Slip opinions decided 2017 — Ohio Public Domain Citations

sufficient evidence of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence Supreme Court's Klembus case reversed the appellate case relied on by Appellant and held increased sentencing for certain repeat OVI offenders does not violate equal protection five-year sentence for third-degree felony OVI conviction (where there was no specification under R.C. 2941.1413) was contrary to law as it exceeded the available maximum.

maximum, consecutive misdemeanor sentences findings not required

Appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear appeal when a remaining claim asserted in a complaint was not addressed at trial and left unresolved.

Summary judgment statutory immunity R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) exceptions to immunity genuine issue of material fact Section 1983 claim private entity. The trial court properly denied police officer's motion for summary judgment on the state law claims, recognizing that a genuine issue of material fact precluded the application of statutory immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6). The timing, location, and circumstances surrounding (1) plaintiff's detention, (2) his handcuffing, and (3) the issuance of the citation raise a genuine issue of material of fact as to whether defendant-police officer was acting in bad faith or outside the scope of his employment. The trial court erroneously denied police officer and defendant-private entity's motion for summary judgment on the federal claims asserted under Section 1983 plaintiff failed to carry his burden in the proceedings below to demonstrate that a constitutional right was violated or that the right was clearly established. Plaintiff also failed to establish that the actions of defendant- private entity are attributable to the state to impose liability under Section 1983.

Sufficient evidence manifest weight of the evidence jury waiver allied offenses. There is sufficient evidence to convict the appellant of rape, kidnapping, and sexual battery. The state met its burden of persuasion at trial, and the jury did not lose its way in convicting the appellant. R.C. 2945.05 does not apply when the appellant requests to have the court hear the evidence on a specification. In this case, rape and kidnapping are not allied offenses because they caused separate, identifiable harm they were committed separately and they were committed with separate animus and motivation.

Requests for admission Civ.R. 36 manifest weight findings of fact Civ.R. 52 breach of contract unjust enrichment frivolous conduct R.C. 2323.51. The trier of fact's verdict against the plaintiff upon claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment are not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the sole witness's credibility could have been resolved against the plaintiff. Defendants failed to demonstrate the frivolity of claims advanced in the complaint by submitting documentary evidence after trial concluded.

Sufficient evidence manifest weight of the evidence properly authenticated evidence correcting the sentencing journal entry. The evidence was sufficient to convict the appellant of attempted murder, felonious assault, and having a weapon while under disability. The evidence was credible and the convictions were not against the manifest weight of evidence. The photo array evidence was properly authenticated, and counsel was not ineffective for not objecting to the admission of the photo evidence. The state concedes that the sentencing journal entries were incorrect in imposing costs on the appellant because the appellant was found indigent and the court did not impose costs.

Summary Judgment Burden Waive Attorney Fees Expert Witness Fee. Trial court properly granted summary judgment on defendant's counterclaim for declaratory judgment because the plaintiff did not meet its reciprocal burden of producing evidence in response to the defendant's motion for summary judgment thus, there were no genuine issues of material fact that the defendant was entitled to terminate the lease agreement with plaintiff trial court did not abuse its discretion in not awarding defendant prehearing attorney fees and expert witness fees.

manifest weight of the evidence, credibility, inconsistent statements, allied offense. Defendant's convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence when during a bench trial, the court was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and resolve any inconsistencies in the testimony. The minor inconsistencies in the victim's testimony did not overshadow the direct and forensic evidence and the reasonable inferences made therefrom. Trial court improperly imposed individual sentences on offenses that the court later found were allied.

Jury Waiver Sufficiency and Manifest Weight of Evidence Circumstantial Evidence Juvenile Offenses R.C. 2923.13(A)(2). Where defendant signed a jury waiver in open court in the presence of his counsel and upon the court's questioning, informed the court that he wished to waive a jury trial, the trial court's colloquy was sufficient to establish that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial defendant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where all four victims gave similar descriptions of the defendant, and when he was apprehended, he was driving a vehicle stolen from one of the victims and items stolen from an earlier victim were found in the glove compartment of the vehicle where the defendant stipulated to his juvenile offenses that would establish a disability under R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), the trial court erred in allowing testimony regarding the defendant's juvenile offenses and the admission of the juvenile court's journal entries regarding those offenses.

Community control sanctions prison term consecutively void. The imposition of community control sanctions to be served consecutive to a prison term was contrary to law, requiring the community control sanctions and the subsequently imposed prison sentence for a community control violation to be declared void and vacated.

Workers' compensation R.C. 4123.512 de novo scope of review failure to object to absence of exhibits to notice of hearing and deposition transcripts constitutes waiver. A trial court's scope of review on appeal from a workers' compensation determination pursuant to R.C. 4123.512 is, unlike traditional administrative appeals, de novo, and is based solely on the evidence placed before the trial court by the parties. The claimant bears the burden of proving entitlement to workers' compensation fund participation. The failure to object at the trial court to the absence of deposition and administrative hearing exhibits upon receipt of a notice of filing thereof constitutes a waiver of the argument, and appellant did not proffer the exhibits.

Court of claims overruled appellant's objections to the magistrate's findings of fact with regards to claims of negligence. Appellant appealed, however did not provide the court of appeals with a transcript of the proceedings from the court of claims. Furthermore, pursuant to App. R. 9, the DVD video/audio recording of the trial held before the magistrate could not be substituted in lieu of or as an alternative to the transcript. Accordingly, without a transcript, the court of appeals is bound by the court of claims finding that appellant did not meet the burden of proof to establish proximate cause. The court of claims did not abuse its discretion in adopting the magistrate's decision. Court of Claims judgment affirmed.

In an H.B. 180 sexual predator classification hearing for a current inmate who has served nearly 30 years in prison, the trial court did not err in classifying appellant as a sexual predator pursuant to former Megan's Law statutes where appellant did not demonstrate a lack of notice of the hearing constituting plain error, an argument regarding the alleged inapplicability of registration requirements failed to impact the assignment of error, and appellant's criminal record included two convictions for rape involving different women while he was on parole. Because appellant did not meet his burden of showing prejudice pursuant to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), appellant's separate claim of ineffective assistance of counsel necessarily failed. Judgment affirmed.

Affirmed. The probate court did not abuse its discretion by overrule appellant's motion to remove her brother as the executor of her mother's estate where no evidence in the record supported removal under the factors set forth in R.C. 2109.24.

In prosecution for failure to pay city income taxes, trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint defendant's argument that the income was a gift, rather than nonemployee compensation, was a genuine issue for trial that was not properly raised in a pretrial motion to dismiss. Trial court did not err in finding defendant guilty on her no contest plea. Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to assist defendant in obtaining an amended 1099-Miscellaneous Income form, by failing to seek a continuance, by failing to offer additional facts and circumstances regarding her indigence after the no contest plea, and by stipulating to there being sufficient facts and circumstances upon which to find her guilty. However, counsel rendered ineffective assistance by raising the nature of the income in a pretrial motion, counseling defendant to plead no contest, and failing to contest the willfulness of her nonpayment at trial. Judgment reversed, and case remanded for further proceedings.

Trial court did not err in admitting Bank's Records Custodian's affidavit. Judgment affirmed.

Appellant's writ of mandamus will not issue to compel the BMV to perform an act already completed.

Trial court did not err in reviving a cognovit judgment against appellant pursuant to Civ.R. 4(F). Judgment affirmed.

R.C. 2921.04(A) recorded phone conversations from jail intimidation of victim, witness affirmed

Municipal court did not abuse its discretion in ordering sanctions where it allowed ample time to comply with order to compel and appellant failed to respond within that time.

Trial court did not err in denying railroad's motion for directed verdict, in which the railroad argued that plaintiff's Federal Employers' Liability Act claim was precluded by the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), where the subject matter of plaintiff's claim was not "covered" by the FRSA and the preclusion analysis recently set forth by the United States Supreme Court makes it clear that the claim is not precluded.

In child endangering case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting reports and testimony of state's medical experts. Appellants failed to show particularized need requiring the state to pay for expert assistance. Motion for acquittal was properly denied because state presented evidence going to each element of the offense. Prosecutor's remarks during closing as to witnesses' credibility did not affect outcome. Imposition of maximum sentences did not constitute error.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in (1) sentencing appellant to a maximum sentence (2) notifying appellant of his obligation to register as an arson offender or (3) ordering appellant to reimburse fire department. Case is remanded, however, for limited purpose of notifying appellant of all allowable costs.

The probate court did not err by denying appellant's motion to revoke the admission to probate of her late mother's will and to rescind the appointment of appellant's brother as the administrator of her mother's estate as the probate court properly exercised its jurisdiction in finding the decedent was domiciled within its jurisdiction at the time of her death. A probate court's jurisdiction to probate a will is not something that is conferred on the probate court that is able to release a decision on a then pending matter the quickest.

Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the rental company on plaintiff's negligence claim on the basis of a hold harmless clause signed by the plaintiff, where the hold harmless clause unambiguously releases the rental company from liability for any injury caused by the equipment and/or resulting from the company's negligence. Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the rental company on the issue of punitive damages where there was no evidence the rental company acted with actual malice when it rented the bounce house to plaintiff.

The trial court did not err by imposing consecutive prison terms where the trial court made the requisite statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and the sentence was supported by the record.

Appellant's convictions for involuntary manslaughter and corrupting another with drugs were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant provided a controlled substance to the victim, the victim injected the substance, and the victim died after overdosing on the substance. Trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance when it elected not to file a motion to suppress appellant's statements to law enforcement, as the record demonstrated appellant's statements were voluntarily made and occurred after appellant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights.

Appellant's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where appellant's identity as the shooter was supported by the state's evidence, and no other errors occurred at his trial that require reversal of the convictions.

CONTRACTS - nursing home lawsuit against attorney-in-fact for nonpayment of services by decedent contract interpretation issue of law de novo breach of obligations by son as attorney-in-fact written agreements state that son was not his father's surety or guarantor nursing home did not plead or pursue exceptions under R.C. 1337.092(B) and its choice precludes application of same on appeal.

CRIMINAL LAW - Maintenance code violations 6th Amendment Right to counsel no implied waiver Crim.R. 44(C) defendant's vexatious litigator status and self representation are insufficient to constitute valid waiver of counsel absent an on-the-record advisement or dialogue regarding right to counsel and dangers inherent in proceeding pro se imposed jail time vacated.

CRIMINAL - R.C. 2929.12 seriousness and recidivism factors failure to object in the trial court plain error genuine remorse R.C. 2929.12(E).

APPELLATE REVIEW - App.R. 5(A) delayed appeal no valid reason for almost 18-month delay in filing appeal.

CIVIL - Motion for summary judgment open and obvious doctrine social guest issue of fact remains adequate lighting reasonable person in injured person's position ordinary care conflicting evidence step-in-the-dark rule inapplicable.

APPELLATE REVIEW - App.R. 5(A) delayed appeal reason for delay not compelling for filing an untimely appeal.

APPELLATE REVIEW - final appealable order Civ.R. 60(B) R.C. 2505.02(B) Civ.R. 54(B) pending motions.

JUVENILE - Trial court did not err in awarding permanent custody of both children to the Meigs County Job and Family Services.

Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in, 1) overruling appellant's motion in limine because the testimony was relevant, intrinsic evidence related to the motive for the altercation and, as such, the evidence was not "other acts" evidence, and thus its admission is not subject to Evid.R. 404(B), and 2) in allowing a police officer's testimony of out-of-court statements where they were offered to explain a police officer's conduct, rather than to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein, because such statements are not hearsay.

Award of sanctions for attorney's frivolous conduct affirmed because attorney that represented client on a contingency fee agreement that he was not a party to was not entitled to recovery as a matter of law under either grounds asserted in complaint, filing of complaint was frivolous conduct.

The judgment the parties appealed was not a final, appealable order because it resolved less than all the claims but did not contain Civ.R. 54(B) language. As the underlying judgment was not a final, appealable order, appellants could not appeal the judgment denying their motion for a new trial.

The trial court did not err in denying Rhodes' motion to compel production of the grand jury transcripts.

In a consolidated administrative appeal of an employer's liability and contribution rate determination under Ohio unemployment compensation laws, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting an attorney for the Ohio Department of Job & Family Services ("ODJFS") to offer testimony describing exhibits which were supported by affidavits of ODJFS officials. The trial court did not commit reversible error in indicating that the employer failed to dispute factual findings where the trial court ultimately addressed that issue. Judgment affirmed.

Civ.R. 6(A) operates to bar an action filed outside of the statute of limitations, even in the face of alleged excusable neglect a court does not count the date of filing of a voluntary dismissal when computing timeliness under the one year savings statute one year from the date of dismissal is the same day in the next calendar year.

The magistrate properly determined that this matter should be sua sponte dismissed because relator failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C). Thus, the magistrate's decision is adopted, and this action is sua sponte dismissed.

OPERS ordered to give credit for time served as an assistant law director for city of Aurora.

Sentence reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Trial court judge clearly rejected the jury's findings.

Sexual imposition R.C. 2907.06 sufficiency sexual contact R.C. 2907.01 recklessness R.C. 2901.22 Crim.R. 29 manifest weight sentencing community control sanctions journal entry clerical error. Appellant's sexual imposition convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court's sentencing journal entry does not accurately reflect the penalty for violating community control sanctions. Thus, we remand the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of issuing a nunc pro tunc journal entry that accurately reflects the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing.

R.C. 2945.37 Crim.R. 33 new trial due to error of law competency to stand trial competency hearing not required when, discovery unavoidably prevented. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a new trial due to a mental health diagnosis filed four years after appellant began treatment with medication for psychosis, and finding that appellant failed to demonstrate entitlement by clear and convincing evidence. Appellant was examined for competency three times during his murder trial, twice within six months of his murder conviction while another action was pending in the same court, and found to be competent in all cases. Defense counsel stipulated to competence during the murder trial, thus a hearing was not required.

R.C. 2925.03/driver's license suspension void sentence. The trial court did not include suspension of appellant's driver's license as part of appellant's sentence, and that portion of appellant's sentence is void.

Crim.R. 11 nunc pro tunc felony degree ineffective assistance sentence R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) sentencing factors 2929.11 2929.12 discretion statutory range consecutive findings clear and convincing. Appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld. A nunc pro tunc entry could be used to accurately reflect the degree of a felony offense to which appellant pled guilty and upon which he was sentenced. The trial court complied with Crim.R. 11, and the record reflected that appellant's guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. Appellant failed to demonstrate his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competency evaluation. The trial court had full discretion to impose a sentence within the statutory range. With regard to consecutive sentences, the trial court engaged in the correct analysis: it made the appropriate findings, its findings were supported by the record, and the sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law.

Civ.R. 65.1 domestic violence civil protection order appeal finality. Motion for findings of fact filed after the court had issued a domestic violence civil protection order is inconsistent with Civ.R. 65.1 and does not extend the running of the time for appeal.

Summary judgment Civ.R. 56 workers' compensation R.C. 4123.01 arising out of employment causal connection idiopathic injury. In order to survive defendants-appellees' motion for summary judgment, plaintiff-appellant had the burden of producing evidence demonstrating that a condition, risk, or hazard of her employment caused or contributed to her injuries. The record reflects that appellant failed to meet her burden. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted appellees' motion for summary judgment.

Nunc pro tunc res judicata. Appellant was not denied dues process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry after the appellate court significantly altered the judgment of conviction because the trial court properly prepared a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect this court's decision. Additionally, we find that there was no need to resentence appellant because the term of imprisonment for aggravated burglary ran concurrent with the other terms of imprisonment. Appellant is not entitled to a new trial under the due process protections afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment because appellant's claims are barred by res judicata.

Conceded error court costs Crim.R. 36/nunc pro tunc R.C. 2967.28(C)/postrelease control. The trial court's journal entry did not reflect that, at appellant's sentencing hearing, the trial court waived court costs. Appellant's sentence regarding postrelease control was void where the trial court improperly sentenced appellant to a five-year term of postrelease control.

Community control violation hearing jurisdiction termination R.C. 2951.07 R.C. 2929.25. The trial court no longer had jurisdiction to impose a jail term for violations of community control after the term of community control expired.

On certification of default.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled appellant's post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea after a hearing. Appellant failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that the withdrawal was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. Judgment affirmed.

Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for statement of evidence, pursuant to App.R. 9(C), which related to another appellate case, and in denying his petition for post-conviction relief, which was successive and untimely. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err in overruling Appellant's motion for re-sentencing, since the sentencing court complied with the mandate of R.C. 2967.28 by including a requirement that Dominguez be subject to post-release control imposed by the parole board for a period of three years after his release from imprisonment. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it adopted the decision of the magistrate granting appellee's complaint for forcible entry and detainer thereby evicting appellant from his rental property for failure to pay rent. Judgment affirmed.

Appellant's claim that his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because the trial court failed to inform him at the plea hearing that the court could proceed with judgment and sentence upon accepting his guilty plea lacks merit. The record indicates that the trial court substantially complied with this non-constitutional advisement given that said advisement was contained in the plea form, which Appellant indicated he read and understood before signing. Appellant's claim that his plea was invalid because the trial court failed to advise him of the consequences for violating the conditions of ILC also lacks merit, as Crim.R. 11 requires no such advisement. Affirmed.

Trial court did not err in denying the motion of defendant's ex-wife for the return of property seized by law enforcement pursuant to a search warrant. The trial court properly held a hearing, pursuant to R.C. 2981.03(A)(4), to determine whether the property was unlawfully seized and whether ex-wife was entitled to its return. Trial court reasonably concluded that the property was lawfully seized pursuant to the warrant and was evidence to be used by the State in defendant's prosecution. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in affirming an order to demolish Appellant's property. Consistent with limitations on appellate review, we do not find that the trial court's decision was unsupported by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence. In addition, the trial court did not err in overlooking the testimony of Appellant's witness concerning attempts she made to contact an official about the property. These attempts, if they occurred, were irrelevant, as Appellant failed to comply with options provided in the demolition notice, which, among other things, offered Appellant the ability to file for a permit to abate any nuisances. Moreover, even if the witness's testimony were relevant, the trial court did not err in deferring to the agency's resolution of evidentiary conflicts, as the agency was the trier of fact. Affirmed.

Trial court did not violate defendant's due process rights or abuse its discretion in revoking defendant's community control. Defendant agreed that he was not admitted to residential treatment center, as required as a condition of his community control, and he was given the opportunity to contest the basis for the rejection prior to the trial court's decision on whether his community control should be revoked. Judgment affirmed.

Trial court erred in granting appellees' motion for a new trial in a medical negligence case on the basis of an error of law in permitting the admission of medical records where the records were admissible and, even if improperly admitted, were not prejudicial.

Anders brief. Imposition of prison sentence rather than community control for fifth-degree felony not contrary to law. Trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 in accepting appellant's plea. Trial court did not err in ordering appellant to pay the costs of confinement and assigned counsel fees.

Trial court denial of appellant's post-sentence motion to withdraw plea did not constitute a manifest injustice. Judgment affirmed.

Probate court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's objections to magistrate's decision and adopting magistrate's decision as its own. Because the appellant did not provide a transcript in support of his objections to the magistrate's decision, the court of appeals was precluded from considering the transcript on appeal. Based on the limited record before the court of appeals, the probate court did not abuse its discretion by adopting the magistrate's decision and overruling appellant's objections to certain evidence introduced at the hearing and conclusions reached by the magistrate.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in not issuing a warrant based on appellant's accusation by affidavit, filed pursuant to R.C. 2935.09 and R.C. 2935.10, and referring the matter to a prosecutor for investigation. Judgment affirmed.

petition, post-conviction relief, motion for resentencing, notice of appeal, untimely, untimely notice of appeal, jurisdiction, App.R. 4(A)(1), App.R. 4(A)(3), Megan's Law, sexual predator, sexual offender classification, former R.C. 2950.09.

Trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to dismiss on statutory speedy-trial grounds as appellant was not entitled to application of the "triple-count provision" set forth in R.C. 2945.71(E). Appellant was not held in jail in lieu of bail solely on the charges pending in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas.

The trial court erred by granting appellee's motion to suppress where the record contained ample evidence to support, at a minimum, reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal behavior was imminent or had occurred to allow the officer to effectuate a lawful investigative traffic stop on appellee's vehicle when appellee was observed missing a left hand turn and driving through a field to a nearby driveway almost immediately after he had been seen stopped with his right hand turn signal on straddling the white line on the opposite side of the street.

Trial court did not err by not merging defendant's convictions for breaking and entering and safecracking where offenses were of dissimilar import and committed separately. Further, trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting other acts evidence to prove identity and modus operandi.

CRIMINAL - motion for new trial motion to depose res judicata.

CRIMINAL - alleged breach of plea agreement no agreed upon sentence wavier of speedy trial claim guilty plea valid speedy trial waivers ineffective assistance of counsel claim lacks merit.

APPELLATE REVIEW - R.C. 2505.02(B) order striking a pleading is not a final appealable order.

On application for reinstatement.

Elections-Mandamus-Writ sought to compel city council to place a referendum on the ballot-Writ denied.

Trial court did not err when it denied appellant's motion to withdraw guilty plea.

Injuries to claimant's hand were not extensive enough to compel a writ for an award for loss of hand.

The trial court did not err in granting plaintiff summary judgment in its foreclosure action against defendant.

The trial court's judgment finding that appellant failed to carry his ultimate burden of demonstrating that the adverse employment action resulted from unlawful discrimination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Plaintiffs' status as guardians terminated at the death of their ward. Accordingly, the plainiffs lacked standing to file suit on behalf of their deceased ward.

Trial court's determination that petitioner failed to satisfy the mandates of R.C. 3113.31(A)(1)(a) for the issuance of a domestic violence protection order is against the manifest weight of the evidence where the trial court's factual findings, appellee's admissions, and the evidence in the record overwhelmingly support the conclusion that appellee attempted to cause or recklessly cause bodily injury to appellant during a domestic dispute. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for the trial court to determine the scope of the domestic violence protection order.

Mandamus action dismissed for inmate's failure to comply with requirements of R.C. 2969.25(C).

CRIMINAL - Trial court did not err in dismissing petition for post-conviction relief without a hearing.

CRIMINAL - Trial court did not err in convicting Appellant of OVI as no error occurred as to the BAC datamaster test, no plain error occurred or ineffective assistance of counsel.

domestic violence, Crim.R. 44, misdemeanor, waiver of right to counsel

Attorneys-Misconduct-Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including failing to provide competent representation and failing to deposit advance legal fees into a client trust account-Two-year suspension, with six months stayed on conditions.

Attorneys at law-Resignation with disciplinary action pending-Gov.Bar R. VI(7)(C).

Attorneys at law-Resignation with disciplinary action pending-Gov.Bar R. VI(7)(C).

contracts purchase of oil and gas rights time is of the essence tender of performance condition precedent

Fourth Amendment U.S. v. Bailey, 133 S.Ct. 1031, 185 L.Ed.2d 19 (2013) applies to the detention of an individual pursuant to a search warrant search warrant authorized search of car good faith exception does not apply when a search was conducted pursuant to a valid warrant.

Civ.R. 23/class-action certification. The trial court, after a rigorous analysis, properly found that plaintiffs met the requirements under Civ.R. 23 for class-action certification.

Breach of contract contract interpretation summary judgment Civ.R. 56 prejudgment interest R.C. 1343.03 R.C. 2743.18. The interpretation of the parties' contract, which was not clear and unambiguous, was an issue of fact to be decided by the jury. Because a valid and enforceable contract existed between the parties, the trial court properly denied appellant's motion for summary judgment. The trial court abused its discretion by denying appellee's motion for prejudgment interest, as appellee was entitled to prejudgment interest as a matter of law.

repeat violent offender specification, mandatory, discretionary, findings Defendant's sentence was not contrary to law. The record supports that the trial court made the requisite findings to impose a discretionary sentence on the repeat violent offender specification.

remand, resentencing, R.C. 2929.11, R.C. 2929.12, recidivism, seriousness, vindictiveness, bias. Trial court complied with this court's remand-mandate to consider the factors contained in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. The record does not support that the trial court was vindictive or biased toward defendant when it reimposed the original sentence on remand after considering the requisite sentencing factors.

R.C. 2919.23(A)(1) interference with custody. Conviction for interference with custody vacated for lack of sufficient evidence when the evidence showed that the parties often deviated from the parenting schedule and there was no evidence to show that the parties discussed when the child would be returned.

Note mortgage statute of limitations R.C. 1303.16 summary judgment plain error failure to object to magistrate's decision ejectment foreclosure specialty differing statute of limitations for note and mortgage standing conditions precedent. The trial court committed plain error in finding that appellants submitted no admissible evidence regarding previous foreclosure filings that would indicate an acceleration previously occurred that would mean the statute of limitations on the note barred recovery. The court did not commit plain error in granting summary judgment for foreclosure of the mortgage because that instrument is governed by a different statute of limitations as it is no longer a merely incidental to the note, but has its own remedies available. Appellants have not demonstrated plain error regarding standing or that all conditions precedent were not met.

Prof.Cond.R. 3.7(a)(3)/disqualification of attorney jury instruction App.R. 9(B)/submission of transcript. It was not error for the trial court to order that appellant's counsel be disqualified where counsel was to be deposed and testify at trial. Appellant failed to provide a complete transcript on appeal and this court presumes regularity in the trial court's proceedings and issuance of its order.

Sentencing resentencing drug trafficking drug possession major drug offender specification postrelease control contrary to law void judgment res judicata. Appellant's argument that the trial court erred by imposing a ten-year prison sentence for his major drug offender specification at resentencing is barred by res judicata because the claim has been rejected by this court in a prior appeal.

Civil: sovereign-immunity R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) motion for judgment on the pleadings Civ.R. 12(C) law of the case doctrine.

R.C. 2941.25 - WAIVER - PLAIN ERROR - SENTENCING: The defendant failed to demonstrate that the trial court committed plain error by failing to merge his convictions for robbery and kidnapping as allied offenses of similar import, because he failed to show based on the record a reasonable probability that he had been convicted of allied offenses of similar import committed with the same conduct and the same animus.

AUTOS/CRIMINAL - PLEAS - TRAF.R. 10: DEFENDANT'S PLEA OF NO-CONTEST TO A MARKED-LANES VIOLATION MUST BE VACATED WHERE THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH TRAF.R. 10(D) BY ACCEPTING DEFENDANT'S PLEA WITHOUT FIRST INFORMING DEFENDANT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA PURSUANT TO TRAF.R. 10(B).

Attorneys-Misconduct-Felony convictions-Committing an illegal act that adversely reflects on honesty-Engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice-Indefinite suspension.

Habeas corpus-Habeas corpus lies only to challenge sentencing court's jurisdiction-Sentencing errors are not jurisdictional-Court of appeals' dismissal of habeas petition premised on errors in sentencing entry affirmed.

Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

Bureau and Industrial Commission had continuing jurisdiction to correct a miscalculation in relator's AWW and FWW. Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion in upholding bureau's adjustment of relator's benefit rate.

Trial court decision denying preliminary injunction was not a final, appealable order. Denial of provisional remedy did not deprive appellants of the opportunity of a meaningful remedy by means of appeal after subsequent judgment.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying postsentence motion to withdraw plea where defendant signed a waiver of the opportunity to file such a motion, he waited two years to file the motion without explanation for the delay, and his speedy trial claim failed on the merits.

Judgment affirmed. The jury believed the victim's testimony, which was corroborated by other witnesses, and rejected appellant's claim of self defense. As such, appellant's convictions for felonious assault with firearm and drive-by specifications, improper handling of a firearm, and having a weapon under a disability were supported by sufficient evidence, and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. In addition, appellant cannot overcome the presumption that his counsel was effective, nor show that he was prejudiced in any manner by the actions or inactions of his counsel.

The trial court did not err in resentencing Dixon pursuant to the remand order issued by this court.

Given the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, the judge issuing the search warrant had reason to conclude that a fair probability existed that drugs would be located at Appellant's residence the trial court accordingly did not err in overruling Appellant's motion to suppress. Judgment affirmed.

Appellant's claim that her trial counsel was ineffective in failing to advise her about intervention in lieu of conviction ("ILC") before pleading guilty to receiving stolen property lacks merit. Appellant does not claim that she would have gone to trial as opposed to pleading guilty had counsel advised her of ILC. There is also nothing in the record indicating that counsel failed to advise Appellant about ILC, and even if counsel had failed to do so, such a failure does not amount to deficient performance under the circumstances of this case. Affirmed.

The trial court erred in sustaining the appellee's motion to suppress incriminating statements he made while being interviewed by detectives. Even assuming, arguendo, that the statements were made during a custodial interrogation, the appellee waived his Miranda rights and never unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent. Under the totality-of-the-circumstances test, the record also does not reflect that the appellee's will was overborne and his capacity for self-determination was critically impaired because of coercive police conduct. Judgment reversed and cause remanded. (Froelich, J., dissenting).

The trial court did not err by entering summary judgment for Appellee on Appellant's claim for workers' compensation benefits. Generally, the coming-and-going rule bars compensation of a fixed-situs employee for injuries which occur off the work premises. Neither the zone-of-employment exception or the totality-of-the-circumstances exception applies. Judgment affirmed.

We find no arguable merit to this appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Appellant knowingly and voluntarily entered a plea to aggravated robbery (deadly weapon) and was sentenced within the statutory range to four years in prison. There are no non-frivolous issues supporting a potential assignment of error of arguable merit. Judgment affirmed.

Defendant's convictions for rape and gross sexual imposition involving a child under the age of 13 were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that certain testimony was not hearsay because it either was not a statement or was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, or in finding that defendant's departure from Ohio around the time the victim's disclosures were made was relevant. Judgment affirmed.

Anders appeal. Trial court did not err in sentencing defendant to prison, despite the State's recommendation of community control as part of the plea agreement defendant's ongoing substance abuse and criminal history led the court to conclude that he was not amenable to community control. Judgment affirmed.

burglary - grand theft - theft - firearm specification - firearm - allied offenses - consecutive sentences - restitution - post-release control

Child endangering - sufficiency - weight

Guilty plea/Motion to withdraw plea/IAC/Failure to inform of immigration consequences/No transcript

Passing bad checks/Presumption of knowledge/Other bad acts evidence/Manifest weight

Whether employee waived claim for wages/Damages

Maximum Sentence - Felony - Clear and Convincing Evidence to Support

Foreclosure Lost Note Statute of Limitations

The trial court did not err calculating Appellant's jail-time credit.

Trial court properly found father abandoned his child. Father did not rebut the presumption of abandonment of the child.

Anders brief. Appellant caused substantial risk to persons or property while failing to obey signal of an officer and the record amply supported the verdict and conviction. Appellant's trial counsel was not ineffective.

Appellant's conditional threat was not of imminent physical harm in violation of R.C. 2919.25(C).

Anders brief. Appellant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered a guilty plea pursuant to N.C. v. Alford. The court complied with Crim.R. 11 and gave colloquy to ensure appellant was aware of his rights and the consequences of his plea. The 54-month sentence imposed was within the permissible range and amply supported by the record.

Relator not entitled to writs of mandamus or procedendo where the sentencing order properly disposed of charge. Order need not have made specific reference to gun specification attached to charge for it to be final and appealable.

HABEAS CORPUS - Elements for writ Parole revocation hearing alleged due process violation writ will only lie when unreasonable delay in holding hearing writ will not lie when petitioner only entitled to new hearing.

FORECLOSURE - Summary judgment sufficiency of clerk affidavit lack of full description of properties factual dispute as to amount of payments made sufficiency of landowner's affidavit Civ.R. 41(B)(4)(b) dismissal for failure to join necessary party non-prejudicial.

CIVIL - motion for summary judgment Trust document extent of Trustee's authority to manage and distribute Trust property settlor's intent oil and gas rights fee simple Trust language is not ambiguous the farm property shall be distributed to appellee no express reservation regarding oil and gas rights.

CIVIL - pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus aggregate jail credit prison term does not expire until 2020. RES JUDICATA.

APPELLATE REVIEW - trial court judgment can only be reviewed on appeal if it constitutes a final order pursuant to R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B) multiple claims or parties remain pending interlocutory order no mandatory language that there is no just reason for delay lack of a final and appealable order.

CRIMINAL - Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol (OVI) R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) motion to vacate guilty plea Crim.R. 11(B)(1) retroactive application of new federal or state right implied consent

CIVIL - shareholder derivative action breach of fiduciary duty motion to dismiss failure to state a claim Civ.R. 12(B)(6) standing "continuous ownership rule" demand requirement futility Civ.R. 23.1

CRIMINAL LAW - R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) aggravated robbery R.C. 2941.145 firearm specification R.C. 2929.12 seriousness and recidivism factors R.C. 2941.25 merger R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g).

CRIMINAL LAW - Identity theft R.C. 2913.49(B) circumstantial evidence, sufficiency of evidence submission of credit card application subsequent possession of card forgery R.C. 2913.31(A)(3) use of fraudulently-obtained credit card to make purchases purpose to defraud bank.

Defendant convicted of felonious assault of his wife. Wife did not testify at trial and asserted Fifth Amendment right. However, wife identified defendant as her attacker to multiple witnesses and had injuries consistent with a violent attack. Defendant's conviction was thus supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. Wife's out-of-court statements were admissible as nonhearsay or excited utterances. Trial court failed to conduct proper colloquy to determine if wife's assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege was proper, but error did not rise to level of plain error. Court properly gave jury who announced they were deadlocked an instruction designed to encourage additional deliberations. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims lacked merit where counsel did not object to admissible evidence and counsel did not object for strategic purposes.

Although the trial court's decision to grant appellee's motion for judicial release after he served more than two years of a four-year prison term for felonious assault was supported by clear and convincing evidence, the trial court erred by failing to "list all the factors" related to its decision as required by R.C. 2929.20(J)(2).

The trial court properly sentenced appellant to 30 years in prison where the sentence was not contrary to law and all findings made by the trial court were supported by the record.

The state failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain a burglary conviction under R.C. 2911.12(A)(2) where the state failed to prove the "likely to be present" element of the offense. Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of trial counsel during voir dire. Trial counsel was not ineffective in the manner he cross-examined one of the state's witnesses.

Trial court erred in ordering defendant to pay restitution to the victim where trial court ordered restitution in its sentencing entry but failed to inform the defendant in open court during the sentencing hearing.

dogfighting - R.C. 959.16(A)(5) - identity - in-court identification - sufficiency - manifest weight

dogfighting - R.C. 959.16(A)(5) - knowingly present - hostile - adverse - cross-examine - prosecutorial misconduct - co-defendant statement - Crim.R. 16

Motion for new trial post conviction relief

Speedy trial written waiver knowingly and intelligently misdemeanor ineffective assistance of counsel merger allied offenses separately. Defendant's right to the effective assistance of counsel was not violated because even if trial counsel had filed a motion for discharge based on an alleged speedy trial violation, the motion would have been denied.The trial court did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution when declined to merge to convictions because the convictions were committed separately.

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted R.C. 4735.21 R.C. 4735.01 real estate broker's license oil and gas lease real estate fee simple determinable landmen Civ.R. 53(D)(3) objection to magistrate's decision statute of frauds motion to amend complaint

summary judgment foreclosure promissory note mortgage Civ.R. 56(C) Evid.R 803(6) conditions precedent notice of default and acceleration Civ.R. 9(C)

motion to dismiss untimely appeal Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate appellants attempted to use Civ.R. 60(B) as a substitute for a timely appeal subsequent change in controlling case law in unrelated proceeding does not constitute grounds for obtaining relief from final judgment under Civ.R. 60(B)

Post-conviction motion: Challenged judgment was not a final appealable order, and Court lacked jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal.

acquittal by jury on claims tried to jury did not invalidate trial court's finding of guilt for having a while under disability, which was tried to the bench sufficiency of evidence on control of firearm manifest weight of the evidence consideration of sentencing factors maximum sentences remand for nunc pro tunc entry due to failure to reiterate consecutive sentence findings in sentencing entry and clerical error on months in sentence.

State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318, 2012-Ohio-1908, 972 N.E.2d 509 When sentenced R.C. 2925.03 required mandatory driver's license suspension for trafficking conviction Resentencing ordered Pursuant to R.C. 1.58 new amendments to R.C. 2925.03 apply upon resentencing Resentencing limited to driver's license suspension issue.

defendant claimed attempted murder conviction under division (A) of R.C. 2903.02 is void under the Ohio Supreme Court's Nolan case however, Nolan only held "attempted felony murder" under division (B) of R.C. 2903.02 was a non-cognizable charge.

Motion to suppress. Trial court's granting defendant's motion to suppress odorless hard candy containing THC affirmed when police officer was looking for raw marijuana because of the strong odor of raw marijuana in defendant's vehicle.

Attorney fees award Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act R.C 1345.09(F)(2) abuse of discretion denial of fees trial court did not state reasons for denying attorney fees. The judgment of the trial court denying attorney fees is reversed and the matter is remanded with instructions for the trial court to determine an amount of attorney fees. It was unreasonable for the trial court to not award plaintiff her attorney fees. The trial court determined that defendant intentionally committed acts that violated the CSPA, as well as committed fraud, and awarded Connors economic damages, noneconomic damages, and treble damages. Given that there is nothing in the record to contradict an award of attorney fees, we find the denial of attorney fees was unreasonable.

Motion for summary judgment Civ.R. 56(B) battery medical malpractice. Judgment reversed. The trial court erred in striking plaintiff's brief in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment where plaintiff advised the trial court of difficulties it experienced in e-filing and also personally served its brief in opposition on the court. Genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to plaintiff's medical malpractice claims.

Workers' compensation coming-and-going rule totality of the circumstances. Trial court erred in awarding employer summary judgment by application of the coming-and-going rule where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether accident arose out of and in the course of employee's employment.

Untimely petition for postconviction relief postrelease control notifications. The trial court did not have jurisdiction to address defendant's untimely petition for postconviction relief except for defendant's argument that the trial court did not properly advise him of postrelease control. If a defendant's sentence is void due to postrelease control, a defendant can raise the issue at any time. Here, however, the trial court properly advised defendant of postrelease control and of the consequences for violating it.

Mandamus, postrelease control, sentencing hearing, nunc pro tunc correction. The relator's request for a writ of mandamus, based upon the failure of the trial court to include postrelease control in the sentencing journal entry, is moot. When notification of postrelease control was properly given at the sentencing hearing, the essential purpose of notice has been fulfilled and there is no need for a new sentencing hearing. The original sentencing journal entry can be corrected to reflect what actually occurred at the sentencing hearing, through a nunc pro tunc entry. Herein, the relator was informed of postrelease control at the sentencing hearing and the original sentencing journal entry, through a nunc pro tunc entry, was corrected to indicate the imposition of postrelease control.

Mandamus appellate counsel private right alleged against a private person discretion and uncertainty. Mandamus will not lie to compel a private right against a private person, such as a client demanding that his appellate attorney include certain arguments in the brief or send copies of the file. Mandamus will not issue in uncertain cases it was not certain what the relator was seeking in his third claim.

Because the BWC's interpretation of R.C. 4123.62(C) is reasonable and consistent with legislative intent, we conclude that the BWC did not violate the requirements of that statute by rounding the statewide average weekly wage upward to the nearest whole dollar for the years at issue. Thus, the trial court properly denied appellants' motion for summary judgment and granted the BWC's motion for summary judgment. Judgment affirmed.

Trial court did not err when it imposed consecutive sentences because it made the findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing, even though it failed to incorporate its finding into the sentencing entry. The trial court erred when its sentencing entry failed to credit appellant with any jail time after having found at the sentencing hearing that appellant had earned 336 days of jail-time credit. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for trial court to issue a corrected judgment entry crediting appellant with 336 days of jail time served.

The trial court did not err in determining Ibanez to be a vexatious litigator and imposing restrictions on future filings pursuant to R.C. 2323.52.

Where a property owner's claim for flood-related insurance coverage is denied and the owner sues his insurance agent alleging negligent procurement and negligent misrepresentation, summary judgment in favor of the insurance agent is appropriate where record evidence showed the insurance agent had no duty to recommend water backup coverage for the property. Judgment affirmed.

Involving a dispute between a former teacher and school officials, the trial court did not err in grating summary judgment in defendants' favor where statements made during the course of an investigation and hearing were not defamatory and the defendants'

Civ.R. 56(C) affidavits must be notarized anti-concurrent causation excluded coverage despite a backup sewer and drain endorsement policy provision covering testing for mold was not triggered expert testimony properly admitted into evidence.

Consecutive prison sentence not contrary to law. Record supports trial court's findings.

Counsel was not ineffective and the trial court did not err in accepting appellant's no contests pleas to aggravated robbery and burglary where the defendant was prosecuted as a principal offender. Further, appellant's consecutive sentences were not contrary to law and appellant was not prejudiced by the court's failure to inform his of his rights under Crim.R. 32(B)(3)(a)-(d).

Appellant did not rebut presumption of statutory immunity in lawsuit against chief of police where police chief investigated complaint, consulted with prosecutor, and attempted to discuss a resolution with appellant's attorney before filing criminal charges.

In Anders appeal, appellant's proposed assignments of error found not well-taken. Trial court committed no error in accepting appellant's plea, and it properly imposed aggregate sentence of 180 months. By entering guilty plea, appellant waived any potential challenge to venue. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.

Equal protection of the law requires applying confinement credit to mandatory prison terms for firearm specifications where an offender is otherwise at risk of losing credit due.

It was not error or contrary to law for the trial court to determine appellant had or will have the means to pay for court costs and mandatory fines. Not filing affidavit of indigency prior to sentencing did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel where there was no evidence in the record appellant was indigent.

Appellant's kidnapping, murder, and aggravated burglary convictions were not allied offenses. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to continue sentencing for purposes of allowing mitigation evidence from retained psychologist. The court properly instructed the jury on aggravated murder and murder, and conviction of aggravated murder was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

A no contest plea with a stipulated finding of guilt is not by itsefl sufficient to waive the explanation of circumstances requirement rather, the no contest plea must be accompanied by conduct that shows an intent to waive the explanation of circumstances requirement.

The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant's motion to withdraw his 2002 guilty plea under R.C. 2943.031(D) where the appellant failed to meet his burden in presenting facts warranting the request.

Appellant must have suffered prejudice as the result of a trial court's ruling in order to have standing to appeal that ruling.

The trial court did not err by granting defendant-appellee's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss because it is apparent from the face of plaintiff-appellant's complaint that her complaint is barred by the statute of limitations under R.C. 2305.113.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by remitting only $5,000 of a $150,000 surety bond.

Trial court did not err by accepting appellant's guilty plea where the record reflects that the court complied with all the requirements of Crim.R. 11 and appellant's plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.

Appellant's argument that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered was without merit where the court complied with the requirements of Traf.R. 10 and the record demonstrated the court's modification of appellant's bond was not done to coerce appellant into entering a plea, but rather done to ensure that appellant would not fail to appear at further court proceedings. Further, the court did not err in imposing a jail sentence on appellant where the record reflects the court considered the purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.21 and 2929.22 and sentenced appellant within the statutory limits for a first-degree misdemeanor in accordance with R.C. 2929.24(A).

Appellant's guilty plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily where the trial court completely failed to notify him during the plea colloquy that if he was sentenced to prison that he would be subject to an optional period of up to three years of postrelease control. A complete failure to comply with the rule does not implicate an analysis of prejudice.

The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant's motion to suppress. The police officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop of appellant's vehicle based upon a window tint violation. Additionally, after detecting the odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the interior of appellant's vehicle, the officer had sufficient probable cause to search the passenger compartment of the vehicle wherein contraband was discovered. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered appellant to pay a mandatory fine in the amount of $7,500.00. Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance when his counsel failed to file an affidavit of indigency prior to his sentencing hearing. Judgment affirmed.

Trial court did not err in failing to provide plaintiff a jury trial on defendant's counterclaims plaintiff did not demand a jury trial on the counterclaims, and he had no constitutional or statutory right to a jury trial on those claims, which arose in equity. Trial court did not err in adjudicating defendant's counterclaims plaintiff failed to raise a "same capacity" defense in response to defendant's counterclaims as originally pled, and any error in that regard was corrected in the amended counterclaim. Defendant, as a beneficiary of the trust, was a real party in interest for her claims, brought in her individual capacity, against her plaintiff-brother for conduct he engaged in as a co-trustee of the trust. Plaintiff's claim that the trial judge should have recused herself should have been raised in an affidavit of disqualification to the Ohio Supreme Court regardless, plaintiff agreed to the judge's participation and failed to allege the nature of any bias or prejudice by the judge or that plaintiff was prejudiced by any alleged bias. Successor judge did not abuse his discretion in denying plaintiff's renewed motion to amend his answer to defendant's amended counterclaims and denying plaintiff's motion to close the case. Trial court did not err in granting defendant-counterclaimant's motion for attorney fees and costs. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress statements he made to the police. Appellant received appropriate explanations of his Miranda warnings and his waiver of rights was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. Appellant's conviction was also supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Affirmed.

The trial court did not err in imposing a 33-month prison term and consecutive sentences for Appellant's felony community control violations, as we are unable to find by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) and R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), or that Appellant's sentence is otherwise contrary to law. Affirmed.

The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant's pretrial motion to dismiss on statutory speedy-trial grounds. Speedy-trial time properly was tolled between June 25, 2015 (when the appellant moved for a continuance of his scheduled trial) and August 17, 2015 (when trial subsequently was held on the first available date). The appellant's convictions are based on legally sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The State presented circumstantial evidence supporting a reasonable inference that the appellant was one of two perpetrators of a burglary involving theft of firearms. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted State's Exhibit 11, an autopsy photograph of the victim, because it helped the jury to understand the coroner's testimony regarding the fatal stabbing, and the photograph was relevant and probative of the manner of death. The trial court did not err when it permitted the State to exercise its peremptory challenge with respect to Juror Number 1 based on the juror's occupation as an engineer and lack of coverage for teaching his college class. The State's explanation was sufficiently race-neutral to excuse the juror pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Appellant's conviction for murder was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.

Trial court did not err in concluding that prospective ward was incompetent and in appointing a guardian of her person. The evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that prospective ward was "so mentally impaired, as a result of a mental or physical illness or disability," that she was "incapable of taking proper care" of herself. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to peremptorily challenge two African-American jurors, nor is permitting peremptory challenges to African-American jurors unconstitutional. In addition, the trial court did not err in admitting an allegedly gruesome photograph of the decedent. Finally, the judgment of conviction was based on sufficient evidence, and the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Affirmed.

Domestiv violence, admission of alleged hearsay evidence manifest weight

Illegal Drug Manufacturing

Motion to Dismiss - length of community control sanctions - R.C. 2951.07 R.C. 2951.041

Habeas Corpus/Indictment

CIVIL LITIGATION - Civ.R. 26(C) attorney-client privilege protective order limiting discovery from attorney defendants erroneous upon trial court's reliance on attorneys' affidavits in rendering summary judgment in their favor Civ.R. 56 tortious interference with or destruction of evidence Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., 67 Ohio St.3d 28, 615 N.E.2d 1037 (1993) "TIDE" claims cannot be based on negligence destruction of physical evidence not required "destruction" includes acts that nullify or render evidence useless such as concealing or misrepresenting evidence discovery disputes could support a tortious interference with evidence claim if one intentionally conceals or misrepresents evidence.

CRIMINAL LAW - burglary grand theft theft of drugs guilty jury trial 36 months in prison hearsay Evid.R. 801, 802, 804 sufficiency Crim.R. 29 manifest weight of the evidence.

CRIMINAL - motion to suppress search and seizure investigatory stop reasonable and articulable suspicion probable cause manifest weight of the evidence.

CRIMINAL LAW - PLEAS, MOTIONS & OTHER HEARINGS - murder Crim.R. 32.1 a postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea may only be granted to avoid manifest injustice.

CRIMINAL - Possession of Drugs R.C. 2925.11 motion to suppress Fourth Amendment warrantless search stop and frisk/patdown reasonableness totality of the circumstances

R.C. 2913.11(B) passing bad checks waiver of the right to counsel must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent Crim.R. 44 Crim.R. 22 a trial court must have a dialogue with a defendant to establish the defendant understands the inherent difficulties of proceeding without counsel any potential violation of the right to counsel is eradicated if an uncounseled misdemeanant's jail sentence is vacated or suspended sufficiency of the evidence.

CIVIL - summary judgment defamation slander statement of fact or opinion totality of the circumstances reasonable listener specific language context verifiable.

Ohio's Dormant Mineral Act, ODMA, R.C. 5301.56 Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5796 (Sept. 15, 2016) applicability of 1989 vresion of ODMA vresus 2006 version, R.C. 5301.56 summary judgment must give trial court first opportunity to address issues raised in summary judgment proceedings construction of complaints quiet title versus declaratory judgment actions R.C. 2721.12 (A) R.C. 5303.01

Motion to suppress Fourth Amendment warrantless searches exigent circumstances emergency-aid exception to warrant requirement resonableness

Obstructing official business R.C. 2921.31(B) manifest weight

It was within the fact-finding discretion of the Industrial Commission to reject relator-employer's affidavits and suggested inference, and to determine, on the facts of the case, that the perpetration of a fraud in receiving TTD compensation did not necessarily mean that the initial injury did not occur. Thus, the Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying relator's request to exercise continuing jurisdiction to hold a hearing to determine if the industrial claim was fraudulently obtained. Objection overruled. Writ of mandamus denied.

The Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying PTD compensation to relator-claimant. The report of the physician on which the Commission relied was not internally inconsistent. The physician determined hat there were some light duty jobs which the relator-claimant could perform and therefore there was some some evidence supporting the Commission's conclusion that he could do light work. Objection overruled. Writ of mandamus denied.

The Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion when it denied relator-claimant's application for TTD compensation based on a finding that he had voluntarily abandoned his employment. Submitted on Magistrate's Decision. Writ of mandamus denied.

Trial court's granting of a motion to suppress was not error. The trial court judge could reasonably find a lack of probable cause to arrest based on the video of defendant's encounter with a sergeant of the Ohio State Highway Patrol.

An order denying a motion to admit polygraph evidence, standing alone, is not a final appealable order because effective review can be had following final determination of an action during which it was denied. Notices of appeals must be filed (not merely mailed) within 30 days from when final orders are entered in the trial court record to be considered timely.

post-conviction relief, R.C. 2953.21, R.C. 2953.23, res judicata

Summary judgment Civ.R. 56 Buy-Sell Agreement Mediation fiduciary duty

Untimely motion to suppress a trial court has the right to enforce the rules regarding untimely motions.

Comments made by the prosecutor that are relevant to the sentencing statutes are not improper sentence not contrary to the law sentencing entry contains clerical error.

Motion for reconsideration App.R. 26(A) a party's mere disagreement with the logic of an Opinion is not proper grounds for a motion for reconsideration.

Declaratory judgment manifest weight contract insurance competent, credible evidence

Motion for new trial Crim.R. 33

Unauthorized practice of law. Municipal court had jurisdiction over third-party complaint for fraud as there was no claim or finding made regarding the unauthorized practice of law.

Anders resentencing scope of appeal wholly frivolous - In appeal from resentencing after case was remanded for the trial court to consider whether consecutive sentences are appropriate under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and, if so, to make the findings required by the statute, no issue of arguable merit was found following consideration of the potential arguments identified by appointed counsel, the arguments raised in defendant's pro se brief and an independent review of the record of defendant's resentencing. Appeal from a resentencing following a remand from a successful appeal is limited to those issues that arise from the resentencing. There was no arguably meritorious claim that trial court failed to make the findings required for the imposition of consecutive sentences or that the record clearly and convincingly did not support the trial court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Other issues raised by defendant in pro se brief did not arise from the resentencing and were, therefore, outside the scope of the appeal.

R.C. 2929.11 R.C. 2929.12 R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) contrary to law statutory factors consecutive sentences findings. Trial court did not err when it sentenced appellant to a prison term after considering R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Trial court did not err when it sentenced appellant to consecutive prison terms after making requisite statutory findings on the record pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Crim.R. 11 Alford plea acceptance and retention of guilty pleas Crim.R. 32.1 postsentence motion to withdraw guilty plea appellate jurisdiction - Trial court did not err in retaining defendant's guilty pleas based on defendant's assertions, after the trial court accepted his guilty pleas, that he was "not a robber" and was only collecting a debt and that no firearm was involved in the incident. Defendant did not enter an Alford plea. Defendant's post-plea comments did not constitute "protestations of innocence" and were not contemporaneously made with the entry of his guilty pleas. Furthermore, the record demonstrated a factual basis existed for defendant's guilty pleas. Court lacked appellate jurisdiction to consider whether trial court erred in denying defendant's Crim.R. 32.1 postsentence motion to withdraw guilty pleas where defendant did not appeal from that order. Remanded for resentencing on breaking and entering and having weapons while under disability counts upon which sentences were imposed in the sentencing journal entry that were not orally imposed at the sentencing hearing and for the entry of a nunc pro tunc order to correct the amount of restitution ordered in the sentencing journal entry to that imposed at the sentencing hearing.

Speedy trial Evid.R. 404(B) Evid.R. 403 other acts evidence Confrontation Clause sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence merger allied offenses consecutive sentences. The convictions for aggravated burglary, two counts of robbery against separate victims, disrupting public service, grand theft, domestic violence, and endangering a child are not against the weight of the evidence. There was no error with the introduction of defendant's recorded conversation seeking to intimidate the victim at trial under Evid.R. 404(B) the evidence was introduced for a legitimate purpose other than to show defendant's propensity to commit the crimes. The trial court did not need to consider the terms of a rejected plea offer in considering the proportionality for the purposes of consecutive sentences.

Consecutive sentences R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) R.C. 2953.08 R.C. 2929.11 R.C. 2929.12 contrary to law. The trial court did not err by imposing consecutive sentences and appellant's sentence is not contrary to law.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Motion to Suppress Sufficiency of Evidence Manifest Weight of Evidence Involuntary Manslaughter Corrupting Another With Drugs. Trial counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress where defendant's warrantless arrest was made with probable cause, the subsequent search of the defendant's mother's house was with permission, and the search of the defendant at the jail was a constitutionally permitted custodial search defendant's convictions for involuntary manslaughter and corrupting another with drugs were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Cross-claim Final, Appealable Order Civ.R. 54(B). Where the trial court ruled on the complaint for declaratory judgment but did not resolve the cross-claim for attorney fees and costs, and did not include the language of Civ.R. 54(B) that there was no just cause for delay, the judgment was not a final, appealable order, and appellate court had no jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate's decision, this court adopts the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law. In accordance with the magistrate's decision, we deny relator's requested writ of mandamus.

The magistrate did not err in determining that relator failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the Ohio Adult Parole Authority had considered inaccurate evidence at his last parole hearing and denied him parole based on that inaccurate evidence. Objections overruled writ denied.

The trial court granted defendant's motions to supress. We reversed finding the police officers had probable cause.

Real estate agent who did not reveal a problem to a buyer which the seller wanted buyer to know before the closing was appropriately sanctioned by the Ohio Real Estate Commission.

Trial court did not err in overruling Defendant's motion to suppress statements he made to the police under circumstances presented, Defendant was not in custody at the time his statements were made. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's request for new counsel the day before his scheduled trial, where his concerns about counsel's representation did not demonstrate that counsel was not providing effective assistance. Judgment affirmed.

Record reveals no arguably meritorious issues for appellate review. [Anders brief]. Judgment affirmed.

Anders appeal. No non-frivolous issues for review. Trial court did not advise defendant at the plea hearing that, if it revoked his existing post-release control and imposed a prison sentence for the violation, the sentence for the violation would be run consecutively to the sentence imposed for the new offense. However, that error was necessarily harmless where the court did not impose a sentence for the post-release control violation. In addition, even though the trial court arguably failed to make the necessary findings when disapproving shock incarceration or intensive program prison, that failure was necessarily harmless where defendant was statutorily ineligible for either program. No arguably meritorious claim of ineffective assistance of counsel exists. Judgment affirmed.

Trial court's judgment entry ordered that defendant serve his sentence consecutively to a sentence already imposed by another county in another case, and it included the statutory findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). In the absence of a transcript, we presume the regularity of the sentencing hearing, including that the trial court orally made the necessary statutory findings at sentencing. With the record before us, the imposition of consecutive sentences was not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record or contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.

After conducting an independent review of the record as required by Anders, we find no issues with arguable merit to present on appeal. Appellant's claim that she entered an uninformed guilty plea to her OVI offense as a result of having two different public defenders represent her in this case lacks arguable merit as Appellant had the same public defender throughout the plea process and did not receive a new public defender until the sentencing phase of the proceedings. In addition, the record establishes that the trial court complied with the requirements for accepting pleas to first-degree misdemeanor "petty offenses" under Crim.R. 11(E). Affirmed.

Adverse possession real property judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) Civ.R. 50(B) manifest weight closing arguments plain error standard in civil cases

Adverse possession, quiet title, summary judgment, Civ.R. 56, self-serving affidavits presented by the summary judgment movant

Murder ineffective assistance of counsel effect of intoxication upon Miranda waiver closing statements preosecutorial misconduct Evid.R. 701 cumulative error no prejudice

Ohio RICO R.C .2923.31 R.C. 2923.32 monetary threshold retroactive plurality opinion involuntary plea Crim.R. 32.1 Crim.R. 11 substantial compliance manifest injustice

Motion to suppress - plain view

Manifest weight/sufficiency, felony, fleeing and eluding

The record shows the trial court considered applicable sentencing statutes prior to sentencing appellant. Felony sentence not contrary to law.

Res judicata bars consideration in a subsequent appeal of issues that could have and should have been raised in a prior appeal.

Trial court complied with applicable sentencing statutes. Prison sentence not contrary to law.

Evidence was sufficient to support the "active participation" element of defendant's conviction for participating in a criminal gang when defendant (1) hung out with known members of the gang, (2) flashed gang signs in a photograph, (3) had two small gang-related tattoos, (4) celebrated with a gang-themed birthday cake, (4) regularly sold heroin, and (5) fired the weapon in a fatal drive-by shooting.

Criminal law-Cocaine-possession offenses-R.C. 2925.11(C)(4)(b) through (f)-State need not prove that weight of cocaine without filler meets the statutory threshold-Motion for reconsideration granted-Judgment reversed.

Trial court's consideration of an uncharged crime when imposing a maximum prison sentence is not contrary to law where the court also considers appellant's lengthy criminal history and the seriousness of appellant's conduct in committing the crime for which he is being charged.

Trial court's finding that appellant breached a contract to install a chimney is not against the manifest weight of the evidence where appellant admitted that it did not install the chimney because it deemed the installation unsafe, but where appellee had been awarded a building permit for the installation based on the permit drawings.

Appellant's argument that offenses from 2013 should have merged is barred by res judicata where he did not appeal his 2013 conviction for those offenses.

In Anders appeal of domestic violence conviction under R.C. 2919.25(A) and (D)(4), trial court judgment is affirmed where counsel was not ineffective, evidence was not insufficient to support conviction, conviction was not against manifest weight of evidence, and sentence was not contrary to law. Defense counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.

community control violation, notice, due process, reasons, plain error

The trial court did not err in failing or refusing to reconsider its denial of defendant's first untimely postconviction relief petition. The trial court properly denied defendant's successive postconviction relief petition pursuant to R.C. 2953.23.

Appellant's conviction was proper where he was properly charged and the court heard testimony that appellant was belligerent and threatened to kill the victim.

Failure to confine a dog under R.C. 955.22(C) is a strict liability offense.

The defendant-appellant's conviction under R.C. 4511.20 is based on sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

APPELLATE REVIEW - App.R. 5(A) delayed appeal no notice of appeal filed no judgment entry on appeal provided.

Mandamus-Renewal tax levy for multicounty joint vocational school district did not appear on ballots of district electors who did not reside in most populous county in the district-Writ sought to compel state tax commissioner to apply reduction factors and calculate tax rates under R.C. 319.301(D) for levy that passed after appearing on ballots only in most populous county in the district-Certification of election results by boards of elections-Tax commissioner does not have clear legal duty to apply reduction factors and calculate tax rates when there is no documentation that tax was "authorized to be levied" under R.C. 319.301(D)-Writ denied.

mandamus petition R.C. 2935.10 final order Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss R.C. 2731.05

Oil and gas law Dormant Mineral Act, R.C. 5301.56 summary judgment giving trial court first opportunity to decide issues Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5796 (Sept. 15, 2016)

Motion to suppress consent merger ineffective assistance of counsel

Writ - Habeas Corpus - Judicial Sanction

Nunc Pro Tunc - Negotiated Plea Res Judicata

Right to Jury Trial - Meeting of Minds - Term "Mutually Agreeable"

Motion to Suppress - Impound

"At the time of the transfer" as used in R.C. 4141.24(G)(1) is not narrowly construed to mean merely the legal instant of the end of a process of transfer determined by a contractual effective date, but rather the period of the transfer including acts necessary thereto.

Trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to file a motion to dismiss indictment on the grounds of pre-indictment delay.

The magistrate did not err in determining that the record contains some evidence supporting the Industrial Commission's denial of relator's application for a total loss of use award for his left upper extremity. Objections overruled writ denied.

Municipal court retained subject-matter jurisdiction to convict and sentence appellant under former Columbus General Code 590.02(a)(3) and 599(a), and appellant did not demonstrate plain error where appellant's prosecution was pending at the time the charged ordinances were repealed and city counsel did not express an intent contrary to the city's general savings statute to enable the repeal to affect such pending prosecutions. Appellant's conviction was further supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.

Trial court properly denied motion to vacate sentence and to withdraw plea trial court's sentencing entry was not interlocutory, as it included a sentence for each of defendant's convictions other arguments were barred by res judicata.

When sentencing a defendant a trial court may not substitute its own findings of findings about the evidence when the findings of the jury reflect that a defendant convicted of a lesser included offense has proved the facts necessary for such a jury finding by a preponderance of the evidence.

The trial court did not err when it granted permanent custody of two daughters to FCCS.

Ohio Environmental Review Commission erred when it granted appellee's motion to compel production of three e-mails that the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency sought to withhold from discovery due to a claim of attorney-client privilege. De novo review of the three e-mails reveals that an EPA employee involved in the investigation of appellee's verified complaint sent the e-mails in confidence to EPA's in-house legal counsel seeking legal advice or assistance with regard to the EPA's review of appellee's verified complaint. Accordingly, all three e-mails are privileged attorney-client communications. We, therefore, reverse the commission's judgment with regard to e-mails A, B, and C, but we remand this matter for the commission to hold a hearing to determine whether EPA waived the attorney-client privilege with regard to e-mail A by inadvertently producing it in discovery. Judgment reversed and cause remanded with instructions.

Relator's failure to provide a certified statement of account requires sua sponte dismissal under R.C. 2969.25(C).

Third-party Negligence objection Civ.R. 53 motor vehicle accident R.C. 2307.23(A). The court concluded that the tractor-trailer operator's conduct was an independent, separate act of negligence which directly caused Zavinski's accident and the magistrate appropriately considered this when apportioning the percentage of tortious conduct attributable to ODOT. Second, the magistrate properly apportioned equal blame on both ODOT and the driver because they were concurrent causes of Zavinski's death. The court adopted the magistrate's decision and recommendation as its own, including conclusions of law contained therein. Judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff.

Summary judgment Civ.R. 56 inmate independent contractor. The court found no issue of material fact surrounding the relationship between Correction Corporation of America and defendant, and the relationship was one of an independent contractor rather than an agency relationship. As Lake Erie Correctional Institution is owned, operated, and maintained by CCA, ODRC is not liable for the alleged negligent acts of CCA's staff. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.

Civil immunity R.C. 2743.02(F) R.C. 9.86 state employee. The magistrate determined that Dr. Janice M. Duke, M.D. was a state employee and engaged in her duties under her Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine contract as a state employee when she rendered medical care to two plaintiffs from December 4, 2004 to June 30, 2005. The magistrate recommended that Dr. Duke was entitled to immunity pursuant to R.C. 9.86 and 2743.02(F), and the courts of common pleas do not have jurisdiction over any civil actions that may be filed against her based upon the allegations in this case.

Wrongful death medical malpractice trial. The magistrate concluded that the diagnosis, care and treatment rendered by defendant's medical professionals leading up to plaintiff's decedent's cardiac arrest complied with the standard of care. The magistrate found defendant's expert testimony more persuasive and supported by medical evidence than plaintiff's expert testimony. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant.

Summary judgment Civ.R. 56 negligence sexual assault. The court found that there was no support for a special relationship between the university and plaintiff to create a duty to protect plaintiff, and even if there was a type of special relationship with plaintiff necessary to create a duty to protect, since her attacker's criminal acts were not foreseeable the university could not have violated that duty. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.

Inmate excessive force assault battery negligence. The magistrate concluded that plaintiff failed to obey an order from a corrections officer, appeared to be in the process of actively destroying property tying him to a violation of prison rules, and plaintiff pushed the corrections officer, thus the corrections officer was justified and privileged to use force as may have reasonably appeared to be necessary. The degree of force used was not excessive and satisfied the duty of reasonable care. Judgement recommended in favor of defendant.

Summary judgment Civ.R. 56 wrongful termination gender R.C. 4112.99. The court determined that plaintiff provided no direct evidence of discrimination, and did not plead in her complaint or otherwise provide evidence that she was replaced by a non-protected individual. Finally, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a similarly-situated person was treated differently than she was. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.

Public Records Act R.C. 2743.75 R.C. 149.43(B) motion to dismiss Civ.R. 12(B)(6). First, the special master determined that requesters stated allegations, if proven, may entitle them to relief under R.C. 2743.75 for denial of access to public records. Second, the special master concluded that notes created by an investigator were public records pursuant to R.C. 149.43(A), and the Township's failure to provide the notes in response to requesters' public records requests was a violation of R.C. 149.43(B). The special master recommended that defendant's motion to dismiss be denied, and requesters' claim be granted with respect to the investigator's notes.

manifest weight of the evidence - felonious assault - knowingly - physical harm - deadly weapon - knife

Anders v. California, Anders brief, frivolous, withdraw, sufficient evidence, manifest weight of the evidence, aggravated possession of drugs, R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(1), illegal use or possession of drug paraphernalia, R.C. 2925.14(C)(1)

Habeas corpus and mandamus-Appellant failed to show that he is entitled to immediate release or that he has clear legal right to new parole-revocation hearing-Court of appeals' grant of summary judgment in favor of warden and Adult Parole Authority affirmed.

Untimely motion to suppress

On notice of violation.

Civ. R. 60(B) granted re: child support order

APPELLATE REVIEW - CIV.R. 54(B): In an action against multiple defendants, where the trial court's judgment failed to dispose of the claims against all defendants and failed to include the requisite Civ.R. 54(B) certification that there was no just reason for delay, the judgment appealed from is not a final and appealable order, and the court of appeals is without jurisdiction to review it.

Magistrate's Decision adopted. The magistrate appropriately found that relator had not demonstrated the Industrial Commission abused its discretion in finding respondent's, an injured Cleveland Browns football player's, claim to be a lost time claim subject to a ten-year statute of limitations and timely filed. Writ of mandamus denied.

Trial court properly granted summary judgment for defendant bank that as trustee oversaw decline of grantor's business. Beneficiaries executed valid releases that barred their claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

Mandamus denied SERB did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed unfair labor practice charges as untimely.

Judgment affirmed. Appellant never identified his objection to the trial court's settlement agreement or release of claims and how it favors the appellees, or how he is prejudiced. As such, the trial court did not err in fashioning a settlement entry and release of claims in order to reach a fair and just result. Nor did the trial court err as a matter of law in granting in part, and denying in part, appellant's motion to enforce settlement agreement.

Denial of motion for new trial not error where defendant does not present newly-discovered evidence in support of motion and also does not demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering other evidence.

Because trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the trial court's decision granting summary judgment was void. Therefore, the matter must be reversed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to dismiss

In a case where there was evidence for and against a jury's conclusion that the plaintiff's health problems were not proximately caused by the car collisions at issue in the case, the trial court did not err in failing to sua sponte grant a directed verdict or grant a motion for a new trial. The trial court did not err in admitting the lay opinion testimony of a witness who was involved in one of the collisions about his perceptions of whether the plaintiff's vehicle suffered damage in the accident.

Appellant's conviction for obstructing official business and resisting arrest are supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.

Pursuant to our responsibilities under Anders we have conducted an independent review of appellant's guilty plea and sentencing. We find no arguably meritorious assignments of error. The trial court did not err when it denied appellant's post-sentence motion to withdraw his plea. Appellant failed to establish that a manifest injustice occurred or that his appointed trial counsel was ineffective. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ) on a retaliation claim was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and that the ALJ had not improperly excluded evidence at the hearing. Judgment affirmed.

Anders appeal. Proposed claims that the trial court erred in imposing a maximum three-year sentence and that counsel rendered ineffective assistance related to defendant's plea are frivolous. No non-frivolous issues exist. Judgment affirmed.

Common Pleas Court did not err in denying application to vacate arbitration award. The arbitrator did not exceed his authority, and the award does not violate public policy. Judgment Affirmed.

Appellant's ten-year prison sentence following his conviction for involuntary manslaughter was not contrary to law. R.C. 2929.11 R.C. 2929.12, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).

Civil stalking protection order will be vacated where petitioner failed to demonstrate that respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct that caused her to believe that he would cause her physical or mental harm.

Conviction for burglary and attempted burglary is not based on insufficient evidence or against the manifest weight of the evidence where the co-burglar identified appellant as the other burglar, and DNA evidence from the crime scene matched appellant's DNA.

Trial court erred in convicting and sentencing appellant based upon a fatally flawed indictment. Judgment reversed.

On certification of default.

On certified order of the Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Taxation-Real-property valuation-Related parties-A certified appraisal can be used to show that the purchase price in a sale between related parties reflected fair market value.

Traffic stop suppression

community control final appealable order special proceedings substantial right R.C. 2505.02

Taxation-Real-property valuation-Board of Tax Appeals did not abuse its discretion in adopting one appraisal as more persuasive than competing appraisal-Board of Tax Appeals did not act unreasonably or unlawfully in assigning credibility and weight to appraisal offered by county employee when there was no evidence of actual bias-Board of Tax Appeals' authority to correct its own errors under Ohio Adm.Code 5717-1-20 ceases when notice of appeal is filed under R.C. 5717.04-Decision affirmed in part and modified in part to correct clerical error.

breaking and entering - manifest weight - stealth - abandoned property - reasonable belief

sexual predator, Megan's Law, R.C. 2950.09, res judicata, Adam Walsh Act

domestic violence - sufficiency - weight - Evid.R. 404(A)(2) - victim's character evidence

The trial court properly granted the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion of the Ohio School Facilities Commission dismissing New Riegel School District's Writ of Mandamus and complaint for declaratory judgment.

Trial court did not err by denying a motion for a new trial where the alleged inconsistencies in their testimony did not constitute misconduct.

Trial court did not err by permitting testimony regarding defendant's statements before and after two polygraph exams so long as there was no mention of the exams or the results therefrom.

Children perished in fire of unknown cause after defendant mother left them home alone overnight. State charged mother with child endangering and involuntary manslaughter. No abuse of discretion in admission of Facebook conversation where mother admitted leaving her children on an earlier occasion. The evidence was marginally relevant to mother's reckless mind state. Mother did not demonstrate that state violated her rights by allowing the crime scene to be destroyed before her expert viewed it. Fire scene was only potentially useful and mother failed to demonstrate bad faith. Court was not required to make any specific findings concerning mother's culpable mental state in a bench trial. No error or prejudice in trial court's post-trial review of presentation slides used in the state's closing argument. Manifest weight of the evidence supported conclusion that mother's act of leaving children home alone was a proximate cause of their deaths in the fire. Court erred in failing to merge child endangering counts with involuntary manslaughter counts.

Trial court erred in denying in part appellant's motion for summary judgment where appellee did not meet the requirements for automobile insurance coverage.

emergency/peremptory writ of mandamus R.C. 313.12(A) notification to the coroner in the case of a death by violence, casualty, suicide, or suspicious or unusual manner R.C. 313.131(B) coroners discretion regarding autopsy

Attorneys-Misconduct-Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including failing to hold client's property in an interest-bearing client trust account and failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation-Conditionally stayed one-year suspension.

Attorneys-Misconduct-Knowingly making a false statement to a tribunal-Public reprimand.

CRIMINAL LAW - SPEEDY TRIAL - right to speedy trial is not self-executing, but must be timely asserted to avoid such right being waived speedy trial issues do not eliminate criminal court's subject matter jurisdiction and do not result in void proceedings res judicata bars further litigation of any claim, including a claim alleging speedy trial error that was or could have been raised on direct appeal and was not res judicata also precludes defendant from raising ineffective-assistance claim that was or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal, but was not.

CIVIL - default judgment foreclosure decree confirmation of sale substitution of parties distribution of proceeds never reduced to judgment existence and extent of mortgage liens must be challenged in the foreclosure action Civ.R. 60(B) improper modification of final appealable order remedy mootness involuntary satisfaction restitution.

CIVIL - Civ.R. 54(B) untimely Civ.R. 60(B) motion void judgment collateral attack a lack of standing cannot be used to collaterally attack a judgment res judicata.

ARBITRATION - collective bargaining agreement unilateral change in job description beyond scope of job description appeal to trial court trial court found arbitrator exceeded his authority and vacated award R.C. 2711.10 de novo review of trial court's decision, not abuse of discretion trial court is limited to determining whether there is a rational nexus between the CBA and the award trial court erred in imposing its interpretation of the CBA in place of the arbitrator's.

APPELLATE REVIEW - App.R. 4(A) thirty-day rule untimely appeal duplicate appeal.

EXTRAORDINARY WRITS - habeas corpus failure to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2725.04 subjects a petition for habeas corpus to dismissal failure to file a R.C. 2969.25 affidavit subjects a petition for habeas corpus to dismissal.

CRIMINAL LAW - PLEAS, MOTIONS & OTHER HEARINGS - where appellant fails to provide appellate court with transcript of guilty plea hearing, we must presume regularity of that proceeding sentencing error is properly raised in trial court at sentencing or via motion to vacate sentence, not in motion to withdraw guilty plea. CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCING/FINES, RESTITUTION, EXPUNGEMENT - where it is unclear from sentencing entries which sentence was to be served first, sentence was ambiguous and must be construed in defendant's favor sentencing entry is not reversible if it does not specifically explain the order of service of consecutive sentences trial court's statement that postrelease control is mandatory in this case up to a maximum of five years does not conform to statutory requirement where appellant failed to provide transcript of sentencing hearing, we presume regularity of sentencing hearing and the mistake in the entry is subject to correction by nunc pro tunc entry.

REAL PROPERTY - where appellant's proposed commercial use of driveway easement would increase its intended and historic residential use and would thus improperly increase burden and materially enlarge owner's right over the easement unrestricted access easement does not allow unlimited use, only reasonable use where parties could not have intended use of easement of necessity for commercial uses because such use was never made of the driveway and would have been prohibited by zoning, parties did not intend driveway to be used for commercial purposes and thus the easement did not authorize such use R.C. 5302.01 does not prohibit use of plat to convey interest in common driveway to owners of lots in a subdivision where plat states each lot owner shall have interest in driveway and plat was signed by all lot owners, new lot owner owned interest in driveway while appellant had ownership interest in driveway, it is still subject to deed restrictions forbidding trade from being carried on on any lot in subdivision appellant's contemplated use of easement for ingress and egress to and from a commercial parcel constitutes trade and violates restrictive covenant prohibiting use of driveway for such purpose.

APPELLATE REVIEW - Motion to reconsider from final order is nullity lack of a final appealable order.

Taxation-Real-property valuation-Board of Tax Appeals must engage in sufficient discussion of the evidence to permit court on appeal to determine whether BTA acted reasonably and lawfully-BTA erred by adopting property owner's appraisal valuations without explicitly addressing negative appraisal review offered by board of education's appraiser-BTA erred by adopting appraisal valuation in the absence of a hearing record certified by the board of revision, without exercising its statutory power to recover the missing hearing record or otherwise adduce pertinent evidence-Cause remanded to BTA.

CRIMINAL - Because trial court did not properly dispose of count one in the indictment, a final appealable order does not exist and we lack jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed.

Passing Bad Checks Other Acts Rebuttable Presumption

Motion for Jail Time Credit Properly Denied

presume regularity, App.R. 9, presentence investigation report, aggravated robbery

Crim.R. 32.1, pro se, motion to withdraw guilty plea, aggravated possession of drugs, possession of cocaine, direct appeal, petition for post-conviction relief, State v. Gonzalez, ineffective assistance of counsel, res judicata, waiver.

petition for post-conviction relief, R.C. 2953.21, R.C. 2953.23

rebuttal evidence, failure to object, manifest weight, endangering children

allocution - Crim.R. 32(A) - personally address - invited error

vandalism, physical harm, R.C. 2909.05, R.C. 2901.01, lesser-included offense instruction, plain error

subject-matter jurisdiction, PUCO, R.C. 4901.01. Ohio Adm. Code 4901:1-10-27(E)(1)

sentence, R.C. 2953.08, clear and convincing evidence, R.C. 2907.02(A)(2).

JURISDICTION - R.C. 2945.05 - JURY WAIVER: The trial court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a bench trial on a felony charge where defendant did not execute a jury waiver pursuant to R.C. 2945.05.

NO-CONTEST PLEA - PROCEDURE/RULES: The trial court abused its discretion in rejecting defendant's proffered no-contest plea based solely on the court's blanket policy of refusing to accept no-contest pleas.

On application for reinstatement.

On application for reinstatement.

Applicability of 1989 ODMA versus 2006 ODMA preservation of severed mineral interest under 2006 ODMA Dodd v. Croskey, 143 Ohio St. 3d 293, 2015-Ohio-2362, 37 N.E.3d 147 "Holder" of mineral interest under ODMA succession of mineral interest jurisdiction of probate court Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5796 (Sept. 15, 2016) R.C. 5301.56(H)(1)(a)`

Oil and gas law Dormant Mineral Act, R.C. 5301.56 Civ. R. 12(C) giving trial court first opportunity to decide issues Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. , Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5796 (Sept. 15, 2016)

Resentencing for consecutive sentence findings merger res judicata plain error CrimR. 43 (A)

R.C. 3929.06, statutory subrogation R.C. 3929.27, solicitor agent of company, cargo insurance, statutory and common law agency, implied, apparent and express authority, estoppel, breach of insurance contract. The trial court's grant of appellees' insurer's motion for summary judgment denying coverage of appellant's cargo insurance claim is reversed and remanded. There are genuine issues of material fact as to the interpretation of the notice provision of the insurance contract, the agency relationship between the parties, and the sufficiency of notice thereto, and the appellant's entitlement as a judgment credit under statutory subrogation provision R.C. 3929.06, to recover a judgment against the appellees' insurer where the insured failed to satisfy a judgment obtained by appellant.

Class action certification predominance standing abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed. Trial court did not abuse its discretion when granting plaintiff's motion for class action certification. Plaintiff had standing to bring class action. Plaintiff demonstrated that the common liability issues predominate over individual claims of class members and satisfied the predominance requirement for class certification. Plaintiff also satisfied the remaining requirements for class action certification. The trial court conducted a thoughtful and detailed, 19-page analysis into whether the prerequisites for class certification under Civ.R. 23 and found that the requirements were satisfied.

Shaker Heights Codified Ordinances 1135.09 failure to display license plates sovereign citizen sovereign nation R.C. 1901.02 R.C.1901.20(A)(1) jurisdiction - Defendant's claim that he was a citizen of United Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah Mu'ur nation and not a United States or Ohio citizen did not preclude his conviction for failure to display license plates in violation of Shaker Heights Codified Ordinances 1135.09. Defendant was subject to the laws of Shaker Heights when traveling through the city, and the municipal court had both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over defendant for committing an act within the city that violated that ordinance.

Felonious assault rape manifest weight joinder test simple and direct evidence. Appellant committed a series of similar crimes of violence against women he was in a relationship with, all seemingly motivated by jealousy. His convictions of felonious assault, rape, and several other offense in four separate cases, which were tried at a joint trial, are not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Because the evidence in these four cases are "simple and direct," the state met the "joinder test," and therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defense counsel's motion for severance.

Consecutive sentences, jointly recommended sentence, R.C. 2953.08(D). Appellant's challenge to his consecutive sentences was barred by R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) because his jointly recommended sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement included nonmandatory consecutive sentences.

Motion to withdraw guilty plea consecutive sentences hybrid representation. Court did not err by not granting pro se motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Record supports findings for consecutive sentences.

Ineffective assistance of counsel guilty plea waiver statute of limitations preindictment delay. Defendant's guilty plea constituted a waiver of the right to complain on appeal that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek dismissal of an indictment on grounds of statute of limitations and preindictment delay.

Pro se litigant motion to dismiss failure to state a claim fraud particularity summary judgment time barred statute of limitations R.C. 2305.19(A) savings statute. Trial court's decision to grant motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss of the defendants was affirmed. Appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and failed to plead fraud with particularity against one of the defendants. The personal injury claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and, to the extent the savings statute, R.C. 2305.19(A), could be applied, appellant failed to refile her complaint within the required one-year time period. Pro se litigants are presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures, and are held to the same standard as litigants who are represented by counsel.

Receiving stolen property is a lesser-included offense of robbery State v. Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205, 533 N.E.2d 294 (1988) State v. Smith, 117 Ohio St.3d 447, 2008-Ohio-1260, 884 N.E.2d 595 the state cannot comment on a defendant's pre-arrest silence however, such comments are subject to a harmless error review the state is not prevented from commenting upon the failure of the defense to offer evidence in support of its case a trial court must make the requisite R.C. 2929.14(C) factors at the sentencing hearing and within the sentencing hearing before imposing consecutive sentences.

Probation violation sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2929.25 consecutive sentences are proper in misdemeanor cases when the trial court includes consecutive sentencing language and the aggregate total of the sentences does not exceed eighteen months.

No merit brief plea hearing felony sentencing no appealable issues.

No merit brief judicial release felony sentencing no appealable issues.

A trial court lacks jurisdiction to address any issues that are not part of a limited sentencing remand a trial court cannot satisfy the merger doctrine by sentencing concurrently on merged counts.

Magistrate's Decision adopted. The magistrate properly stated the pertinent facts and applied the appropriate law to find that relator had not demonstrated the Industrial Commission had abused its discretion in denying her application for permanent total disability benefits. Writ of mandamus denied.

On reconsideration, we determined that appellant did not violate Ohio Adm.Code 3769-18-03(A), but still found a violation of Ohio Adm.Code 3769-18-02(A).

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in making its evidentiary rulings, the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence support Murray's convictions, and Murray did not receive the ineffective assistance of counsel.

ODOT lacked statutory authority to deny outdoor advertising permits based on a mere allegation by the Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission that the property was encumbered by an enforceable deed restriction.

NONSUPPORT OF DEPENDENTS - COUNSEL - PROCEDURE/RULES - CONTINUANCE - COMMUNITY CONTROL: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request for a continuance where defendant had already been granted four continuances, the state had had its witnesses present at the previous trial setting, the trial court had informed defendant that if defendant did not retain private counsel as he claimed trial would proceed at the next setting with appointed counsel, and defendant's claims of hiring a private attorney appeared to be false. Trial counsel was not ineffective where there was no indication in the record that counsel failed to produce key evidence at trial, counsel's decision not to cross-examine a hostile witness could be fairly characterized as trial strategy, and there was no reasonable probability that counsel's failure to object to certain testimony affected the outcome of the trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendant to pay his accumulated child-support arrearage as a condition of community control, because the condition was reasonably related to defendant's rehabilitation as it required him to support his daughter, was related to the crime of nonsupport, and ensured the good behavior of supporting his child.

Anders appeal. Potential assignments of error are wholly frivolous, and there are no non-frivolous issues for review. Affirmed.

Pursuant to Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(b)(iv), Appellant waived his ability to assign error on appeal, other than plain error, from the trial court's decision adopting the magistrate's decision finding him guilty of failing to yield at a stop sign and causing an accident. As Appellant did not file any objections to the magistrate's decision and his appellate brief raises no claims, let alone a claim of plain error, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Appellant's 60-month sentence for gross sexual imposition is affirmed there is no basis to conclude that the record does not support the court's findings, or that the sentence imposed is contrary to law. Judgment affirmed. (Hall, P.J., concurring).

The trial court erred on remand in purporting to overrule a new-trial motion without making the motion part of the record in compliance with this court's prior order. Judgment vacated insofar as the trial court ruled on a non-existent motion and cause remanded with instructions to add the motion to the record and for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

The common pleas court is without subject matter jurisdiction to decide plaintiff's service complaint that the Dayton Power & Light Company overcharged him for electric service. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err in denying the appellant's post-conviction application for DNA testing under R.C. 2953.71, et seq. where he failed to establish that an "exclusion result" would be "outcome determinative." Judgment affirmed.

CRIMINAL - Trial court did not err in overruling Appellant's motion to withdraw his prior pleas to burglary and resisting arrest.

The civil forfeiture of appellant's vehicle found to be an instrumentality of heroin trafficking was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. R.C. 2981.01 to 2981.14 conflict stay proportionality.

The trial court did not err in dismissing appellants' cause of action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Trial court properly granted summary judgment to appellees on appellants' premises liability claim premised on a slip-and-fall accident that took place on naturally-occurring ice.

The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for intervention in lieu of conviction.

Trial court did not err in appellant's felony sentence. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err by denying the defendant-appellant's motion to suppress evidence. Based on a totality of the circumstances, law enforcement had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to continue the traffic stop for purposes of conducting field-sobriety testing. Based on a totality of the circumstances, law enforcement had probable cause to arrest the defendant-appellant for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Trial court's permanent custody determination supported by clear and convincing evidence. Argument that statutory timelines were not followed in R.C. 2151.28 was waived and, in any event, lacked merit due to mother contributing to the delayed adjudication of her case.

CIVIL- summary judgment complaint seeking cancellation of oil-and-gas lease unitization ejusdem generis embracing only things of a similar character paragraph addressing unitization only envelops the unitized area lease expired as to other areas for failure of use no notice prior to filing lease's expiration negated any arguable duty to provide notice.

CIVIL - motion to quiet title real property potential cloud on title dower join party foreclosure action dower interest is dependent upon owner-spouse's interest in property first in time wife's dower cannot be extended beyond husband's seisin wife had no inchoate dower interest trial court did not err.

CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing consecutive original sentence nine months outburst on record judge increased terms within authority not final additional findings no misapplication of sentencing factors not contrary to law.

CRIMINAL LAW - felony sentencing nine-years imprisonment triple fines for engaging in a corrupt activity restitution sentence supported by record not contrary to law restitution supported by record fine authorized by statute.

CIV.R. 53 - where appeal involved factual challenges to magistrate's decision and appellants failed to file transcript of the hearing before magistrate, their arguments were waived there is no clear error of law or other defect on face of magistrate's decision.

JUVENILE - pursuant to State v. Aalim, Ohio's mandatory-transfer statutes violate juveniles' right to due process, while discretionary-transfer statues do not we thus reverse trial court's judgment and remand to juvenile court for amenability hearing since we hold mandatory-transfer statutes are unconstitutional on due -process grounds, appellant's equal protection argument is denied as moot.

CRIMINAL LAW - felonious assault attempted murder manifest weight of the evidence strangulation unconscious stabbings merger no error crimes of dissimilar import committed separately separate animus.

Trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress where the officer's action of pushing open the door to visually scan for firearms to ensure his and his fellow officer's safety was reasonable and the minimal intrusion was limited to the exigency that existed. Appellant's convictions for aggravated trafficking in methamphetamine, aggravated possession of methamphetamine, and possession of the drug Clonazepam were supported by sufficient evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court committed plain error when it failed to merge appellant's convictions for aggravated trafficking in methamphetamine and aggravated possession of methamphetamine as allied offenses as the offenses are similar in import, were committed with the same animus, and were not committed separately.

Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel where his guilty pleas were made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and where the trial court had proper subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

judgment finding abandonment under the 1989 Dormant Mineral Act is hereby reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings trial court did not rule on alternative arguments under the 2006 Dormant Mineral Act or the Marketable Title Act.

affirming denial of motion to intervene in tax foreclosure

bench trial on domestic violence appellant argues insufficient evidence if eliminate victim's statements for Confrontation Clause violation weight of the evidence conviction affirmed.

Trial courts are permitted to sua sponte enter directed verdicts Directed verdict support by the record.

Limited writ of mandamus granted. Upon remand, the commission shall determine whether relator was able to return to his former position of employment on the date it was determined he had voluntarily abandoned his former position of employment. Objections to the magistrate's decision overruled.

The trial court erred when it failed to make a clear award of damages.

The Court of Claims' decision was not a final appealable order.

plea agreement - Crim.R. 11 - Alford plea requires claim of innocence - no prejudice when agreed-upon sentence immediately imposed

underinsured motorist coverage, insurance, loss of services, wrongful death, ambiguous

tax appeal, valuation, appraisal, competent evidence, tax lien date

Issuance of civil stalking protection order Civ.R. 60(B)

Mandamus, public records, R.C. 149.43, exempt records, redacted records, show cause order, contempt. The Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, must be construed liberally in favor of broad public access, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of disclosure. The respondents were provided with an opportunity to address the claims of the relator that records were improperly redacted and that not all of the requested records were provided as agreed upon through mediation. The respondents have failed to provide any response to this court's show cause order that allowed them to demonstrate that the provided records were properly redacted and that all requested records were provided. Accordingly, we grant a writ of mandamus on behalf of the relator and order that the respondents provide the relator with unredacted copies of all requested records. The failure to provide the unredacted records may result in a finding of contempt on the part of the respondents.

Summary judgment lawyer-client contracts fraud theft conversion embezzlement. Appellee failed to provide evidence that appellant made a representation to appellee to establish that fraud was committed on appellee. Appellant failed to present any evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact to overcome appellee's motion for summary judgment on appellee's claims of theft, conversion and embezzlement. The trial court erred where it awarded damages to appellee without conducting a hearing where appellant could have been heard on the issue.

Summary judgment default judgment Consumer Sales Practices Act R.C. Chapter 1345 fraud negligence breach of fiduciary duty agency respondeat superior credit repair services financial institution service Civ.R. 4 failure to serve within one year statute of limitations waiver of defenses Civ.R. 12(B)(6) pleading Civ.R. 56(C) compliant evidence deposition testimony. The court incorrectly ruled that the statute of limitations precluded suit when that defense was waived when not presented in an answer or other pleading as directed by Civ.R. 8(C). However, a financial institution was still entitled to summary judgment where the evidence presented indicated that a third party was responsible for any loss suffered by the appellant. The trial court properly dismissed claims against the remaining parties where proper service was not accomplished within one year.

Aggravated robbery insurance fraud grand jury sufficiency of evidence. Although the ATF agent could not determine the cause of the fire that erupted at appellant's house as being accidental or incendiary, the state's evidence showed that, prior to the fire, appellant made incriminating statements to three individuals hinting at a plot of arson for insurance money. The state produced sufficient evidence, although circumstantial, to support appellant's convictions of aggravated arson.

Arbitration, Ohio Home Solicitation Sales Act. Trial court erred in enforcing an arbitration provision contained within a contract that was cancelled pursuant to the Ohio Home Solicitation Sales Act, R.C. 1345.23(C).

Nonsupport of dependents R.C. 2919.21 sufficiency manifest weight restitution child support R.C. 2929.18. Appellant's conviction for nonsupport of dependents is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err by ordering appellant to pay the total child support arrearage as a condition of community control.

Home Rule Amendment chartered municipality Ohio's Sunshine Laws Ohio's Open Meetings Act minutes of meetings R.C. 121.22 Cleveland Heights Codified Ordinances 107.04 Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. The trial court did not err when it dismissed appellant's complaint under R.C. 121.22 because Cleveland Heights is a chartered municipality. Under the Home Rule Amendment, municipalities have the power over matters of local, self-government. Whether a chartered municipality chooses to keep minutes of committee meetings is a matter of local self-government. Therefore, Cleveland Heights could enact an ordinance that stated recording minutes of committee meetings was discretionary.

Crim.R. 11, guilty plea waiver of counsel Crim.R. 44. The trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(E) because it advised the appellant of the effects of his no contest plea. The trial did not err in sentencing the appellant and his waiver of counsel was valid in accordance with Crim.R. 44(B) and (C).

Allied Offenses Merge Different Victims Aggravated Burglary Theft. Trial court did not err in not merging defendant's aggravated burglary and theft offenses as allied offenses because the offenses were committed separately and the victims of each offense were different.

Consecutive sentences R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) R.C. 2953.08 contrary to law. The trial court did not err by imposing consecutive sentences. The matter is remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of issuing a nunc pro tunc journal entry incorporating the court's consecutive sentence findings.

Traffic stop - consent to search

Miranda warnings - Question first advise later invalid

On certification of default.

APPELLATE REVIEW - JURISDICTION - POSTCONVICTION - POSTRELEASE CONTROL: Defendant's judgment of conviction was not correctable under Crim.R. 36 on the grounds that his sentence was not imposed in conformity with the statutes governing repeat violent offenders, indefinite sentences, jail-time credit, and postrelease control, because those claims alleged errors of law, not fact. Defendant's postconviction motion seeking relief on the grounds that his sentence was not imposed in conformity with the statutes governing repeat violent offenders, indefinite sentences, jail-time credit, and postrelease control was not reviewable by the common pleas court under R.C. 2953.21 et seq. as a postconviction petition, because it did not allege a constitutional violation under Crim.R. 33 as a motion for a new trial or under Crim.R. 32.1 as a motion to withdraw guilty pleas, because he was convicted following a jury trial and did not seek a new trial under R.C. Chapter 2731 as a petition for a writ of mandamus, under R.C. Chapter 2721 as a declaratory judgment action, or under R.C. Chapter 2725 as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, because the motion did not satisfy those statutes' procedural requirements or under Civ.R. 60(B), upon the authority of Crim.R. 57(B), because his conviction was reviewable under the procedures provided for a direct appeal. Defendant's judgment of conviction was not correctable under a court's jurisdiction to correct a void judgment on the grounds that his sentence was not imposed in conformity with the statutes governing repeat violent offenders, indefinite sentences, or jail-time credit but his sentence was subject to correction as void to the extent that it did not conform with the statutory mandates concerning postrelease control, because the mandatory five-year period imposed was not authorized for the special felony of murder.

COUNSEL - AGGRAVATED ROBBERY - R.C. 2941.25: Defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel where counsel's cross-examination of a state's witness may have elicited additional evidence of defendant's involvement in the offenses where the witness's testimony on cross-examination was duplicative of his testimony on direct examination. Defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery were not against the weight of the evidence and were supported by sufficient evidence where the evidence showed that defendant acted as a lookout while his codefendants entered a hotel, held a gun to the hotel clerk's head, and stole the clerk's personal cell phone and money from the hotel's cash register. By failing to seek the merger of his convictions for aggravated robbery in the trial court, defendant forfeited for appellate review all but plain error on his claim that the offenses were allied offenses of similar import. The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to merge defendant's two convictions for aggravated robbery where defendant and his codefendants robbed a hotel clerk of her personal cell phone and the hotel of cash from its register, because the offenses involved separate victims and were, therefore, offenses of dissimilar import within the meaning of R.C. 2941.25(B).

This court affirmed appellant's convictions of rape and importuning but remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to make the requisite findings under R.C. 2929.14(C) at the sentencing hearing.

The magistrate did not err in determining that the record contains some evidence supporting the Industrial Commission's decision to deny relator's application for permanent total disability compensation. Objection overruled writ denied.

Because appellants' motion for reconsideration of a final order of the Court of Claims was a nullity, the Court of Claims' entry denying reconsideration was also a nullity and not subject to appeal. Appeal dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order.

Court of Claims did not err in construing inmate's claim against DRC as a medical claim where the inmate alleged that his eyesight was worsening due to the negligence of a DRC physician in failing to approve a consultation with a corneal specialist. The Court of Claims granted summary judgment in favor of DRC because the inmate did not produce expert testimony to rebut the affidavit of a DRC physician who opined that the inmate's bilateral corneal opacity was not the cause of his diminishing eyesight and that a consultation was not medically necessary. It was not an abuse of discretion for the Court of Claims to allow DRC to withdraw admissions arising out of its failure to timely respond to a request for admissions. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant's motion, filed under Crim.R. 32.1, to withdraw his plea of guilty. Appellant's motion is based upon two contentions: (1) that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to inform him of the immigration consequences of a plea of guilty and (2) that Appellant's inability to understand English prevented him from intelligently and knowingly entering a guilty plea. The record supports the trial court's conclusion that Appellant's attorney properly advised him of the potential immigration consequences of pleading guilty, and that Appellant's understanding of English allowed a knowing and voluntary guilty plea. Judgment affirmed.

Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to mortgagee-bank on its claim for foreclosure. Judgment affirmed.

A thorough and independent review pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) reveals no error having arguable merit. Judgment affirmed.

In an Anders appeal of a guilty plea, the plea was knowing and voluntary, trial counsel was not ineffective, and the court had jurisdiction to impose a prison term for an out-of-county post-release control violation. Search warrant Crim.R. 41(C) Crim.R. 45(A) nonconsensual entry R.C. 2929.141(A).

Finding the defect which caused appellant's fall was open and obvious, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment.

Prosecutor misconduct statements at sentencing

reversing decision which found mineral interest abandoned under 1989 Dormant Mineral Act due to recent Ohio Supreme Court decisions reversing alternative holdings of abandonment under 2006 Dormant Mineral Act and/or extinguishment under Marketable Title Act as not appropriate for judgment on the pleadings.

habeas corpus, R.C. 2725, jail time credit, motion to dismiss, Civ.R. 12(B)(6)

R.C. 313.10, R.C. 149.43, Access to Coroner's Records, Preliminary Autopsy Reports, R.C. 313.10(D) Journalist Exception, Confidential Law Enforcement Investigatory Records, Statutory Damages and Attorney Fees

R.C. 4511.201 doughnuts manifest weight, credibility, willful, wanton

Double jeopardy, Fifth Amendment, motion to dismiss, indictment, conviction, aggravated burglary, res judicata, law of the case, final appealable order, interlocutory order, interlocutory appeal, sufficiency of the evidence.

disqualification, substantial relationship, waiver

Trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of private trade association under the Ohio Valentine Act where the manufacturer was not prevented, through anticompetitive activity, from marketing and selling its product. Absent an enforcement device that restrained trade and prevented the manufacturer from selling or customers from buying its products, there is no antitrust violation.

The municipal court properly accepted appellant's no contest plea because he had been informed of the effect of his plea. Appellant also waived the reading of facts at the plea hearing, and is thus foreclosed from arguing that the municipal court failed to consider relevant facts and circumstances before finding him guilty.

The trial court erred by granting appellee's motion to suppress evidence where the evidence was recovered during a lawful search incident to arrest.

Appellant's conviction for failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the state established that appellant failed to stop his vehicle after receiving a visible and audible signal to stop from a police officer, he traveled at a rate of speed in excess of 111 m.p.h., and his actions caused a substantial risk of serious physical harm to people and property.

The trial court did not error in overruling appellant's motion for a continuance further, the State presented competent and credile evidence on the appellant's mental state of "knowingly". The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

CIVIL - Trial court correctly dismissed the case as it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Appellant's claims.

CIVIL - Because trial court lacked jurisdiction over Appellant's claims it erred in denying Appellees' motion to dismiss on the trespass and nuisance claims and the inverse condemnation claim.

CRIMINAL - Appellant's convictions for drug offenses are affirmed as they were supported by overwhelming evidence and were not allied offenses of similar import.

TORTS - trial court did not require plaintiff to prove new element of conversion, i.e., that defendant's conduct was unlawful trial court did not create new affirmative defense to tort of conversion where a third party gives permission to defendant to commit the tort rather, trial court simply found that because defendant's actions were taken on third party's property with its permission, defendant did not engage in wrongful act and thus was not liable in conversion.

CRIMINAL LAW - Crim.R.32.1 pre-sentence motion to withdraw guilty plea freely granted failure to file a motion to suppress evidence reasonable probability that results would be different facts from judgment in co-defendant's case voluntary consent to search no prejudice.

CRIMINAL - Criminal Trespass Ashtabula Codified Ordinance 541.05(a)(1) acting judge R.C. 1901.121(A)(2)(a) plea negotiations voluntariness no contest plea waiver of jury trial Crim.R. 23(A) R.C. 2945.05 waiver of speedy trial municipal court jurisdiction R.C. 2901.20(A)(1) misdemeanor complaint Crim.R. 3 sufficiency of charging instrument complaint made under oath ineffective assistance of counsel

CIVIL - workers' compensation Civ.R. 60(B) R.C. 4123.65 confidential settlement agreement agreed judgment entry invited error.

CRIMINAL LAW - appeal by state R.C. 2953.08(B)(2) jail-time credit R.C. 2967.191 serving prison time out of state separate charges warrant issued in Ohio while serving separate sentence holder Fugate and Caccamo distinguishable charges in Ohio completely unrelated to out-of-state offense contrary to law.

Disrupting public meeting/Insufficient evidence/Definition of "lawful meeting"

Probate court & juvenile court/Jurisdiction/Adoption/Transcript of state expense

Judgment affirmed. Because the evidence demonstrated that the doctor was not engaged in clinical teaching when she rendered treatment to the plaintiff-patient, the doctor was acting manifestly outside the scope of her State employment and was therefore not entitled to personal immunity under R.C. 9.86 and R.C. 2743.02(F). The Court of Claims did not shift the burden of proof to the doctor.

Writ of mandamus granted ordering Industrial Commission to vacate order allocating award among three industrial claims and to enter an amended order with respect to allocation of PTD award.

Trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to withdraw guilty plea.

Decision of trial court denying appellant's petition to vacate or set aside judgment of conviction affirmed.

Disorderly conduct as set forth in R.C. 2917.11(A)(1) is a lesser-included offense of domestic violence as set forth in R.C. 2919.25(A). However, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to instruct because on the facts of the case. Construing the facts in favor of the defendant, the jury could not have reasonably concluded that the defendant did not commit domestic violence. Judgment affirmed.

A wrongful death claim in the Ohio Court of Claims for negligence by the Ohio State Highway Patrol for not dispatching a patrol car at the request of a local police dispatcher, does not overcome the state's R.C. 2743.02(A)(3)(a) immunity on a Civ. R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss when the complaint lacks sufficient facts to establish the four elements required to create a special duty between the Patrol and the decedent who was hit by an intoxicated driver whose visibly dangerous driving had been called in for police intervention prior to the accident. Judgment affirmed.

Applying the concept of notice pleading liberally, an inmate stated a claim for relief. As a result, his lawsuit may continue.

Judgment affirmed. Appellant cannot demonstrate that he has a meritorious defense and, as such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for relief from judgment.

Judgment affirmed. Appellant's conviction for nonsupport of dependents was supported by sufficient evidence, and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. In addition, the evidence supports the jury's determination that appellant failed to meet the requirements of R.C. 2919.21(D), and therefore rejected his affirmative defense argument.

Murder, Self Defense Duty to Retreat Instruction

Stop sign manifest weight

Motion to dismiss state charges double jeopardy pled to federal offenses

SENTENCING: While there is no constitutional right to appellate review of a criminal sentence, R.C. 2953.08 confers statutory rights upon a defendant to appeal from some felony sentences including those that are contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(A) but R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) bars such an appeal when the sentence to be reviewed was imposed for the crime of aggravated murder. Since R.C. 2953.08 specifically and comprehensively defines the parameters of felony-sentencing appellate review, a sentence imposed for aggravated murder is not subject to review by an appellate court pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3). While an appellate court may not review the actual sentence imposed for aggravated murder, nothing in R.C. 2953.08(D) precludes review of whether the trial court complied with the requirements of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) when ordering that sentence to be served consecutively. The determination of whether a trial court properly imposed nonmandatory consecutive sentences is governed by the same statute, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), both for general felonies and for aggravated murder if a trial court exercises its discretion to impose consecutive sentences, it must make the consecutive-sentences findings set out in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and those findings must be made at the sentencing hearing and incorporated into the sentencing entry.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT - PREEMPTION - DRUG WARNING LABELS: Summary judgment was properly granted to defendant generic-drug manufacturer on federal preemption grounds on plaintiffs' state-law tort claims where the generic manufacturer presented unrebutted evidence that its product labeling was the same as the brand-name counterpart, as required by federal law, and the plaintiffs' claims that the generic-drug manufacturer was required by state law to include different or additional language in its labeling to adequately warn consumers of the risks associated with the product conflicted with the generic-drug manufacturer's federal-law duty to maintain the same labeling as its brand-name counterpart, making it impossible to comply with both laws. Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604, 131 S.Ct. 2567, 180 L.Ed.2d 580 (2011), followed. Summary judgment was properly granted on plaintiffs' claim that defendant generic-drug manufacturer had a state-law duty to warn consumers regarding their potential legal rights, because their claim was not supported by Ohio law.

speedy trial - guilty plea - waived - appeal

Hearing Officer Subpoenas Due Process Manifest Weight of the Evidence Credibility. Where the officer issued a subpoena to obtain evidence relevant to determining whether claimant was terminated for just cause, and the claimant had an opportunity at the hearing to present evidence that he was entitled to unemployment benefits, there was no denial of due process in the hearing officer's failure to issue all of the claimant's requested subpoenas the Commission's decision that claimant was terminated for just cause was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Postsentence motion to withdraw guilty plea Crim.R. 32.1 manifest injustice abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed. Appellant did not demonstrate that he suffered a manifest injustice from the trial court's denial of his postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Political subdivision immunity employee summary judgment R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) public duty duty traditional tort special relation wanton reckless perverse disregard known risk rape investigation known offender. Trial court's decision to grant summary judgment on the basis of immunity for employees of a political subdivision under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) was reversed only as to the investigating detective because, from the evidence in the record, reasonable minds could conclude that she acted in a reckless manner in conducting a rape investigation involving a known offender and acted with a perverse disregard of a known risk. As to the remaining employees, there was no evidence that they acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner. Unless the Ohio Supreme Court determines otherwise, traditional tort concepts of "duty" will not be considered under the immunity analysis, which is to be conducted in conformance with the express legislative mandate in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b).

Landlord-tenant dispute removal of property from storage locker negligence direct evidence circumstantial evidence preponderance of the evidence abuse of discretion damages R.C. 5321.04(A)(7) R.C. 5321.05(B) R.C. 5321.01(F) dwelling unit harmless error C.C.O. 375.06 leased premises. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in adopting magistrate's decision awarding tenant damages for appellants' unauthorized access of, and removal of her personal property from, a storage locker appellants provided for her use. Trial court did not err in concluding that tenant proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that appellants removed tenant's belongings from the storage locker and that tenant proved her damages. Although trial court erred in determining that appellants violated R.C. 5321.04(A)(7), this error was harmless because tenant was not awarded any relief based upon a violation of R.C. 5321.04(A)(7). Storage locker was properly considered part of the leased premises for purposes of finding violation of C.C.O. 375.06.

Writ of restitution motion for temporary restraining order request for declaratory judgment settlement agreement motion to enforce settlement agreement. The trial court did not error when it denied appellant's motion for temporary restraining order and declaratory judgment and, instead, granted a writ of restitution in favor of appellees. The parties had entered into a settlement agreement and appellant agreed, among other things, to move out by May 22, 2016. When it failed to do so, the trial court properly enforced the terms of the settlement agreement.

Education Procedural Due Process The trial court erred in awarding the defendants summary judgment in plaintiff's academic dispute where the record demonstrated that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the parties modified the terms of their agreement and whether defendants breached the modified agreement and whether plaintiff's dismissal from program was arbitrary and capricious.

Order of foreclosure confirmation of sale R.C. 2329.31 final and appealable order sale of property R.C. 2329.45 appraisal abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it confirmed a sheriff's sale upon a foreclosed property. There are two judgments appealable in foreclosure actions: the order of foreclosure and the confirmation of sale. Since appellant only appealed the confirmation of sale order, she was barred from raising arguments regarding the finality and appealability of the foreclosure order. Further, since the property has been sold and the confirmation order carried out, there exists no relief that can be afforded to appellant. Moreover, appellant failed to object to the appraisal prior to the sale of the property. Even so, there was no evidence to support appellant's claim that the appraised value of the property was improper.

Bankruptcy failure to disclose judicial estoppel equitable estoppel trustee in bankruptcy bankruptcy estate standing summary judgment. Trial court properly concluded that defendant's counterclaims were barred by the doctrines of judicial estoppel and equitable estoppel and that defendant lacked standing to prosecute counterclaims where defendant failed to disclose counterclaims as contingent assets in prior litigation in the bankruptcy court.

Untimely petition for postconviction relief. The trial court did not err when it denied appellant's petition for postconviction relief as appellant did not meet the threshold requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A)(1).

Declaratory judgment injunctive relief conclusory allegations no viable cause of action Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss de novo. The trial court did not err when it granted appellee's motion to dismiss appellant's complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Presuming all factual allegations as true, appellant could set forth no viable cause of action against appellee.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for new trial based on claims that the trial court misled the jury in its response to a question from the jury or by declining to continue trial so that appellant could secure the appearance of a witness. The trial court's response to the jury's question contained a correct statement of law and reiterated the applicable legal standard for the jury's consideration. Appellant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's alleged ineffective assistance by failing to secure the testimony of a particular witness because appellant failed to show a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different if that witness had testified. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to merge appellant's kidnapping and rape convictions.

Employee's writ of mandamus denied.

Relator requesting a writ of mandamus to order Ohio Adult Parole Authority to correct allegedly inaccurate information and provide a new parole hearing had no clear legal right to relief based on State ex rel. Keith v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 141 Ohio St.3d 375, 2014-Ohio-4270. Magistrate did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of respondents or recommending the court deny relator's request for a writ of mandamus. Writ denied.

The magistrate did not err in determining that the Industrial Commission complied with State ex rel. Mitchell v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 6 Ohio St.3d 481 (1983) and State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm., 57 Ohio St.3d 203 (1991), and that the Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying relator's application for temporary total disability compensation. Objections overruled writ denied.

Trial court did not err by granting motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. The claims asserted in appellant's complaint would have required the trial court to examine the disciplinary process leading to appellant's expulsion from the seminary, which was part of a hierarchical religious organization, and would have involved matters of ecclesiastical disciplinary decisions. The appellant's claim that trial court erred by denying his motion to proceed under a pseudonym was rendered moot by the lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over his claims.

Trial court did not err in denying appellant's motions to withdraw guilty pleas.

murder, other acts evidence, Evid.R. 404(B), abuse of discretion, probative value, R.C. 2945.59, limiting jury instruction, plain error, Crim.R. 52(B), Evid.R. 613(B), prior inconsistent statement, fact of consequence, hearsay, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, cumulative error doctrine

mandatory sentence, R.C. 2929.13(F)(6), aggravated burglary, delinquency adjudication, sentencing hearing, complicity to felonious assault, felonious assault, domestic abuse, menacing by stalking, R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(a), sentencing entry.

Farris, suppress, Miranda violation, pre-Miranda, Fifth Amendment

terroristic threats - telecommunications harassment - police - sufficiency - manifest weight - ineffective assistance - plain error - First Amendment

premises liability, negligence, open and obvious doctrine, attendant circumstances, hole, parking lot, summary judgment, Civ.R. 56, pavement

drug trafficking - possession of drugs - possession of drug paraphernalia - motion to suppress - search warrant - affidavit - suppression hearing

manifest weight - sufficiency - relevant evidence

Dog bite, premise liability, open and obvious, superior knowledge, chiropractic malpractice, negligence per se

Manifest weight consecutive sentences

Appeal dismissed for lack of a final appealable order a summary judgment proceeding is not a trial, and Appellant had an absolute right to terminate his cause of action after the magistrate ruled on Appellee's motion for summary judgment but before the trial court issued a final judgment on the matter.

The trial court did not err in refusing to merge counts of felonious assault with count of aggravated robbery. The trial court properly concluded that the harm caused by the offenses was distinct moreover, defendant had a separate animus for the offenses. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err by denying Appellant's applications to vacate arbitration awards or by granting Appellee's application to confirm. The arbitrator's interpretation of procedural rules, interpretation of the parties' agreements, and interpretation of Ohio law were all within the scope of his powers. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant's suppression motion. Regardless of whether an unsuccessful, attempted pat down of the appellant was permissible during a traffic stop, the appellant responded by fleeing on foot, thereby giving an officer probable cause to arrest him for obstructing official business. Drugs in the appellant's pocket were found during a search incident to that lawful arrest. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for leave to file a motion for new trial. Appellant's motion was filed more than 120 days after the verdict was rendered, and Appellant failed to provide by clear and convincing proof that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence upon which he relied. Instead, Appellant made only mere allegations in his motion. The trial court also did not abuse its discretion by overruling Appellant's request for production of the trial transcripts. A transcript was filed during Appellant's direct appeal, and Appellant failed to show, pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(8), that the information in the public record was necessary to support what appeared to be a justiciable claim. Affirmed.

Appellant's claim that his guilty plea to breaking and entering is invalid lacks merit as the record establishes that the plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. Also, by pleading guilty, Appellant waived his right to challenge the manifest weight of the evidence, as a guilty plea is a complete admission of guilt that waives any dispute about the evidence. Affirmed.

The State adduced sufficient evidence at trial to support appellant's conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia, and her conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court's failure to advise Appellant at the plea hearing of the consequences of committing a new felony while on post-release control did not affect the knowing, intelligent, and voluntary nature of Appellant's guilty plea, as the trial court substantially complied with the requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2) at the plea hearing and Appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice as a result of the trial court's omission. However, Appellant's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by advising Appellant to plead guilty to aggravated robbery when the "deadly weapon" element of the offense was affirmatively negated by the State's statement of facts "upon which the charge [was] based." Judgment of conviction for aggravated robbery is reversed and case remanded. Judgment of conviction for breaking and entering is affirmed. (Hall, P.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

EXTRAORDINARY WRITS - habeas corpus R.C. 2725.04 petitions are unverified subject to dismissal commitment papers not attached R.C. 2969.25 no affidavit filed.

CIVIL - summary judgment failure to obtain business interruption coverage as part of insurance contract additional time to obtain discovery Civ.R. 56(F) no affidavit applied liberally affidavit essential no motion to compel lack of affidavit fatal negligence deposition partially filed genuine issue of material fact regarding negligent failure to procure not soliciting R.C. 3929.27 broker no mutual mistake principals did not read policy no genuine issue of material fact affirm in part reverse in part.

CRIMINAL LAW - possession of chemicals for manufacture of drugs NPLEx business records hearsay exception Evid.R. 803(6) other qualified witness pharmacist testimony single pharmacy did not seek admission through pharmacist police officer not qualified to lay foundation for how each pharmacy kept NPLEx as a business record failure to lay adequate foundation harmless error sufficient, credible evidence to support conviction without NPLEx records.

CRIMINAL LAW - rape gross sexual imposition Tier III sex offender jury trial. JURY INSTRUCTIONS - abuse of discretion R.C. 2945.74 manifest weight of the evidence.

CIVIL - motion to dismiss pro se wrongful imprisonment claim preponderance of the evidence two-step process R.C. 2743.48 transferring venue R.C. 2305.02 RES JUDICATA.

CRIMINAL LAW - post-sentence motion to withdraw guilty plea child endangering aware could be sentenced to prison attorney allegedly made promises community control prosecutor stand silent at sentencing discretion defendant stated no promises or threats were made in plea negotiations advised of all consequences no manifest injustice no ineffective assistance of counsel.

APPELLATE REVIEW - Loc.R. 3(D)(2), attach copy of appealed judgment entry to notice of appeal App.R. 4(A) thirty-day rule untimely appeal App.R. 5(A).

Speedy trial waver revocation of waiver Batson felonious assault improper discharge merger consecutive sentences R.C. 2941.25

Rental property registration home rule assessment tax R.C. 504.04 building standards R.C. 504.13 R.C. 5321.19

Motion for reconsideration nullify Pitts v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 67 Ohio St.2d 378, 423 N.E.2d 1105 (1981)

Trial court commits reversible error where it grants a motion to vacate both an arbitration award and the judgment confirming the arbitration award without affording the opposing party time to respond.

In a foreclosure action, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to mortgagee trustee when it was the holder of the note and mortgage, satisfied the conditions precedent, and established the amount due.

Nunc pro tunc entry. Substantive error. Void judgment.

Felony theft from a disabled adult. Safe deposit box. Evid R. 403(A). Unfairly prejudicial evidence. Manifest weight of the evidence. Restitution hearing. Crim.R. 25(B). Reassignment of judge. Trial judge did not preside over sentencing.

The trial court did not err in finding appellant's claims barred res judicata where he was represented by counsel at all stages of litigation and appeal and the claims were or could have been asserted at trial or on direct appeal.

Appellant's right to jury trial was not violated because he was charged with a petty offense and never made request in accordance with Crim.R. 23(A). The evidence was sufficient to convict appellant of obstruction of justice in violation of R.C. 2921.31(A). The manifest weight of the evidence was not against the conviction for obstruction of justice because the record amply supported appellant committed affirmative acts in effort and with result of hindering officers.

Pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C)(2), the trial court erroneously accepted appellant's guilty plea to one count of gross sexual imposition without informing appellant of the attendant sex offender registration requirements that would follow his guilty plea.

A defendant who fails to renew his Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal at the close of all the evidence does not waive consideration of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction on appeal, and such challenges should be reviewed under a prejudicial-error standard. Appellant's conviction was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.

Claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel not supported conviction not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

Where appellant inmate claimed self-defense in murder of his cellmate, trial court's incorrect instruction to jury on duty to retreat and failure to instruct on castle doctrine did not constitute plain error requiring reversal. Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel failed because he did not show reasonable probability that outcome of trial would have been different if counsel had objected to instruction. Jury's verdict was not against manifest weight of evidence.

The trial court did not err by denying the defendant-appellant's motion to suppress evidence. The trial court did not err by admitting the defendant-appellant's January 14, 2016 statements into evidence because his interview with law enforcement that day was non-custodial. The trial court did not err by admitting the defendant-appellant's January 15, 2016 statements into evidence because the defendant-appellant validly waived his Miranda rights, and his statements to law enforcement were voluntary. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding the victim, a child who was under the age of ten, competent to testify.

The trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion to suppress the results of the walk-and-turn test and one-leg-stand test where the state met its burden of proof establishing that the officer conducted said tests in substantial compliance with the applicable standards for those two field sobriety tests. In addition, because appellant did not file a transcript of the jury trial in this matter, this court must presume that appellant's conviction for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Defense counsel was ineffective at a domestic violence bench trial for failing to object to the victim reading into evidence two written statements she had made to the police following the alleged domestic violence incidents.

On certification of default.

Motion for resentencing/Void judgment/Post-release control/Consecutive sentences

Failure to Object - Waiver, Different Methods Jury Charge

Aggravated Robbery Aggravated Burglary Felonious Assault Manifest weight/sufficieny Consecutive Sentences Allied Offenses

Manifest weight and sufficiency rape and Tier III classication

Felony sentencing after Marcum

Theft/Manifest weight and sufficiency

Waiver of jury trial/R.C. 2945.05/Civil R. 23(A)/Manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence

Corban v. Chesapeake Expl., L.L.C., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2016-Ohio-5796, __ N.E.3d __, 40-41 2006 version of ODMA was applicable, but was not pursued Remanded for correction of clerical errors.

Corban v. Chesapeake Expl., L.L.C., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2016-Ohio-5796, __ N.E.3d __, 40-41 2006 version of ODMA was applicable, but was not pursued.

Corban v. Chesapeake Expl., L.L.C., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2016-Ohio-5796, __ N.E.3d __, 40-41 2006 version of ODMA was applicable, but was not pursued.

Corban v. Chesapeake Expl., L.L.C., __ Ohio St.3d __, 2016-Ohio-5796, __ N.E.3d __, 40-41 2006 version of ODMA was applicable, but was not pursued Remanded for correction of clerical errors.

R.C. 2919.25(A) third offense domestic violence other acts evidence Evid.R. 403 Evid.R. 404(B) motion for mistrial R.C. 2915.25(D)(4) ineffective assistance of counsel deficient performance action or inaction by trial counsel that undermined or called into question the integrity of the process that resulted in conviction.

Civ.R. 4.1(A)(1) service of process Civ.R. 4.4(A) service by publication R.C. 2703.14 reasonable diligence motion to strike abuse of discretion proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law legally sufficient evidence Civ.R. 52 motion to vacate Civ.R. 60(B) GTE Automatic Electric v. ARC Industries, 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 351 N.E.2d 113 (1976) meritorious defense reason entitled to relief timeliness of motion.

court properly granted summary judgment on action to quiet title to severed oil and gas interest in favor of severed mineral interest owners Ohio Dormant Mineral Act notice of abandonment notice of preservation no slander of title or negligence

Illegal conveyance manifest weight, contraband, conceal, jail, detention facility, chain of custody, ineffective assistance, cumulative error

close-corporation - mathematical model - discovery - attorney-client privilege - work-product - waiver - in camera - presume regularity

sufficiency of the evidence, manifest weight, Batson challenge, peremptory challenge, felony sentence modification

codicil, power of appointment, trust, will, R.C. 2107.03, ambiguity, intent of the testator, extrinsic evidence

Summary judgment/Breach of fiduciary duty claim against bank

Civil: Without the necessary transcripts, a reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and must presume the regularity of the proceedings.

Motion to compel discovery attorney-client privilege SERS report. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in ordering the Cleveland Clinic to provide its SERS report to the plaintiff, who slipped and fell at the Clinic while visiting a family member. There is no indication in the record that the person who completed the SERS report did so in anticipation of litigation or was a risk manager or an employee of the Clinic's Office of General Counsel. Therefore, the Clinic has not satisfied its burden of proof that the SERS report is privileged.

Employees Engineering Sanitary grievance administrative appeal administrative remedy motion to dismiss summary judgment exhaust early retirement exhaustion of administrative remedies county administrator. Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not filing an administrative appeal from the county administrator's decision. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant.

App.R. 9(C) statement of the proceedings waiver of jury trial. Judgment affirmed. While the clerk of courts was unable to locate the original verdict forms, the clerk has since filed certified copies of the original verdict forms that are now part of the record in this case. Moreover, the record reflects that the trial court issued a ruling on defendant having a weapon while under disability charge.

Contractual capacity plain error manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant failed to raise the issue of contractual capacity below and has therefore waived all but plain error on appeal. The appellant, however, fails to acknowledge that it did not raise the argument below, nor does it claim that the error at trial rises to the level of plain error. Thus, we need not address plain error on appeal.

Admission by Party Opponent Manifest Weight of the Evidence Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing victim to testify that she overheard defendant say that she hit the victim's car because the statement was an admission by a party opponent not subject to hearsay exception defendant's conviction for felonious assault was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the victim's testimony that the defendant deliberately hit her car was corroborated by other evidence, and the defendant's version of events was not credible trial counsel was not ineffective.

Receiver Real Property Three-day Period R.C. 2735.04(D)(7) Reasonable Time Highest and Best Offer. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in approving the receiver's request to sell real property to $9.1 million bidder, despite appellants' $9.5 million bid, where appellants' bid was untimely and submitted contrary to the established bidding procedures, and where appellants had been given numerous opportunities to redeem the property but were never able to obtain financing to close the deal. Three-day time period to redeem the property after the sale order was a reasonable time for redemption because appellants had adequate notice and time to redeem the property.

Manifest weight competent credible wrongful imprisonment innocent rape substantial impairment voluntary intoxication consent sexual activity knowledge preponderance of evidence civil credible R.C. 2743.48(A)(5). The trial court's judgment entering judgment in favor of the state and against appellant on his claim for wrongful imprisonment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Appellant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that he was innocent of criminal behavior.

The record belies appellant's arguments that his plea was not knowing and voluntary (1) because he had a language barrier (2) because the trial court colloquy was not helpful (3) because he believed he would get probation, and (4) because he relied on the advice of counsel that a joint sentencing recommendation carries a lot of weight and it is exceptional for a judge not to follow the joint recommendation. Furthermore, the judgment entry and record reveal that the trial court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Accordingly, the assignments of error are overruled. Judgment affirmed.

Appellant failed to demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion by not imposing penalties on appellee for failing to file a pre-trial statement. We decline to review appellant's assertion that the trial court erred by denying his motion to amend his complaint because he failed to support his assertion with citation to relevant authority to App.R. 12(A)(2). Finally, because appellant failed to submit a transcript of the hearing before the trial court's magistrate as required by App.R. 9(B) or a statement of the evidence pursuant to App.R. 9(C), we must presume the trial court's findings are correct.

Appeal of denial of motion to suppress/Challenge to administration of field sobriety tests.

post-sentence motion to withdraw guilty plea trial court was not required to hold a hearing on appellant's motions Crim.R. 32.1 appellant entered pleas knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently

The evidence supporting Appellant's arson conviction is sufficient. And the manifest weight of the evidence is not against the conviction. The trial court did not err by overruling Appellant's motion for a new trial. The charge that the trial court gave to the jury after it reported that it was deadlocked on the question of conviction substantially complies with the charge approved in State v. Howard, 42 Ohio St.3d 18, 537 N.E.2d 188 (1989). Judgment affirmed.

Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff's claim for personal injuries. Although a large hole in the floor of defendant's house was "open and obvious" when viewed from inside the house and in the pictures presented by the parties, plaintiff presented evidence that she had approached the hole from a different angle and encountered it after coming around a corner. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the hole was open and obvious so as to preclude any duty by the defendant to warn plaintiff of the presence of the hole. Judgment reversed and remanded. (Hall, P.J., dissenting).

The trial court did not err in denying the appellant's post-conviction relief petition based on untimeliness where he failed to file the petition within the time provided by statute and he failed to demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from timely discovery of the facts upon which his post-conviction claims relied. The trial court was without jurisdiction to consider the merits of appellant's petition without demonstrating justification for the late filing. Judgment affirmed.

Clear and convincing evidence supports the finding that termination of Father's parental rights was in his children's best interest and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Judgment affirmed.

Appellant's guilty pleas waive his arguments regarding suppression issues and a challenge to his indictment, and in the absence of a manifest injustice, the trial court did not err in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err in overruling Appellant's motion to dismiss an indictment charging him with improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Contrary to Appellant's claim otherwise, his constitutional protection against double jeopardy did not prohibit the State from prosecuting him for that offense due to a previous OVI conviction arising from the same incident. The OVI conviction is neither a lesser included offense nor an allied offense of similar import to the improperly handling a firearm charge. Affirmed.

Trial court strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) at the plea hearing. The trial court's imposition of a maximum consecutive sentence was not clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record or contrary to law. Judgment affirmed.

motion to suppress, reasonable suspicion, R.C. 4511.33

speedy trial - unreasonable delay ruling on motion to suppress

Third-degree felony, retaliation, community control, community control violation, probation violation, community control sanctions, maximum sentence, hearing, sentencing hearing, revocation, R.C. 2929.14(A)(3)(b).

The trial court did not err by denying the defendant-appellant's motion to suppress a handgun as evidence. Law enforcement's entry on the property and search of the automobile-which led to the discovery of the handgun outside the vehicle-were lawfully conducted under the automobile exception of the Fourth Amendment, and the handgun was discovered in plain view. The defendant-appellant's convictions are based on sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The defendant-appellant's trial counsel was not ineffective. The State did not fail to disclose evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland. Law enforcement did not act in bad faith in its preservation of potentially useful evidence in contravention of Arizona v. Youngblood. The defendant-appellant's sentence is contrary to law because the trial court imposed a prison term as to each of the three counts of which the defendant-appellant was convicted, and ordered that the terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently, despite concluding that the offenses of which the defendant-appellant were allied offenses of similar import.

Witnesses did not testify that victim was "credible," contrary to appellant's assertions, introduction of "other acts" evidence and prior conviction did not constitute reversible error, it was not error to deny motion for new trial and prosecutor did not commit misconduct to an extent warranting reversal.

Trial court's determination that appellant was an incompetent person as defined by R.C. 2111.01(D) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The trial court did not err in accepting the plea of no contest. The State did not violate the terms of the plea agreement by making a sentence recommendation when the agreement did not discuss sentencing. Counsel was not ineffective. Consecutive sentences were appropriate. Plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered.

Trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress when the traffic stop was based upon a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity and was of short duration. The use of the canine was one of the indicia used to provide probable cause to continue the investigation and eventually to arrest appellant for trafficking in drugs.

In determining the meaning of the terms of the parties' settlement agreement, the trial court did not use inadmissible parol evidence when it overruled summary judgment requests and entered judgment. The trial court was obligated to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the disputed settlement terms prior to entering judgment.

Sufficiency/weight - RSP

Sufficiency - Manifest weight

Breaking and entering

COUNSEL - PROSECUTOR - JURY VERDICTS: Because the prosecutor's comments during closing argument were a fair commentary on the evidence presented, did not denigrate defense counsel, and were not improper, the defendant failed to establish that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument. Because defense counsel's comments during closing argument were accurate statements based on the evidence presented, constituted an acceptable trial strategy, and did not result in prejudice to the defendant, defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance. The jury did not return inconsistent verdicts by finding the defendant guilty of one charge and being unable to reach a verdict on the remaining charges.

Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to home seller where no genuine issue of material fact existed.

The trial court did not err in imposing a mandatory fine where defendant failed to file with the trial court prior to sentencing an affidavit of indigency alleging he was indigent and unable to pay the mandatory fine as required under R.C. 2929.18(B)(1).

The trial court's decision to sentence appellant to 14 months in prison for violating the conditions of his community control was proper. Where the trial court properly notifies the defendant at the original sentencing hearing, or any subsequent community control violation hearing, of the specific potential prison term that could be imposed if a violation of community control sanctions was established at a subsequent community control violation hearing, that notification is legally sufficient and the trial court is not required to re-advise the defendant over and over again at each and every hearing that may occur thereafter.

The trial court improperly ordered appellant to arbitrate a dispute based on a contract provision that appellant was not a party to. Nor was appellant a third-party beneficiary of the contract containing the provision so that ordering appellant to participate in arbitration was error.

The juvenile court's decision to grant permanent custody of a child to a children services agency was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the child tested positive for drugs at the time of her birth and her mother did not complete the required case plan services during the nearly two years the child was removed from her mother's care.

Juvenile court did not err by granting permanent custody of Father's child to children services agency where child had been in the agency's temporary custody for more than 12 months and permanent placement was in child's best interest. Court did not abuse discretion in considering GAL's report that was not timely filed in compliance with Sup.R 48(F). Superintendence rules did not create substantive rights and Father did not demonstrate prejudice.

Mandamus-Public Records Act-R.C. 149.43-Routine incident reports are public records-Writ granted in part and denied in part.

CRIMINAL - Felonious Assault Robbery Assault consecutive sentences R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) sufficiency of the evidence manifest weight of the evidence victim's denial of assault witness credibility inconsistent verdicts serious physical harm R.C. 2901.01(A)(5) unconsciousness closing argument prejudice App.R. 9(E) error in record

EXTRAORDINARY WRIT - Prohibition elements adequate legal remedy direct appeal hearing to determine "sexual predator" issue Megan's Law R.C. 2950.09 general authority of common pleas judge no complete lack of jurisdiction.

APPELLATE REVIEW - Lack of final appealable order when entry merely rules that party is entitled to a future order of foreclosure no jurisdiction until final decree of foreclosure is issued R.C. 2505.02.

Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

Mandamus-Appellant had and has used adequate remedy in ordinary course of law-Court of appeals' dismissal of petition affirmed.

Habeas corpus-Appellant's petition challenging validity of his extradition fails to state a claim in habeas corpus-Court of appeals' dismissal of petition affirmed.

Attorneys at law-Resignation with disciplinary action pending-Gov.Bar R. VI(11)(C).

Conservancy district lease

OVI Refusal Testimonial Evidence

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. As defendant was conficted of misdemeanor theft as part of a continuous course of conduct, the indictment was filed within the two-year statute of limitations period. The trial court abused its discretion by awarding restitution for acts the jury did not find the defendant guilty of committing.

Trial court did not err in granting an employer's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and alternative motion for new trial on a former employee's race-based discrimination claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework where the employee admitted to accessing a patient's confidential medical records for a purpose, at least in part, unrelated to patient care and such conduct is a terminable offense under the employer's policies. Judgment affirmed.

Prohibition-Jurisdictional-priority rule does not patently and unambiguously bar municipal court judge from presiding over defendants' prosecution because charges are pending only in municipal court-Defendants have adequate remedy at law by way of appeal-Court of appeals' grant of writ prohibiting municipal court judge from exercising jurisdiction reversed.

Sentencing, interpretation, video, pre-sentence investigation report, ineffective assistance of counsel

Civil: personal injury action sovereign immunity R.C. Chapter 2744 summary judgment geniune issue of material fact wanton misconduct.

Crim.R. 11 voluntary, knowing, and intelligent plea appellate rights. The defendant's plea was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered into despite the trial court not informing him at the plea hearing that by pleading guilty, he would not be able to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress.

Postrelease control, void, operation of law, R.C. 2967.28, R.C. 2929.191. Trial court erroneously ordered defendant to serve a mandatory three-year period of postrelease control when the statute required that the defendant serve five years of mandatory postrelease control for a first-degree felony. The error resulted in defendant's sentence as it pertained to postrelease control to be void. The trial court could not correct its error pursuant to R.C. 2929.191 because the defendant served his underlying prison sentence. Postrelease control does not arise by operation of law and the language in R.C. 2967.28 does not save the imposition of a void period of postrelease control.

Crim.R. 11, ineffective assistance of counsel. Crim.R. 11 does not require a defendant to be told that the sentences imposed for each count may be imposed consecutively. The trial court does not have to advise a defendant of the cumulative total of all prison terms for all offenses at the time of this guilty plea. An attorneys inaccurate prediction of a defendant's sentence does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. The imposition of a lengthy sentence was not motivated by defendant's inability to pay restitution where the record demonstrates that the sentence was based on defendant's significant criminal history and undettered conduct.

Crim.R. 32(B) harmless error felony sentencing. Defendant's sentence affirmed. Failure to inform defendant of his right to appeal is harmless when delayed appeal accepted and appellate counsel appointed. Felony sentence supported by evidence in the record and not contrary to law.

Rape self-representation amendment of indictment. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's day-of-trial verbal request for self-representation as the request was not unequivocal or timely. Where an amendment of the indictment does not change the name or identity of the offense, as in this case, this court will not disturb the trial court's decision to permit the state to amend the date of the offense to conform to the evidence as it was within the trial court's discretion to do so and appellant fails to demonstrate prejudice.

Retaliatory-discharge retaliation whistleblower retaliation. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of a hospital in an action filed by a nurse who claimed she was discharged by the hospital in retaliation for her reporting an abuse by a nursing aide who raised all four rails of a resident's bed to confine the resident. Appellant nurse failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding her retaliatory-discharge claim under R.C. 3721.24 or whistleblower retaliation claim under R.C. 4113.52

Motion to vacate void sentence res judicata R.C. 2971.03 R.C. 2941.148 Tier III sexual predator automatic former R.C. 2950.09(A) postrelease control R.C. 2967.28. Trial court's denial of motion to vacate a void sentence was affirmed. Appellant's challenge relating to sexually violent predator specifications was barred by res judicata. Appellant's challenge to the length of his sentence was raised in a direct appeal, and R.C. 2971.03 was not applicable to the case. Appellant properly remained subject to postrelease control. The case was remanded for the limited purpose of vacating the Tier III sex offender classification and the automatic imposition of a sexual predator classification in accordance with former R.C. 2950.09(A).

Foreclosure summary judgment blank-indorsed note holder of assignment of mortgage. Plaintiff bank established it was the holder of the note by its possession of the blank-indorsed note. Defendants' claim that the assignment of mortgage was invalid is meritless because a mortgagor lacks standing to challenge a mortgage assignment when the mortgagor is neither a party to, nor a third-party beneficiary of, the mortgage assignment.

Theft R.C. 2913.02 blank checks forgery R.C. 2913.31 allied offenses separate conduct consecutive sentences R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) restitution contrary to law. The theft of blank checks and the ensuing forging of those checks to steal a sum certain are not allied offenses subject to merger. The trial court made all the required consecutive sentencing findings, and the defendant failed to challenge whether the findings were supported by the record. The imposition of restitution was contrary to law because no evidence was offered in support of the amount of restitution actually imposed.

Community control sanctions abuse of discretion. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in terminating the appellant's community control sanctions and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment because the appellant violated the conditions of his community control sanctions.

Manifest weight/sufficiency

Trial court judge sufficiency complied with R.C. 2929.14(C) to impose consecutive sentences.

Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate's decision, this court adopts the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law. In accordance with the magistrate's decision, we deny relator's requested writ of mandamus.

The trial court did not err in denying the state's motion to vacate the arbitration award or in awarding interest from the date of the arbitrator's award.

Where the State and a defendant enter into a plea agreement that includes an agreed sentence, and the trial court imposes a lawful sentence in accordance with the agreement, R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) precludes an appeal of the sentence. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to vacate an alleged void conviction. Appellant had previously filed several post-conviction motions, and did not satisfy the requirements under R.C. 2953.23 for filing a successive post-conviction petition. The trial court, therefore, lacked jurisdiction over Appellant's claims. In addition, Appellant's claims were barred by res judicata. The trial court also was not required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and was not required to appoint counsel for Appellant. Affirmed.

In this appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), there are no potential assignments of error having arguable merit. The trial court's valuation of Appellant's vehicles for restitution purposes is reasonable. The court reasonably rejected Appellant's claim that there was jewelry inside one of the vehicles. And any challenge to Appellant's sentence is barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., dissenting).

Pursuant to our responsibilities under Anders we have conducted an independent review of appellant's conviction and sentencing. We find no arguably meritorious assignments of error. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Appellant's Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from a default judgment. The trial court's conclusion that Appellant failed to show he has a meritorious defense is supported by the record. The trial court also did not err by overruling Appellant's motion to transfer the case. The motion was filed after the default judgment was entered, so the issue of transfer is moot. Judgment affirmed.

On the record before the court, the related municipal court felony charge was dismissed prior to a preliminary hearing or waiver thereof. Therefore, the Crim.R. 5(B) bind over or transfer language is not applicable to this case. Further, a municipal court is not divested of jurisdiction over a misdemeanor charge that is not bound over or transferred under Crim.R. 5(B). Judgment affirmed.

Since Appellant failed to comply with Ohio's savings statute, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee as a matter of law. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err in overruling Appellant's motion to suppress evidence. Both Appellant's initial and second encounters with a police officer were consensual, and Appellant voluntarily consented to the search. Furthermore, once the search began, the police officer discovered weapons and had a reasonable, articulable suspicion of danger that would justify seizure of Appellant and continuing the search. Judgment affirmed. (Donovan, J., dissenting).

Anders appeal. The trial court did not err when it terminated appellant's parental rights because the decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The child could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time and should not be placed with either parent, and termination of appellant's parental rights was in the child's best interest. Judgment affirmed.

Petitioner established that an act of domestic violence caused her to file her petition for a civil protection order, and she also relied on past conduct of the respondent to establish a genuine fear of future violence.

As agent for the Ohio BMV, an arresting officer is required to comply with R.C. 4511.192 to provide appropriate notice of consequences and to satisfy due process when imposing an administrative license suspension.

Hearsay evidence against defendant properly admitted under Evid.R. 804(B)(6) which allows a declarant's testimony to be admitted when the declarant's unavailability is caused by the defendant's wrongdoing. The fact that declarant ultimately did testify did not prejudice defendant.

Anders - Consecutive sentences

CHILDREN - CUSTODY: Where the magistrate's finding that mother had failed to remedy the conditions that had led to the removal of her children from her home was supported by competent and credible evidence, the trial court did not err in adopting the magistrate's decision granting permanent custody of the children to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services. Although the reasonable-efforts requirement in R.C. 2151.419 does not apply to an R.C. 2151.413 motion for permanent custody, absent a narrowly defined statutory exception, the state must still make reasonable efforts to reunite the family during the custody proceedings prior to the termination of parental rights.

APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL - FINAL ORDERS - JURISDICTION: A judgment of conviction is a final appealable order when it sets forth (1) the fact of conviction, (2) the sentence, (3) the judge's signature, and (4) the entry on the journal by the clerk of courts. Where the judgment of conviction does not contain the fact of conviction, it is not a final appealable order, and the appeal from that judgment must be dismissed.

Criminal law-Sentencing-Right to trial by jury-Vindictiveness-There is no presumption of vindictiveness when, after trial, a trial court sentences a defendant to a longer prison term than was offered by the state in plea negotiations-An appellate court may reverse such a sentence for vindictiveness only if, after review of the entire record, it finds clearly and convincingly that the sentence was based on actual vindictiveness-Actual vindictiveness not found-Judgment affirmed.

The trial court properly overruled appellant's Crim.R. 29 motion where there was sufficient evidence, as produced by a video recording of a controlled buy, that appellant sold a controlled substance to a confidential informant. Appellant's school enhancement was also supported by sufficient evidence where a police officer testified that appellant's apartment where the drug transaction occurred was within 1,000 feet of an elementary school.

Trial court did not err in denying motion for new trial and/or petition for postconviction relief where newly discovered evidence was contradictory, unreliable, and not credible.

Habeas corpus-Habeas corpus is not available to challenge validity of jury-verdict forms-Court of appeals' dismissal of petition affirmed.

Trial court's imposition of an 18-month prison sentence for appellant's domestic violence conviction was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the court considered the principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11, as well as the seriousness and recidivism factors of R.C. 2929.12, imposed the required mandatory three-year postrelease control term, and sentenced appellant within the statutory range for a third-degree felony.

The trial court did not have jurisdiction to address appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea where this court affirmed appellant's convictions on a prior direct appeal.

Trial counsel is not ineffective where the defendant, entirely on his own accord, chooses to plead guilty during a preliminary hearing. The record revealed that defendant wished to proceed with his guilty plea to resolve the matter as soon as possible, despite being advised of potential defenses and the fact that the attorney had not fully reviewed the record.

Appellants are entitled to summary judgment because they are immune from suit where they did not perform their public duties in a reckless, wanton, or willful manner to cause the death of appellee's son.

Collateral attack-maternal aunt and uncle could not collaterally attack court's prior custody decision.

Probate-R.C. 2117.06-Presentment of a claim-A claim against an estate must be timely presented in writing to the executor or administrator of the estate in order to meet the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2117.06(A)(1)(a), and under that subdivision, delivery of the claim to a person not appointed by the probate court who gives it to the executor or administrator fails to present a claim against the estate.

Taxation-Real-property valuation-County board of revision and county auditor cannot complain about purported defects in the record they were responsible for preparing and certifying-Board of Tax Appeals' decisions affirmed.

Prohibition-Prohibition will not lie to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment-Expense and inconvenience do not render an appeal an inadequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law-Judgment denying writ affirmed.

CRIMINAL - motion to withdraw guilty plea presentence abuse of discretion Peterseim factors represented by highly competent counsel complete and impartial hearing full and fair consideration counsel presumed competent

CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCING - Guilty plea to felonious assault with 18-month prison term R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) appellant avers the trial court failed to consider applicable seriousness and recidivism factors defendant bears burden to rebut the presumption that court considered requisite, applicable factors sentence is not contrary to law.

CIVIL - forcible entry and detainer recovery of money no request for stay premises vacated judgment granting writ of restitution is moot outstanding claims appeal dismissed.

APPELLATE REVIEW - R.C. 2505.02(B) granting of preliminary injunction is generally not a final appealable order where a permanent injunction is sought meaningful and effective remedy lack of final appealable order.

APPELLATE REVIEW - App.R. 4(A)(1) thirty-day rule Loc.R. 3(D)(2) no judgment entry provided.

Aggravated Assault inferior - degree instruction costs imposed at sentencing hearing

Workers' compensation-Temporary-total-disability compensation-Evidence supported Industrial Commission's decision to deny temporary-total-disability compensation-Claimant was not working when the alleged period of disability began-Judgment of the court of appeals reversed and writ denied.

BTA lacks jurisdiction to vacate a decision, even a void decision, after the time to appeal that decision has passed-Sending copy of Board of Tax Appeals' decision to property owner's tax mailing address was reasonably calculated to give notice of decision to owner-Board of Tax Appeals' decision affirmed.

Attorneys-Misconduct-Failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client-Conditionally stayed six-month suspension.

SENTENCING: On appeal from a remand for resentencing on allied offenses, defendant's arguments relating to the trial court's failure to make the findings for consecutive sentences, consider the purposes and principles of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and notify him pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(f) that he cannot ingest or be injected with a drug of abuse and that he is required to submit to random drug testing in prison are not barred by res judicata, because they arose out of his resentencing hearing. The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences where the trial court made the requisite findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and incorporated those findings into the judgment entries of conviction. The trial court was not required to state on the record that it had considered the R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors prior to imposing sentence, and the appellate court can presume from a silent record that the trial court considered the factors prior to imposing sentence unless the defendant affirmatively shows that the court failed to do so. The court's failure to inform the defendant that he cannot ingest or be injected with a drug of abuse while in prison and that he would be required to submit to random drug testing while incarcerated did not prejudice the defendant, because R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(f) conferred no substantive rights upon the defendant, and therefore, the trial court's failure to comply with the statutory provision was harmless error. The cause must be remanded to the trial court for correction of the clerical errors in the judgment entries to reflect that the defendant had been found guilty by a jury and not the trial court.

CHILDREN - CUSTODY: The juvenile court did not err in awarding permanent custody of a child to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services where the record showed that the child's mother failed to consistently visit the child and continued to have issues with impulse control and substance abuse despite treatment, and where the child had special needs and needed permanence to address her issues, and there were no other relatives who could care for the child. The juvenile court did not err in finding that it was in the best interests of two of mother's other children to grant legal custody to the individuals who were caring for them where the record showed that mother was not in a position to care for the children and they were thriving in their placements.

JUVENILE - Award of permanent custody of A.D.M. to Appellee was supported by clear and convincing evidence in the record.

CRIMINAL - Trial court did not err in sentencing Appellant as the consecutive sentence is supported by the record and counsel was not ineffective.

Tax Lien Priority, Tax Superiority

Summary judgment - course and scope of employment

Conditional release, abuse of discretion

Damages new trial JNOV de novo abuse of discretion estimation of damages breach of contract prejudgment interest Civ.R. 50 Civ.R. 59 misconduct irregularity passion or prejudice manifest weight error of law contrary to law remittitur. The jury's award of damages in a breach of contract action was not supported in the record. However, that award was not based on passion or prejudice and, with the prevailing party's acceptance, the award of damages and prejudgment interest is reduced through remittitur and affirmed as modified.

Preindictment delay, joinder and severance, insufficient evidence, and allied offenses. The trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to dismiss for preindictment delay because the appellant could not establish a viable, tangible connection between what T.T.'s mother could testify to and his defense. The trial court did not err when it denied the appellant's motion to sever because he could not establish that he was prejudiced by the state's decision to prosecute all of the cases together. There was sufficient evidence to convict the appellant of rape because after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court did not err when it did not merge the appellant's rape and kidnapping convictions because the offenses were dissimilar in import or significance and caused separate, identifiable harm, were committed separately, and were committed with separate animus or motivation.

Crim.R. 29, motion for acquittal R.C. 2945.59, Evid.R. 404(b), evidence of motive, intent, prior acts R.C. 2929.14, HB 86, consecutive sentences R.C. 2929.18, R.C. 2929.19(B)(5), R.C. 2947.14, imposition of court costs, indigency, community work service, manifest weight, sufficiency of evidence. The evidence was not insufficient, and the jury's verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, to find appellant guilty of aggravated murder, attempted murder, and related charges where the indictments included complicity charges where the evidence included testimony by the brother who had known the defendants for several years and the codefendant possessed a key to the apartment. Appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice by the trial court's admission of testimony by homicide detectives that victim's statements were consistent, or by gang unit officer's testimony providing general information about gangs in the Cleveland area, particularly where the defense injected the possibility of gang war activity. Trial court properly ordered payment of court costs by community work service.

Presentence motion to withdraw guilty plea ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to withdraw guilty plea because the appellant was represented by a highly competent counsel the appellant was afforded a full hearing, pursuant to Crim.R. 11, before he entered the plea after the motion to withdraw is filed, the appellant was given a complete and impartial hearing on the motion and the record reveals that the court gave full and fair consideration to the plea withdrawal request. The appellant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel because appellant's counsel's performance was not deficient.

Motion to disqualify conflict of interest crime-fraud exception necessary witness abuse of discretion Prof.Cond.R. 3.7 Prof.Cond.R. 1.7 Prof.Cond.R. 1.10. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it disqualified plaintiffs' counsel because the credibility of plaintiffs' counsel and her desire to deny wrongdoing created a conflict of interest and presented a substantial risk to her ability to carry out an appropriate course of action for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' counsel was a necessary witness to the case. Therefore, the ability of plaintiffs' counsel to consider, recommend, or carry out an appropriate course of action for her client, will be materially limited by her own personal interests.

App.R. 16(A)(7) R.C. 2929.16(B) restitution hearing plain error Crim.R. 52(B) ineffective assistance of counsel invited error. Trial court properly applied R.C. 2929.16(B) to allow defendant the opportunity to serve jail term on weekends to allow her full-time employment. No hearing for restitution was required because defendant agreed to the amount. The trial court is not required to sua sponte inquire into the existence of insurance before imposing restitution.

Murder Joinder and Severance Prospective Juror Self-Defense Prosecutorial Misconduct Defense Closing Argument. Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to sever charges trial court did not commit prejudicial error in removing prospective juror for cause self-defense instruction was not warranted R.C. 2905.01 is not unconstitutional convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence prosecuting attorney did not commit reversible error in closing argument trial court did not abuse its discretion in barring defense attorney from arguing self-defense.

Operating a vehicle while under the influence felony sentencing. Defendant's prison sentence of 60 days, to run consecutive to 30 months, affirmed for third-degree felony OVI, which was defendant's ninth DUI/OVI conviction.

R.C. 2981.03(F)/return of seized property untimely R.C. 2981.11(A)/ongoing investigation. In accordance with R.C. 2981.03(F), the state failed to timely commence neither civil nor criminal forfeiture proceedings against petitioner's seized property. Additionally, the state's minimal assertion that an investigation was ongoing, and that appellee's property was germane to that investigation, was not sufficient to continue to maintain control over petitioner's property.

The sufficiency of the evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence support Ellis' convictions.

As appellant did not file a memorandum in opposition to appellees' motion or any objection to allegedly non-complying documents in support thereof, the court could consider the same when adjudicating appellee's summary judgment motion. [A] store is not liable for a customer's injuries unless the customer can show: (1) the store, through its officers or employees, placed the substance on the floor (2) at least one of the store's officers or employees had actual knowledge of the presence of the substance and failed to remove it or warn the customer, or (3) the substance had been on the floor long enough that the store officers or employees should have known of its presence and removed it or warned the customer. Appellant did not establish that appellees breached the duty of care owed to her. Judgment in favor of appellee's motions for summary judgment is affirmed.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting motion to dismiss because affidavits contained sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of service arising from compliance with the civil rules. Appellants' claims regarding alleged irregularities by the trial court were not supported by the record absent evidence in the record, regularity in the proceedings must be presumed.

The trial court's order of restitution in the amount of $1,200 is contrary to law because it fails to take into account the order of restitution to be paid by one of Appellant's co-defendants and thus exceeds the victim's economic loss in violation of R.C. 2929.18. The State, however, did not breach the portion of the parties' plea agreement to remain silent at sentencing because the comments Appellant complains of were made while the State was opposing Appellant's motion to withdraw guilty plea, not during sentencing. Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant's presentence/post-remand motion to withdraw guilty plea. Restitution amount modified and affirmed as modified. Judgment affirmed in all other respects. (Donovan, J., dissenting).

Appellant did not receive ineffective assistance when his counsel advised him to plead guilty to the charged offense. The record also establishes that the trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 in accepting appellant's plea. Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered appellant to pay a mandatory fine in the amount of $7,500.00. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err by overruling Appellant's motion to suppress the illegal drugs found in his vehicle. The vehicle had been parked directly in front of the entrance to a commercial building, had been occupied for an extended time by persons who were the subject of the drug investigation, and the vehicle was therefore covered by the premises search warrant authorizing the search of a commercial building and its curtilage, on which the vehicle was parked. Judgment affirmed.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying petition for postconviction relief petitioner was not entitled to discovery, and his claims were barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court's conclusion that Plaintiff-Appellant transacts business in Ohio, and thus, is required under R.C. 1703.03 to be licensed with the Ohio Secretary of State is supported by the record. The trial court, therefore, correctly concluded that Plaintiff-Appellant, under R.C. 1703.29(A), was precluded from filing the cause of action at issue in this case. Judgment affirmed.

Civil: motion for summary judgment Civ.R. 56 geniune issue of material fact judicial admission.

Whether revised code 955 is general law/Home rule

Attempted Kidmapping Attempted Extortion Substanial Steps Taken to Committ Crimes

A trial court abuses its discretion when it allows a defendant to file an answer out of time absent a showing of excusable neglect. A contract is not lawfully binding on a party when there is fraud or forgery in procuring the party's signature. The judgment of the trial court was amply supported by competent, credible evidence where appellant failed to meet her burden of proving the existence of a lawful contract.

Trial court did not err in: finding that appellant did not have a right to amend his complaint because he failed to file an amended complaint within the time allowed under Civ.R. 15(A) denying appellant's motion for leave to amend because the proposed amended complaint did not cure the pleading deficiencies or considering appellees' Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss the original complaint because it was the only pleading before the trial court. Judgment affirmed.

Arbitration. Arbitrator exceeded his powers and imperfectly executed his powers so that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. R.C. 2711.10(D). Trial court did not err in vacating arbitrator's award. No evidence of material mistake or extensive impropriety by trial court.

Felony murder conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where trial judge, acting as finder of fact, chose to give more weight to state's expert who opined that defendant was not criminally insane at the time of the offense. Also, trial counsel's decision not to file motion to suppress police interview of defendant will not support case of ineffective assistance of trial counsel where there was no showing that such a motion, if granted, would have changed the outcome of the case.

R.C. 2941.401 accelerated speedy trial time limit not exceeded Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial not violated ineffective assistance of counsel claim not supported.

Trial court did not err in sentencing appellant. Judgment affirmed.

foreclosure - modification agreement - summary judgment - condition precedent - unilateral modification - R.C. 1303.15 - procedural unconscionability - substantive unconscionability - parol evidence - motion in limine - indispensable party - omitted counterclaim

Defendant suffered no prejudice when trial court denied his challenge to a potential juror for cause when the juror was removed and defendant still had peremptory challenges remaining. The trial court did not err in denying the motion for a mistrial when the alleged error was not material. Defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. The verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

A sua sponte continuance issued by the trial court pursuant to R.C. 2945.71(H) tolls speedy trial time when the continuance is recorded in a contemporaneous journal entry, the length of the continuance is reasonable, and the purpose for the continuance is apparent from the record and reasonable under the circumstances.

Two appeals are dismissed for failure to assign error to judgments. Trial court did not err in using the filler as well as the cocaine in determining the amount of drugs and the level of the offense.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying incarcerated father's motion to be conveyed to permanent custody hearing.

The defendant-appellant's rape and gross-sexual-imposition convictions are based on sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Without the benefit of a transcript of the proceedings or a suitable alternative, and presuming regularity of the proceedings, this court cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in its attorney-fee assessment or that the trial court's damages determination is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Appellant's convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

The trial court lacked authority to impose community control sanctions consecutive to a prison term, following the en banc decision of Eighth District Court of Appeals in State v. Anderson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102427, 2016-Ohio-7044.

Appellant's conviction for gross sexual imposition and sexual imposition was affirmed, as the evidence was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence, the evidence presented to the jury was permissible under the evidence rules, and there was no prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments.

Trial court did not err in sentencing defendant to seven years on a robbery conviction where the court made the required findings and the sentence was within the statutory range and sentence was not inconsistent with co-defendant who drove get-away vehicle.

The common pleas court lacked jurisdiction under R.C. 4123.512(A) where the denial of chiropractic services was an extent-of-injury decision, rather than a decision to terminate appellant's participation in the workers' compensation system, and was thus not appealable to the common pleas court.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea where appellant could not demonstrate he was prejudiced by defense counsel's failure to advise of potential adverse immigration consequences resulting from his guilty plea. Here, the trial court's statutory advisement under R.C. 2943.031(A) about the possibly adverse immigration consequences appellant faced as a result of his guilty plea matched the level of advisement defense counsel was obligated to provide pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010), appellant benefited from the plea bargain, there was not a likelihood of a favorable outcome had appellant proceeded to trial, and appellant's motion was not expeditiously filed.

Juvenile adjudication as a delinquent child for rape supported by sufficient evidence and the manifest weight of the evidence. Victim could not recall statements made to a social worker in an interview describing the abuse and the state was properly permitted to refresh the recollection by showing her a video of the interview. Juvenile had no constitutional right to a speedy trial in delinquency proceedings and could not demonstrate prejudice. Court did not err in declining to review the admissibility of a video as an exception to hearsay where the court determined it would not helpful in rendering a decision.

Trial court did not err in finding that the doctrine of lis pendens applied to a third party's acquisition of real property where the third party acquired the property after the plaintiff-original buyer filed a specific performance lawsuit against the defendant-prior owner in a breach of contract action.

Nursing home sued widow of deceased former nursing home resident for unpaid nursing services. Court granted widow's summary judgment motion finding that nursing home's failure to pursue a timely claim against resident's estate under R.C. 2117.06 precluded it from suing the widow under Ohio's necessaries statute, R.C. 3103.03. Court's decision reversed where it was found that necessaries statute set forth an independent cause of action that was not within the purview of the estate claim presentation statute and the widow failed to support her summary judgment motion with evidence clearly showing the absence of a genuine issue of fact.

Trial court erred in concluding it did not have jurisdiction following this court's 2015 decision reversing judgment in favor of appellee, as the absence of the word "remand" in the 2015 decision was a technical mistake that could be corrected by an order of errata and omission of the word indicated nothing with respect to the trial court's jurisdiction.

Summary judgment - riding ATV

Allied offenses - no merging of 3 possession counts

Ineffective assistance of counsel withdrawal of plea

ZONING - Zoning ordinance outdoor sign advertisement interpretation of provision unambiguous language waiver of constitutional argument plain error analysis.

CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCING/FINES, RESTITUTION, EXPUNGEMENT - appellant kept his three adopted children, including a developmentally-delayed child, locked in their rooms nearly all day every day and severely beat them over a two-year period trial court is presumed to have considered all appropriate sentencing factors even if the record is silent trial court satisfied its obligation to consider seriousness and recidivism factors by stating it considered them even if court discussed only the more serious factors, that does not mean it did not consider the less serious factors.

CRIMINAL - sentencing clear and convincing evidence contrary to law R.C. 2929.12 factors seriousness recidivism mitigation remorse burden on defendant "strikingly inconsistent"

JUDGMENTS - motion for relief from judgment appellant cannot use motion for relief from judgment as substitute for appeal appellants could have raised trial court's denial of their motion to continue the trial on appeal thus, they cannot assert this issue as basis for relief from judgment neglect without substantial extenuating circumstances does not constitute excusable neglect under Civ.R. 60 appellants were required to present operative facts supporting their defense in order to be entitled to relief from judgment appellants' expert report, which was prepared subsequent to trial, was not newly discovered evidence because such evidence must have been in existence prior to trial but the moving party was excusably unaware of it.

CRIMINAL LAW - receiving stolen property forgery painting work rental properties paid in cash checks missing Crim.R. 29 sufficiency of the evidence manifest weight of the evidence permission to cash jury believed victim over defendant sufficient, credible evidence supports convictions.

CRIMINAL LAW - deception to obtain a dangerous drug three different physicians oxycodone pre-existing prescriptions Crim.R. 29 sufficiency of the evidence manifest weight of the evidence defendant did not disclose he was seeing another physician Ohio Automated Rx Reporting System conviction supported by sufficient, credible evidence.

PUBLIC RECORDS - R.C. 149.43(B)(8) prison inmate records request pre-approval by sentencing judge sufficiency of application to judge failure to state justiciable claim.

CRIMINAL LAW - Motion to withdraw guilty plea res judicata issue as to whether plea hearing was held could have been raised in direct appeal defendant could have used App.R. 9(D) to show hearing was never held.

CRIMINAL LAW - Domestic violence physical harm to family member manifest weight credibility determination deference to trier of fact.

CIVIL - Aggravated Murder void sentence R.C. 2929.02(A) and .03(A) parole eligibility Adm.Code 5120-2-10(B)

Criminal: defendant-appellant's escape conviction following jury trial was supported by sufficient evidence, and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Sua sponte dismissal of application for a writ of mandamus because the issue of jail time credit must be raised in a direct appeal.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CIVIL - MUNICIPAL - ZONING - STANDING: The trial court did not err in granting injunctive relief to the city requiring the appellant to remove a sign on its building that is in violation of the off-site sign prohibition provisions in the city's zoning code, where the appellant failed to present a prima facie case of selective enforcement and failed to show that it could keep the oversized off-site sign in place even if the appellant's free-speech-based challenges to the off-site sign provisions were successful. The trial court erred by dismissing for lack of standing the part of the appellant's counterclaim seeking a declaration that the city's off-site sign prohibition provisions are unconstitutional as applied to the appellant's desired legally-sized-off-site sign, and on their face to the extent they restrict noncommercial speech.

JUVENILE - SEX OFFENSES - EQUAL PROTECTION: The mandatory classification of 16- and 17-year-old sex offenders under R.C. 2152.83(A) and 2152.84(A)(2)(c) does not violate the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions, because the juvenile-sex-offender-classification system is rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest of protecting the public from sex offenders.

APPELLATE REVIEW - JURISDICTION - POSTCONVICTION - POSTRELEASE CONTROL: The common pleas court had no jurisdiction to entertain defendant's postconviction "Motion to Vacate Postrelease Control" on the grounds that he was not sentenced in conformity with the postrelease-control statutes and that imposing postrelease control denied him the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution: the motion was not reviewable under R.C. 2953.21 et seq. as a postconviction petition, because the postrelease-control claim did not allege a constitutional violation, and the alleged double-jeopardy violation did not occur during the proceedings leading to his conviction under Crim.R. 33 as a motion for a new trial, when his conviction had followed a guilty plea, not a trial, or under Crim.R. 32.1 as a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, when the motion did not seek withdrawal of the plea under R.C. Chapter 2731 as a petition for a writ of mandamus, under R.C. Chapter 2721 as a declaratory judgment action, or under R.C. Chapter 2725 as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, because the motion did not satisfy those statutes' procedural requirements under Civ.R. 60(B), upon the authority of Crim.R. 57(B), because his conviction was reviewable under the procedures provided for a direct appeal or under a court's jurisdiction to correct a void judgment, because the postrelease-control portion of his sentence was not void. The postrelease-control portion of defendant's sentence was not void, because postrelease control was properly included in his sentence: the postrelease-control notification provided by the trial court at the combined plea-and-sentencing hearing before accepting defendant's guilty plea satisfied the statutory requirement that defendant be notified concerning postrelease control at sentencing postrelease control was properly incorporated into the judgment of conviction by the nunc pro tunc entry correcting the judgment of conviction to include postrelease control and the double-jeopardy protection against multiple punishments was not implicated by the adult parole authority's imposition of the five-year mandatory period of postrelease control after defendant had completed his prison term and had mistakenly been told that he would not be on postrelease control, because he had no legitimate expectation in the finality of his sentence when he knew, or should have known, that his sentence was legally incomplete.

Court of Claims of Ohio properly dismissed defamation and false light claims. Some were past the time allowed by the statute of limitations. Other claims were dismissed as not applying to the facts involved in Stainbrook's removal as a member of the Lucas County Board of Elections.

Judgment affirmed. The jury could reasonably conclude that appellant, with prior calculation and design, made a calculated decision to kill the victim and then followed through on his decision. Appellant's conviction for aggravated murder was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. As such, there was sufficient evidence to support the aggravated murder conviction, and the trial court properly denied appellant's motion for acquittal under Crim.R. 29.

Court of Claims of Ohio properly dismissed defamation and false light claims. Some were past the time allowed by the statute of limitations. Other claims were dismissed as not applying to the facts involved in Stainbrook's removal as a member of the Lucas County Board of Elections.

Defendant's assignments of error are overruled the result of the jury trial and subsequent judgment are affirmed.

Lien discharge, Bond, Breach of Contract, Tort Int./w business Relations, Attorney fees

Maximum consecutive sentences

Consecutive sentences

Trust - conversion - breach of trust - injunction - manifest weight)

Wheterh trial court erred in granting summary judgment on verified amended complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty/Breach of contract, fraud/Duress and partial summary judgment on cliams of conversion and unpaid cognovits note/Appeal regarding denial of attorney's fees

standing - redressability - inverse condemnation - physical taking - R.C. 719.01(J)

criminal trespass, pretrial motion to dismiss, Crim.R. 29, sufficiency of the evidence, manifest weight of the evidence

Criminal: Judgment granting motion to suppress evidence is reversed because confession was obtained voluntarily not as a result of police coercion or false promise.

Legal malpractice complaint for attorney fees motion for summary judgment expert report. Judgment affirmed. The trial court properly awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff-law firm when the defendant failed to produce an expert report. Without any affirmative evidence, the defendant could not establish the elements of his legal malpractice counterclaim.

R.C. 2901.13(A)(3)(a)/statute of limitations/rape John Doe/DNA indictment. Dismissal of the indictment against appellee was proper. The statute of limitations expired prior to amendment of the indictment appellee's identity was known prior to expiration of the statute of limitations, and a DNA match was made prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

Moot dismiss misdemeanor probation terminated. Appeal dismissed. Appeal is moot because during the pendency of the appeal, the trial court terminated appellant's probation and placed him on postrelease control. The trial court ordered that appellant be released.

Directed verdict punitive damages attorney fees litigation expenses malice insufficient evidence. Court erred by denying defendant's motion for directed verdict on issue of punitive damages in nursing home negligence case, because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of malice. Additionally, because punitive damages were improperly awarded, the court also erred by awarding attorney fees and, in part, litigation expenses.

Foreclosure Civ.R. 60(B) meritorious claim or defense lis pendens. The trial court properly denied the motion for relief from judgment where the purported meritorious claim or defense was that the proper party in interest was not included in the suit where a defendant transferred title property that was the subject of a foreclosure action to a third party during the pendency of the action. The doctrine of lis pendens disposed of such a claim.

Civ.R. 56/summary judgment. Appellant's counsel failed to follow the trial court's order the trial court considered the evidence in the case. The trial court's granting of summary judgment was sufficiently supported.

Plain error preliminary hearing invited error violation community control sentencing hearing R.C. 2929.11 R.C. 2929.12. Defendant expressly conceded at a preliminary hearing that a violation of community control sanctions occurred and, therefore, waived his right to written notice before a revocation hearing, but the trial court erred by imposing a sentencing upon the violation without considering the sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.12 and 2929.11.

Sexual predator clear and convincing evidence due process equal protection sex offender sexual battery R.C. 2907.03(A)(1) Megan's Law former R.C. Chapter 2950 manifest weight plain error Crim.R. 52. The trial court conducted an adequate sex offender classification hearing. The trial court's sexual predator classification is not against the manifest weight of the evidence and does not violate appellant's constitutional rights to due process or equal protection.

Stay arbitration vehicle purchase Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act CSPA negligent misrepresentation Magnusson Moss Warranty Act unconscionable procedural substantive adhesion unequal bargaining public policy due process protocol R.C. 2711.02 hearing discretion. Trial court's decision to stay case pending arbitration was upheld. All claims surrounding the purchase of a vehicle fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, which was neither procedurally or substantively unconscionable. A trial court has discretion to hold a hearing on the motion to stay pursuant to R.C. 2711.02, and the court did not abuse that discretion where it ordered supplemental briefing and had an adequate record upon which to make a determination without a hearing.

JURIES - HEARSAY - OTHER ACTS - IMPEACHMENT - WITNESS - PROSECUTOR - COUNSEL - SENTENCING: The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's objection to the state's use of a peremptory challenge to exclude an African-American juror where the trial court's acceptance of the state's race-neutral reason based on the cumulative effect of several factors was not clearly erroneous. The trial court did not err in finding that a witness was unavailable even though the state failed to submit sworn testimony about its efforts to locate the witness, because the defendant forfeited the issue where he did not object on the basis that sworn testimony was required and did not dispute what the prosecutor had said about the state's attempts to locate the witness. The trial court did not err in finding that a witness was unavailable where the record showed that even though the witness had been present during the trial, he had left the courthouse, could not be located, and was "on the run," actively trying to avoid testifying. The trial court did not err in allowing the state to read an unavailable witness's testimony from a previous trial to the jury, because the testimony fell under the hearsay exception in Evid.R. 804(B)(1) where it came from an adversarial proceeding and the defendant had had an opportunity and motive at that proceeding to develop the testimony by direct, cross and redirect examination. The trial court did not err in allowing an unavailable witness's statement to police to be read to the jury under the hearsay exception for recorded recollection in Evid.R. 803(5) where the witness had repeatedly testified in a prior trial that he did not remember the events in question, but he had acknowledged making the statement to the police when his knowledge was fresh and had denied lying to the police. The trial court erred in allowing hearsay statements by the murder victim into evidence under the exception in Evid.R. 803(1) for present sense impressions, because the record did not establish a context for the victim's statements or the event or condition that prompted his statements. The trial court did not err in allowing a police detective to testify to hearsay statements made by two witnesses to the effect that the defendant had admitted to murdering the victim, because those statements were consistent with the witnesses' testimony in a previous trial and were used to rebut the defendant's claim that the witnesses lied to receive favorable treatment. The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the defendant's other bad acts where that testimony was necessary to show the relationship between the defendant, the victim and the various witnesses, and to show the defendant's motive for killing the victim. The trial court erred in allowing the state to impeach its own witnesses because a neutral answer such as "I don't remember" does not constitute affirmative damage. The record did not demonstrate that any alleged misconduct by the prosecutor was so egregious as to affect the defendant's substantial rights. The defendant failed to demonstrate that his counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that but for counsel's errors, the results of the proceeding would have been otherwise therefore, he failed to meet his burden to show ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court's failure to inform the defendant at sentencing about the requirement that he submit to DNA testing and the consequences of failing to do so under R.C. 2901.07(B) was harmless and did not prejudice the defendant.

DEBTOR-CREDITOR - RECEIVER: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by appointing a receiver in a third-party commercial foreclosure action. The lender was entitled to a receiver under R.C. 2735.01(A)(3), because the lender presented evidence that the borrower had entered into a contractual assignment of leases and rents.

Guilty plea/Crim. R. 11/Maximum penalty/Mandatory firearm specifications/R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g)/IAC

Magistrate's Decision adopted. The magistrate properly stated the pertinent facts and applied the appropriate law to find that relator had not demonstrated the Industrial Commission abused its discretion in calculating his average weekly wage or in denying his request for reconsideration. Writ of mandamus denied.

The Court of Claims appropriately entered summary judgment against Plaintiff-Appellant in accordance with Civ.R. 56(E), where Plaintiff-Appellant could not prove causation and thus could not meet his burden of proof. There being no genuine issue for trial, summary judgment is appropriate. Judgment affirmed.

Employer who required employee to work under heavy flywheel without safeguards to protect the employee if the flywheel fell was guilty of violating a specific safety requirement.

Personal injury claim dismissal became plaintiff's refiled complaint beyond the 30-day grace period. After the defendant received a discharge in bankruptcy. Judgment of dismissal affirmed.

Juvenile court did err by dismissing the state's second motion to relinquish jurisdiction after the juvenile court denied the state's first motion, res judicata barred the state's attempt to relitigate the same issue.

Trial court erred by merging arson and vandalism offenses, as conduct supporting convictions were the same.

The trial court's decision that R.C. 2941.401 time limits had been met was not contrary to law. Trial counsel was not so ineffective as to deprive appellant of meaningful representation because no error on record resulted in prejudice or precluded him from entering a knowing, voluntary plea.

Due to the state's unexplained delay in providing discovery, the trial court did not err when it granted defendant's motion to dismiss based upon a speedy trial violation. R.C. 2945.71 R.C. 2945.72.

Appellant's sentence was not contrary to law, disproportionate, or inconsistent where the trial court properly considered the statutory sentencing factors and guidelines pursuant to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

Domestic relations court did not abuse its discretion in granting a domestic relations civil protection order against appellant where the evidence demonstrated that appellant pointed a firearm at appellee, smashed her telephone, and pushed her into a toolbox, bruising her elbow and forearm in the process.

Physical-harm robbery sufficiency of the evidence manifest weight of the evidence jury instruction which included an instruction relating to the victim's "fear and apprehension" was not an abuse of discretion.

Trial court did not err in granting the agency's motion for permanent custody where the parents failed to remedy the conditions that caused the children's removal.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a six-day jail sentence for a second time OVI offender where the sentence was within the statutory limits and there was no affirmative indication that the trial court failed to consider the factors contained in R.C. 2929.21 and R.C. 2929.22.

Counts of kidnapping and aggravated robbery do not merge when the crimes are committed with a separte animus.

The trial court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress the trial court did not err in overruling Appellant's motion to terminate his counsel and represent himself after all the evidence had been presented at trial Appellant's conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence Appellant failed to demonstrate his trial counsel was ineffective.

Defendant's tampering-with-evidence and resisting-arrest convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, and his possession-of-heroin conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

CRIMINAL LAW - aggravated murder tampering with evidence opinion testimony Evid.R. 701 lay witness personal observations emotional state Evid.R. 702 expert testimony credibility veracity police officer's testimony motive state of mind plain error ineffective assistance failure to object prejudice sufficiency manifest weight prior calculation and design time of death livor mortis rigor mortis self-incrimination defendant's silence at sentencing lack of remorse R.C. 2929.12.

CIVIL - foreclosure sheriff's sale confirmation of sale R.C. 2329.31(A) Lake County Local Rules 7.03 and 7.04 notice of sale R.C. 2329.26(A) unsupported argument App.R. 12(A)(2) and (7) appraisal R.C. 2329.17

FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER - once landlord has been restored to property, forcible entry and detainer action becomes moot tenant's pending claim for damages does not affect finality of judgment in forcible entry and detainer action appellant's failure to comply with Rules of Appellate Procedure allows appellate court to disregard the arguments it is not appellate court's duty to root out argument that can support assigned error documents attached to appellant's brief and not part of record cannot be considered by appellate court and are to be struck from record where transcript is omitted from record, appellate court has no choice but to presume validity of trial court's proceedings and affirm.

CRIMINAL LAW - R.C. 2929.12 mitigating factors seriousness and recidivism factors genuine remorse.

CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE - complaint fails to comply with Civ.R. 10(D)(2) insufficient affidavit of merit interlocutory order issued before Civ.R. 41(A) dismissal has no res judicata effect directed verdict under Civ.R. 50(A)(4) appropriate because plaintiff failed to establish requisite elements to establish medical malpractice claim.

CONTRACTS - breach of contract construction contract defaulting contractor faulty workmanship allowances fixed costs change orders. DAMAGES - calculation cost to complete diminution in value owner-opinion rule quantum meruit. PREJUDGMENT INTEREST - statutory rate R.C. 1343.03(A). OTHER CIVIL RULES - mechanic's lien foreclosure judicial title reports local rules.

CIVIL - reverse discrimination Ohio Civil Rights Commission random draw apprenticeship program unlawful practice R.C. 4112 probable cause application of prior federal court decisions manifest imbalance voluntary affirmative action plan prima facie case

The trial court did not err in overruling Appellant's motion to vacate a void judgment. The motion alleged error in jury instructions that were given during Appellant's trial. This error, if it occurred, would have rendered the judgment voidable, rather than void. Because Appellant could have raised the error during his direct appeal, his motion is barred by res judicata. Even if this had been otherwise, the motion to vacate was without merit. Appellant's motion was also untimely to the extent it might be construed as a motion for new trial under Crim.R. 33 or as a petition for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21. The time for filing such motions elapsed many years ago, and Appellant failed to raise any grounds for allowing an exception to the time limits. Affirmed.

The trial court did not err in overruling the appellant's motion for additional jail-time credit. The appellant was not entitled to jail-time credit for time spent on pretrial electronically monitored house arrest. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees Charlotte Harris and Raven Evans-Harris on Appellant's personal injury claim because there is no genuine issue of material fact that Appellees' conduct toward Appellant was not reckless. Affirmed. (Donovan, J., concurs in part and dissents in part).

This court lacks jurisdiction to review the trial court's decision overruling Appellant's motion to withdraw his no contest pleas because Appellant's notice of appeal does not designate that decision as the judgment being appealed from. Even if this court assumed jurisdiction over the matter, Appellant's motion is barred by res judicata. Appellant's ineffective assistance claim also fails, as counsel's failure to file a written plea withdrawal motion does not amount to deficient performance. Judgments affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing testimony regarding Defendant-appellant's prior criminal convictions. Defendant-appellant, who was charged with trespass in a habitation, asserted at the scene, during his opening statement, and throughout the trial that he entered the residence at issue because he was being chased. The prior conviction evidence, under this circumstance, was appropriately allowed to test the credibility of Defendant-appellant's claim of being chased. Further, the prior conviction evidence was not needlessly cumulative. Judgment affirmed.

Trial court properly overruled defendant's motion to suppress. Officers acted reasonably in stopping defendant's vehicle for expired and fictitious plates based on their computer searches of defendant's license plate, even though the plates were not, in fact, expired or fictitious. Defendant's subsequent statements to detectives at the sheriff's office were not made involuntarily. Judgment affirmed. (Hall, P.J., concurring). (Froelich, J., dissenting).

The Ohio State Board of Education's revocation of Plaintiff-Appellant's teaching license was not contrary to law, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in affirming the Board's decision that Plaintiff engaged in conduct unbecoming an educator. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court erred in admitting a laboratory report under R.C. 2925.51, as that statute does not apply to the violations with which Appellant was charged. However, the error was not prejudicial. The trial court did not err in admitting testimony about sexual abuse, nor was there any error in failing to qualify a State witness as an expert on sexual abuse. In addition, there was no cumulative error requiring a new trial. However, three of the four convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded for further proceedings. (Hall, P.J., concurring.)

The trial court did not err in overruling Appellant's petition for post-conviction relief because the allied offense claim asserted therein was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. In addition, the offenses at issue were not allied offenses of similar import because they arose from separate conduct and involved separate victims. Affirmed.

Post Conviction Relief/Motion to disqualify

Criminal Arson Constitutionality of R.C. 2909.15(D)(2)(b)

Termination of commitment

Maximum consecutive sentences

Subject matter juristiction exhaustion of admin. remedies

Magistrate's Decision adopted that the Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion in granting an additional award for violation of a specific safety requirement where relator did not initially satisfy the specific safety requirement. Writ of mandamus denied.

SERB did not abuse its discretion in dismissing relator's ULP complaint for lack of probable cause where the plain language of the expiring CBA permitted either party to declare an impasse in negotiations and proceed to mediation when, after 45 days from the expiration of the CBA, the parties were unable to reach an agreement. Objections overruled writ of mandamus denied.

Domestic relations court did not modify the settlement or abuse its discretion by offsetting obligations of the parties to enforce their settlement agreement. Judgment affirmed.

On report of the commission on continuing legal education.

Magistrate's Decision adopted that the Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion by relying on medical reports supporting permanent total disability finding based solely on allowed conditions of the claim and without consideration of non-allowed medical conditions and non-medical disability factors. Writ of mandamus denied.

Magistrate's decision adopted that the Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion in terminating ongoing payment of temporary total disability compensation as of the date of the commission's district-level hearing. Writ of mandamus denied.

In the case of an inmate who filed two virtually identical suits for damages in the Court of Claims from the same alleged tort, it was not error for the Court of Claims to have granted the State summary judgment and to have dismissed the later-filed suit after the first suit, administratively determined, resolved in the State's favor.

In considering a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss based on statute of limitations, the trial court did not err in failing to apply R.C. 2305.15(B) to toll time while an inmate was imprisoned or R.C. 2305.19 as a savings statute, as neither statute applied to the facts of the case. Judgment affirmed.

sufficiency of the evidence, identity, operability of firearm, manifest weight of the evidence

mold, landlord, tenant, negligence, negligence per se, credibility, R.C. 5321.04

inferior degree offense, serious provocation, merger of allied offenses, verdict forms

child support obligation, tax dependency exemption

sentencing package doctrine, State v. Saxon, plea agreement, agreed sentence

theft, R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), R.C. 2913.71(B), blank check, statutory interpretation

manifest weight - sufficiency - violation - ex parte protection order - plain error - jury instructions - unanimity

sexual offenses against a child - identically-worded counts in an indictment - failure to file motion to compel bill of particulars - appellant's burden to demonstrate error

Motion to Suppress Probable Cause to Arrest

CRIMINAL - Trial court was correct to deny Appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing.

Guilty Plea Crim.R. 11 Judicial Release R.C. 2929.20. Where defendant stopped plea to ask about judicial release, then obtained erroneous information that he was eligible after seven years of his sentence, his guilty plea was not knowing, voluntarily and intelligently entered, and he suffered prejudice from the erroneous information.

Motion to continue trial sufficiency of evidence manifest weight of the evidence merger, ineffective assistance of counsel Strickland sexually violent predator specification rape kidnapping felonious assault. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part. Defense counsel affirmatively waived defendant's third motion to continue on the day of trial when he told the trial court that they were prepared to go forward that day. The trial court considered the harm defendant caused to the victim and defendant's prior criminal record when finding defendant guilty of the sexually violent predator specification. The jury did not lose its way as defendant was found guilty based on the evidence of several witnesses and corroborating DNA testing. The rape and kidnapping convictions merge for purposes of sentencing. The kidnapping was incidental to the rape.

Sentencing package Saxon concurrent consecutive. Defendant's sentence was not the product of an unlawful sentencing packaging and therefore did not violate State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824.

Preindictment delay The trial court applied the two part burden shifting test for preindictment delay and found appellee suffered actual prejudice and the prosecution had no justifiable reason for the 20 year delay in prosecution. The trial court properly dismissed the case on the ground of unconstitutional preindictment delay.

Motion to disqualify court-appointed counsel Crim.R. 11(C)/ acceptance of plea R.C. 2929.41(A)/consecutive sentences/statutory findings R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(g)(i) and (ii)/motion for jail-time credit motion to dismiss. The trial court conducted two extensive hearings on appellant's allegations against his court-appointed counsel the trial court determined that appellant was represented by competent and experienced counsel and it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny appellant's motion. Where the trial court misstated about the maximum sentence appellant could receive, it was not error. Appellant was sentenced to a term less than that which the trial court misspoke. The trial court failed to make the required findings where it imposed consecutive sentences additionally, the trial court failed to place computation of appellant's jail-time credit in its sentencing entry. Appellant's allegations failed to meet the actual prejudice standard for preindictment delay.

Competency to stand trial hearing due process harmless error. Trial court erred in failing to hold competency hearing before accepting defendant's guilty plea where there were indicia of incompetency and no indicia of competency.

Motion for new trial Crim.R. 33 res judicata. Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for new trial, or alternatively, petition for postconviction relief without a hearing.

State's appeal from entry granting motion to withdraw plea

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE - INTENTIONAL TORT - R.C. 2745.01 - SUMMARY JUDGMENT: The trial court did not err in granting defendant employer's motion for summary judgment in an intentional-tort case brought by its employee's estate: R.C. 2745.01(C)'s rebuttable presumption did not apply because the employer's failure to require the employee to use a submersion tank before cutting away metal casings on air filters was not tantamount to the deliberate removal of an equipment safety guard where the submersion tank was not an equipment safety guard, and there was otherwise no issue of fact as to whether the employer had deliberately intended to harm its employee.

Subject-matter jurisdiction is a court's power to hear and decide a particular class of cases and does not relate to the rights of the individual parties involved in a particular case. Whether or not properly dissolved, a limited liability company retains power to sue and be sued. A non-member purchaser of assets of a limited liability company cannot defend against breach of contract and fraud by claiming lack of authority of the LLC, based on rights of members. R.C. 1705.03(E)(1).

Appellant's convictions, including his conviction for murder, with firearm and gang specifications, were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err in permitting the state to present gang-related testimony. Additionally, appellant's trial counsel was not deficient in not moving to suppress pretrial identifications, in not requesting a jury instruction pursuant to R.C. 2933.83(C)(3), and in not requesting a jury instruction concerning other acts testimony. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court properly dismissed appellant's claim against OSU Hospitals for tortious interference with a business relationship because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over that claim. Judgment affirmed.

Trial court was within its discretion to award attorney fees and punitive damages.

The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services did not err in its adjudication order.

The trial court erred when it granted C.R.'s application to seal the record of his conviction for an offense of violence.

The trial court did not err in denying Christian's untimely petition for postconviction relief, though technically the trial court should have dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Appeal of order revoking appellant's bond dismissed because trial court subsequently issued order setting increased bond for appellant. Whether revocation of bond was ordered pursuant to R.C. 2937.222 or the trial court's inherent powers, the trial court's subsequent bond order required dismissal of the appeal.

Trial court erred in overruling defendant's Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal, based on the State's failure to identify her as the perpetrator of an assault on a paramedic. Neither the emergency medical workers involved in the call nor the police officer who responded to the hospital could identify Bailey in court. The defendant's having the same name as the woman who allegedly assaulted the paramedic was insufficient evidence that it was the same woman. Judgment reversed and vacated.

The trial court's decision to deny Appellant's petition for a civil stalking protection order is supported by the record and thus does not constitute an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Judgment affirmed.

The State concedes error in the trial court's inclusion of court costs and appointed counsel fees in post-release payments that Appellant is required to pay. Judgment modified to excise the incorrect language, and affirmed as modified.

The trial court did not err in suppressing drug-related evidence found through a canine sniff of the defendant's car during a traffic stop. An officer failed to process the traffic stop diligently and improperly added time to the stop by doing nothing while waiting approximately eight minutes for the canine unit to arrive. Judgment affirmed. (Donovan, J., concurring).

Trial court properly granted the motion to dismiss filed by a common pleas court judge and the common pleas court itself. Plaintiff made no allegation that the judge had acted outside his official capacity, and he was immune from civil liability for actions taken in that capacity a court is not an entity that can be sued. Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of attorney who had served as opposing counsel in some of plaintiff's litigation, as he had owed no duty to plaintiff during his representation of her opponents. Judgment affirmed.

The judgment of the trial court denying Appellant's pro se "Void Sentence" motion lacks merit. State v. Hand, Ohio Supreme Court Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5504, has no applicability to Appellant's conviction. Judgment affirmed.

Convictions for OVI and OVI test refusal are not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and are supported by sufficient evidence. Trial court did not err by denying motion to suppress. Trial court did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present witnesses on her behalf. Judgment affirmed.

Trial Court erred in reducing magistrate's recommendation on damages. Judgment affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.

Trial court's order of restitution is void where the restitution is ordered to be paid to third party financial institutions without the defendant agreeing to pay restitution in this manner during plea negotiations.

Trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to amend his complaint under Civ.R. 15 where the motion was untimely filed and no explanation for the delay was provided.

In a medical negligence action, no genuine issues of fact remained where the circumstances of the decedent's fall were too speculative to attribute to a breach in the nursing standard of care.

School board employees were not entitled to statutory immunity on age discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims because genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether they acted with malice, in bad faith, wantonly, or recklessly in pursuing disciplinary proceedings against appellee. Employees were entitled to immunity as to retaliation claims where court identified no conduct attributable to them in denying summary judgment on the merits of the claim.

Summary judgment Civ.R. 56 breach of contract impairment of earning capacity. The court determined that reasonable minds could conclude only that no plaintiff provided evidence to show any loss of earning capacity or other economic loss. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.

Negligence objection Civ.R. 53. The court determined that plaintiff, an inmate, failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant was negligent in failing to prevent an attack upon plaintiff by another inmate. The court concluded that ODRC did not have actual or constructive notice that the attack upon plaintiff was impending. The court adopted the magistrate's decision and recommendation as its own, including conclusions of law contained therein. Judgment rendered in favor of defendant.

Summary judgment Civ.R. 56 defamation innocent construction immunity. The court found that there was a reasonable innocent construction of defendant's employee's statements and that construction must be adopted. Thus, as a matter of law, the statements at issue were not defamatory and plaintiff's defamation claim failed. Plaintiff's response to the motion for summary judgment failed to present any evidence or legal argument to support a finding that defendant's employees were not entitled to civil immunity, and thus defendant's employees were entitled to immunity pursuant to R.C. 9.86 and 2743.02(F). Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.

Inmate negligence civil conspiracy trial bifurcated. The magistrate determined that plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant had actual or constructive notice that another inmate would attack plaintiff. There was no evidence that the attacker exhibited violent tendencies or assaultive behavior toward plaintiff or any other inmate. Because there was no underlying unlawful act, plaintiff's civil conspiracy claim failed. Judgment recommended in favor of defendant.

Objection Civ.R. 53 construction surety contract. The court found that the referee accurately applied the law as it pertained to plaintiffs' burden of proof, and the referee's analysis of the effect of an MOU on plaintiffs' claims was an accurate interpretation. Also, the court agreed with the referee that plaintiffs' Article 8 claim was not timely. The court adopted the referee's decision and recommendation as its own, including conclusions of law contained therein. Judgment rendered in favor of defendant.

Summary judgment Civ.R. 56 R.C. 5501.42 tree removal. The court determined that the undisputed evidence showed that the trees at issue shaded a portion of SR 18, which caused premature deterioration of the asphalt roadway. Defendant's determination that the removal was justified because the proximity of the trees to the highway presented a potential hazard to motorists was consistent with the purpose of the easement. As such, reasonable minds could only conclude that the removal of the trees was related to a highway improvement which is consistent with the purposes of the easement and that plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.

Summary judgment Civ.R. 56 tortious interference breach of contract. The court determined that there were stated reasons for terminating a fellowship as it existed, and those reasons in no way showed any tortious interference on the part of defendant. Further, the only reasonable conclusion related to the breach of contract claim was that NEOMED did not breach the implied duty of good faith in the parties' subcontracting agreement. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.

Summary judgment Civ.R. 56 inmate assault battery negligence. The court concluded that defendant's employees used only the force necessary to control plaintiff. There was nothing to contradict the testimony put forth by defendant that plaintiff disobeyed direct order and that no excessive force was used. Finally, there was no dispute that plaintiff was not otherwise inappropriately touched as alleged in the complaint. Summary judgment granted in favor of defendant.

post-release control, R.C. 2967.28, res judicata, R.C. 2945.75

planned communities, R.C. 5312 et seq., R.C. 5311 et seq., summary judgment

The defendant-appellant's consecutive sentences are not contrary to law because the trial court made the appropriate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in its response to the jury's request for clarification.

The trial court did not err in finding that plaintiff breached the implied warranty of habitability, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in calculating damages

The trial court did not err error in determining that the assets contained in an Irrevocable Trust did not constitute marital property subject to equitable division there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's application of the $150,000 combined income level cap in calculating husband's child support and the record supported the trial court's decision to award wife $300,000 for husband's financial misconduct during the divorce proceedings.

Dormant Mineral Act Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2016-Ohio-5796, __ N.E.3d __ 2006 Dormant Mineral Act applies to all actions filed after June 30, 2006 1989 Dormant Mineral Act was not self-executing and did not automatically transfer ownership rights of dormant minerals by operation of the law constitutionality of 1989 Dormant Mineral Act is moot.

affirming conviction of complicity to rape child under ten court properly admitted evidence as to portions of his text and social media conversations with the principle offender suppression motion overruled no custodial interrogation sufficient evidence weight of the evidence.

Final appealable order R.C. 2505.02 Civ.R. 54(B) certification.

final appealable order discretionary transfer from juvenile division to general division following reverse bindover

permanent custody to children's services agency was in children's best interest children could not be placed with either parent despite compliance with case plan permanent custody was warranted guardian ad litem file timely report

Appellant's conviction for cruelty to animals was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the state demonstrated that in a week's time, appellant only fed the dog and let it outside its cage two or three times, never took the dog outside the apartment, and did not seek treatment for the dog despite it being thin and having open sores on its hind end and hip.

The trial court properly granted summary judgment by finding that appellant's statements were factual in nature, rather than opinion, and also properly denied appellant's motion for JNOV where the trial court did not err in limiting expert testimony from the parties.

Trial court did not err in denying defendant's counterclaim for conversion where the record demonstrated he failed to use ordinary and reasonable effort to avoid or lessen his damages. Defendant delayed more than 17 months in retrieving his items from the plaintiff's property, this delay was a result of his own actions and not those of the plaintiff, and he had not taken any action to prevent damage to his belongings after learning they had been removed from the pole barn and placed outside.

Trial court did not err by denying motion to withdraw guilty plea where the record showed that appellant had been provided an interpreter and the interpreter was under oath. All necessary immigration notices were provided by the court and confirmed by appellant's attorney. Furthermore, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, courts may presume the regularity of the proceedings and affirm.

Mother's conviction for endangering children supported by sufficient evidence and manifest weight of the evidence where mother starved infant child, child gained a fraction of the weight a healthy child would have gained, infant was hospitalized with failure to thrive, and expert testimony established that infant suffered serious physical harm from being underfed.

Father's conviction for endangering children supported by sufficient evidence and manifest weight of the evidence where father starved infant child, child gained a fraction of the weight a healthy child would have gained, infant was hospitalized with failure to thrive, and expert testimony established that infant suffered prolonged pain, and thus serious physical harm, from being underfed.

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing jail-time credit R.C. 2967.191 credit for pre-indictment period incarceration based solely on probation violation holder holder based solely on new criminal charges statute satisfied when incarceration "arose out of" new offenses.

CIVIL PROCEDURE - Civ.R. 60(B) relief from final judgment assertion of issue that could have been raised in response to summary judgment reconsideration impermissible res judicata.

APPELLATE REVIEW - denial of motion for judicial release is not a final appealable order.

PROBATE - R.C. 2115.16 a hearing on exceptions to an inventory is a summary proceeding the exceptor has the burden to prove the existence of assets he or she believes should have been included in the inventory the burden of proof as to any estate asset lies with the exceptor who must prove the value by clear and convincing evidence.

CRIMINAL LAW - motion to suppress Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination defendant's volunteered statements to detective not made in response to an interrogation were properly admitted at trial statements made while hospitalized and suffering from gunshot wound were voluntary and admissible nurse's notes identified defendant as coherent and conscious before statements were made, and detective described defendant as conscious and coherent nothing depicted defendant as confused at the time.

CRIMINAL LAW - motion in limine admission of evidence objection preserved for appeal plain error relevant evidence firearms prejudicial effect probative value ineffective assistance failure to object motion to suppress sufficiency manifest weight trafficking in drugs circumstantial evidence "stacking of inferences" prosecutorial misconduct closing arguments prejudicial remarks burden shifting felony sentence seriousness and recidivism factors.

APPELLATE REVIEW - State interlocutory appeal from disclosure of grand jury transcript Crim.R. 12(K) Crim.R. 16(D) failure to satisfy certification requirement.

Appellant failed to file the necessary transcript of the trial court proceedings to support his claim that he was entitled to additional jail time credit, thus requiring this court to presume the regularity of the proceedings before the trial court.

Attorneys-Judges-Misconduct--Conviction of multiple misdemeanors, including solicitation and falsification--Two-year suspension with second year stayed on condition.

Taxation-Real-property valuation-Valuation of government-subsidized residential properties-Board of Tax Appeals' decision reversed.

Fourth Amendment-Search and seizure-High school's protocol requiring searches of unattended book bags furthers compelling governmental interest in protecting public-school students from physical harm-School employees' warrantless search of unattended book bag pursuant to protocol was limited to furthering compelling governmental interest and was reasonable-Court of appeals' judgment affirming trial court's grant of suppression motion reversed and cause remanded.

On certified order of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Appellant's convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and defense counsel did not render deficient performance.

Before imposing life without parole, a trial court is required to consider the youth of an offender and it must determine that the "crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility". A court is not required to use the same procedural protections or require the same level of proof as would be used in an adult offender's death penalty mitigation hearing.

The trial court lacked jurisdiction to deem discovery requests admitted during the pendency of an appeal of the entry denying objections to and a motion to strike those requests. The trial court did not have the authority under Ohio law to execute and deliver a replacement stock certificate after the original stock certificate was lost.

Appellant failed to plead fraud with particularity, and accordingly the trial court was correct in dismissing his complaint because his fraud claim failed, his derivative claim of civil conspiracy failed as well.

Attorneys at law-Resignation with disciplinary action pending-Gov.Bar R. VI(11)(C).

Stare decisis and our prior decision in J&H Reinforcing & Structural Erectors, Inc. v. Ohio School Facilities Comm., No. 12AP-588, 2013-Ohio-3827, 100-06, compel the conclusion that the factors set forth Complete Gen. Constr. Co. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 94 Ohio St.3d 54, 58-59 (2002), do not apply to cases in which the Eichleay formula is not used.

Stare decisis and our prior decision in J&H Reinforcing & Structural Erectors, Inc. v. Ohio School Facilities Comm., No. 12AP-588, 2013-Ohio-3827, 100-06, compel the conclusion that the factors set forth Complete Gen. Constr. Co. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 94 Ohio St.3d 54, 58-59 (2002), do not apply to cases in which the Eichleay formula is not used.

The proper consideration in ordering restitution is not the profit of the criminal, but the economic loss to the victim. In the absence of evidence that the services provided by the defendant to the victim were valueless or of diminished value, the economic loss of the victim is not the entire amount paid by the victim for the services.

equal protection - intermediate test - gender - domestic violence - mandatory prison time - enhanced penalty - manifest weight - sufficiency - knowingly

kidnapping - abduction - felonious assault - domestic violence - Batson v. Kentucky - race-neutral explanation - ineffective assistance - stalking - knee pain

App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, request to discharge appointed counsel, false testimony of a witness, credibility of a witness, res judicata. The appellant, through his App.R. 26(B) application for reopening, has failed to establish that he was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and that the outcome of his appeal would have been different had this court considered his proposed assignments of error. The appellant has raised two proposed assignments of error that deal with the issues of failure of the trial court to discharge appointed counsel, failure of the trial court to appoint new trial counsel, and the credibility of a witness. A review of the trial transcript demonstrates that the appellant abandoned his request to discharge appointed counsel. In addition, the appellant failed to demonstrate, at a hearing held before the trial court, a "breakdown in the attorney-client relationship of such magnitude as to jeopardize a defendant's right to effective assistance of trial counsel." Finally, the issue of credibility of a witness was previously addressed on direct appeal and is thus barred from further review by the doctrine of res judicata.

App.R. 26(B) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel pro se representation colorable claim postrelease control. The scope of App.R. 26(B) is limited to a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and a defendant who represents himself on appeal cannot later argue his own ineffectiveness in an application to reopen under App.R. 26(B). Even if appellant's application was not barred by his self-representation, his proposed assignment of error fails on the merits and therefore cannot support a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal as required under App.R. 26(B)(5). The trial court properly notified appellant of the correct term of postrelease control.

Sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence, prior calculation and design, aiding and abetting. Defendant's conviction for aggravated murder upheld. Sufficient evidence was presented that defendant acted with prior calculation and design to support the aggravated murder conviction. Defendant acted with prior calculation and design when he retrieved the gun from a concealed location and pursued the victim while firing the gun repeatedly at the victim. In the event that the jury did not believe that the defendant was the actual shooter, the jury was properly instructed on accomplice liability.

Ineffective assistance of counsel plea agreement motion to disqualify counsel allied offenses consecutive sentences R.C. 2929.14 court costs indigent. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant's motion to disqualify counsel where the court considered the request at length and found the request untimely and not supported by good cause. The trial court did not err in failing to merge the defendant's kidnapping offense with his other offenses. Reviewing for plain error, we find the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that his kidnapping offense would have merged with his other offenses. We cannot find the record clearly and convincingly does not support consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed court costs regardless of the defendant's indigency.

Motion to suppress pretrial identifications R.C. 2933.83 photo lineup blind administrator single photograph jury instruction Crim.R. 29 sufficiency of the evidence manifest weight of the evidence consecutive sentences R.C. 2929.14 admissibility of evidence Evid.R. 401, 402 and 403. The trial court did not err when it permitted the pretrial identification testimony of an eyewitness and a victim. Since the eyewitness knew the alleged shooter, the detective showed her a single photograph. Therefore, R.C. 2933.83 did not apply and, considering the totality of the circumstances, the procedure for the eyewitness identification was not so impermissibly suggestive. With respect to the victim's pretrial identification, the detective complied with R.C. 2933.83 because he documented that he did not use a blind administrator. Moreover, the procedure for the victim's identification was not so impermissibly suggestive. The trial court was not required to give a jury instruction pursuant to R.C. 2933.83(C)(3). The jury verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence or sufficiency of the evidence. The trial court properly imposed consecutive sentences in accordance with R.C. 2929.14. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a redacted letter written by the defendant to be presented to the jury.

Aggravated robbery felonious assault deadly weapon brandish circumstantial evidence sufficient evidence manifest weight of the evidence. Defendant's aggravated robbery conviction was affirmed based on circumstantial evidence showing that defendant shot a gun at the victim at the time the victim's cell phone and money was taken. Defendant's felonious assault conviction was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence even though the victim testified he did not know who shot him because victim's testimony was not credible and other competent, credible evidence established that defendant shot victim in the calf.

Resentencing merger allied offenses concurrent sentence. Sentence vacated. The matter is remanded for resentencing pursuant to our mandate in State v. Anthony, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101847, 2015-Ohio-2267, 37 N.E.3d 751. The trial court erred when resentencing defendant to concurrent sentences as opposed to merging the convictions and sentencing defendant on one conviction. The imposition of concurrent is not the equivalent of merging allied offenses.

Motion for resentencing post-sentence motion to withdraw plea mandatory fine R.C. 2929.18(B)(1) affidavit of indigency manifest injustice. The trial court erred when it failed to impose a mandatory fine because defendant never filed an affidavit of indigency pursuant to the requirements of R.C. 2929.18(B)(1). The resentencing hearing is limited to the trial court's imposition of the mandatory fine. Defendant can file an affidavit of indigency before the resentencing hearing and if the trial court determines that defendant is indigent, it may waive the mandatory fine. If the trial court determines that defendant is not indigent, the trial court should allow defendant to withdraw his plea as it would be a manifest injustice for defendant to be subject to the mandatory fine when he was not advised of the fine before he entered into the plea.

Foreclosure summary judgment deemed admissions Civ.R. 36(A) standing holder of the note assignment of mortgage. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Bayview and against St. Cyr. Bayview's deemed admissions were implicitly withdrawn, and the affidavit and documents in support of Bayview's motion for summary judgment sufficiently established Bayview was the holder of the note and entitled to enforce the note. St. Cyr failed to meet its reciprocal burden to set forth specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact. Additionally, St. Cyr lacked standing to challenge the assignments of mortgage.

Sentence contrary to law. The appellant's sentence was contrary to law because the trial court sentenced him to a 180-day mandatory prison term when the statute states that the mandatory prison term is 60 days.

Condominium Association assessment repairs Declaration and Bylaws contract interpretation declaratory judgment summary judgment. Summary judgment in favor of condominium association affirmed where condominium owner failed to present evidence demonstrating that assessment levied against it was unlawful or excessive.

POSTRELEASE CONTROL - SENTENCING: The trial court did not err in imposing postrelease control on defendant for the offenses of having a weapon while under a disability and carrying a concealed weapon where defendant had not served the prison terms for those offenses. Where the sentencing entry failed to explicitly set forth the sequence in which defendant's consecutive sentences were to be served, Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-03.1(M) is instructive in determining that defendant was required to first serve the three-year mandatory prison term for the firearm specification, followed by the 15-year mandatory prison term for murder, then the aggregate of the nonmandatory terms for the weapon-under-disability and concealed-weapon offenses, and finally, the aggregate of the nonmandatory portion of the life term. [See SEPARATE CONCURRENCE: Where the order of the consecutive sentences imposed by the trial court in the sentencing entry aligns with the order set forth in Ohio Adm.Code 5120-2-03.1(M), it is unnecessary to decide which controls for the purpose of determining whether postrelease control was timely imposed upon defendant.]

Finding no error of law or other defect on the face of the magistrate's decision, this court adopts the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Writ of mandamus denied.

In determining the tax valuation of an industrial property, the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA") did not err in relying on the school district appraiser's opinion that characteristics of an owner-occupied UPS truck terminal facility rendered it a special use property and that a permanent easement granted to the city should not be deducted from the site acreage. The BTA likewise did not abuse its discretion in relying on the property owner appraiser's opinion and property records in determining the square footage of the truck terminal. Judgment affirmed.

Order of Industrial Commission granting payments for rotator cuff repair will not be overturned by writ of mandamus.

Trial court erred when it granted appellee's application to seal the record of a misdemeanor conviction where the state produced evidence that appellee had more than two misdemeanor convictions, which meant that he was not an "eligible offender" for purposes of R.C. 2953.31(A) and 2953.32(A)(1). Judgment reversed.

Judgment affirmed. Appellant's post-conviction petition is untimely, resulting in a lack of jurisdiction. In addition, even if the trial court had jurisdiction, both of appellant's claimed grounds for relief are barred by res judicata.

Motion for New Trial Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct Res Judicata

CIVIL - Trial court erred in reversing the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission which determined that Mr. Parrett was discharged for just cause due to him losing his status as a commissioned deputy sheriff.

Motion for reconsideration granted-Court of appeals' judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Gonzales.

Habeas corpus-Failure to state a viable claim-Prisoner not entitled to immediate release-Court of appeals' dismissal of petition affirmed.

Attorneys-Misconduct-Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct-Indefinite suspension.

ineffective assistance of counsel, trial tactics, cross-examination, Daubert hearing, text message, hearsay, admission of party-opponent, unfair prejudice

failure to file motion to suppress - prejudice prong of ineffective assistance claim requires reasonable probability defendant would have been acquitted

The trial court did not err in finding there was sufficient evidence of venue proven at trial.

Appellant could not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.

Trial court's denial of successive Crim.R. 32.1 post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is upheld on the basis of res judicata where appellant could have raised the issue relating to the trial court's failure to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) on direct appeal or in his previous Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his plea, but did not.

The trial court's decision to deny appellant's most recent pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea was proper where appellant's claims alleging his guilty plea was invalid and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel were either not supported by the record or barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

The trial court properly denied appellant's motion to suppress where officers executed a valid search warrant, and did not exceed the scope of that warrant. Also, the offenses were not allied where appellant committed the crimes with a separate animus and separate conduct, and where the crimes had different victims.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - summary judgment Civ.R. 56 genuine issue of material fact compensable workplace injury arising out of employment unexplained slip or fall neutral origin direct benefit.

Arbitration-Any limitation on an arbitrator's authority to modify a disciplinary action pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") provision requiring that discipline be imposed only for just cause must be specifically bargained for by the parties and incorporated into the CBA-CBA placed no limitation on arbitrator's authority to review disciplinary action imposed and fashion a remedy-Arbitrator's award draws its essence from CBA, and arbitrator acted within his authority-Court of appeals' judgment reversed, award reinstated, and cause remanded.

False imprisonment-R.C. 2743.02 and 2743.03-If appellant's claim for false imprisonment has merit, state agency calculating terms of his confinement is liable, not common pleas court, and claims against state for monetary damages must be filed in Court of Claims-Court of appeals' dismissal of appellant's action affirmed.