqualify plaintiff-appellant's counsel for an abuse of discretion. We found that the appellees waived their right to the motion by delaying and that the delay, and the disqualification, would create a substantial hardship for the plaintiff. The plaintiff-appellant also appealed the decision of the trial court denying his motion to compel business records but we found that did not constitute a final appealable order.

Court of Claims erred when it granted summary judgment to ODRC on appellant's defamation claim because the evidence gave rise to a genuine factual issue whether ODRC's investigator published allegedly defamatory statements about appellant in an inmate conduct report with actual malice. Court of Claims erred by denying appellant's motion to compel ODRC to respond to appellant's discovery request asking ODRC to admit or deny whether the investigator obtained a statement from a confidential informant in support of the allegedly defamatory statements in the conduct report. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

DIRECTED VERDICT – FRAUD – INFORMED CONSENT – NEGLIGENCE – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – VICARIOUS LIABILITY: The trial court properly granted a directed verdict in favor of a physician on a negligence claim against the physician where the physician had no physician-patient relationship with plaintiff with respect to the surgery that plaintiff claimed was negligently performed and owed plaintiff no duty of care. The trial court properly granted a directed verdict in favor of a physician on a claim of lack of informed consent against the physician where the physician had no physician-patient relationship with plaintiff with respect to the surgery that plaintiff claimed was negligently performed and owed plaintiff no duty of care to obtain plaintiff's consent to the surgery. The trial court properly granted a directed verdict in favor of a surgery center and its owner on a claim for fraud related to plaintiff's medical billing where plaintiff put forth no evidence that the surgery center or its owner made a false misrepresentation to plaintiff or that plaintiff relied upon the misrepresentation or that plaintiff suffered resulting injury. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of a surgery center and its owner on plaintiff's vicarious-liability claim plaintiff's settlement agreement releasing the surgery center's physician employee from liability thereby exonerated the surgery center and its owner from any liability for the employee's actions.

Sierah's Law violent offender database R.C. 2903.41 R.C. 2903.42 notice attempted murder rebuttable presumption preponderance of the evidence principal offender Retroactivity Clause waiver. The trial court failed to inform appellant, before sentencing, about the presumption of enrollment in the violent offender database, the right to file a motion to rebut the presumption of enrollment, the procedure and criteria for rebutting the presumption of enrollment, the effect of a rebuttal and post-rebuttal hearing procedures, and the possible outcome. Accordingly, the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2903.42(A)(1)(a). The trial court's judgment ordering appellant to enroll in the violent offender database is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the trial court to provide the requisite advisements to appellant and to hold a new hearing on the issue of enrollment.

The trial court did not err in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment as appellant was "occupying" her vehicle as defined under the automobile insurance policy excluding uninsured motorist coverage. The trial court also correctly concluded that because appellee had properly denied uninsured motorist and medical payments coverage it was entitled to summary judgment on appellant's bad faith claim. Judgment affirmed.

Reagan Tokes Law constitutional challenges ripe for review separation-of-powers doctrine procedural due process. - Appellant's constitutional challenges to the Reagan Tokes Law were ripe for review because the record was sufficiently developed to allow the appellate court to fairly adjudicate the parties' respective claims, the operation of the statute was inevitable, and the harm to appellant if judicial relief were denied was real and immense Reagan Tokes Law does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine because the judicial branch imposes the indefinite sentence, and the executive branch determines if an inmate's violations warrant its imposition Reagan Tokes Law does not violate procedural due process because it provides for notice of a hearing at which an inmate is allowed an opportunity to be heard.

The trial court did not err by overruling appellant's motion to suppress. A trained and experienced police officer's visual estimation of speed is sufficient to justify a traffic stop. Judgment affirmed. (Donovan, J., concurring in judgment only.)

R.C. 2923.241(C), R.C. 2925.11(A),(C)(7)(c), hashish, hidden compartment, sufficiency, manifest weight, ineffective assistance, trial strategy

OTHER-ACTS EVIDENCE – PROPENSITY – INVITED ERROR – VOYEURISM: The trial court did not err in admitting a witness's testimony about defendant's prior convictions where defense counsel elicited the witness's answer on cross-examination. Additional evidence in the form of certified copies of defendant's prior convictions constituted propensity evidence in violation of Evid.R. 404(B), but any error was harmless because the jury permissibly knew about those convictions through the witness's testimony. [But see DISSENT: The trial court's erroneous admission of the certified copies of defendant's prior misdemeanor convictions was not harmless where the case turned on witness credibility.] Defendant's conviction for voyeurism was not against the weight of the evidence because it was the duty of the jury to make credibility determinations.