Court Filings

The court reviewed Cierra Snow’s appeal of her domestic-violence conviction for punching her ten-year-old daughter after an argument. The appeals court held that Snow’s use of force was not reasonable parental discipline because she presented no evidence to meet her burden and the video showed a harmful blow. The court affirmed the conviction and rejected Snow’s argument that she should have been charged only under the child-endangering statute. However, the court found the trial court failed to credit Snow for one day of jail time and remanded solely to correct that sentencing credit.

The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals reviewed Johnnie J. Wappner’s convictions for felonious assault, felony murder, and reckless homicide following a jury trial. The court held that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the defense-of-others for Wappner’s intentional act of striking the victim and on accident for his separate act of shooting the victim; both defenses could apply to different acts alleged by the prosecution. Because that instructional error was not harmless and affected Wappner’s felonious assault and felony murder convictions, those convictions were reversed and the case remanded for a new trial as to those counts; the reckless homicide conviction was affirmed.

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals reviewed Jeremy Long’s convictions for multiple sex offenses against minors following a jury trial in Crawford County. The court held that the trial judge improperly allowed the prosecutor to amend two rape counts just before trial in a way that changed the identity of the charged offenses, so those two convictions (Counts 1 and 3) were reversed. The court affirmed Long’s remaining convictions (one rape count, three rape counts as renumbered, and two gross-sexual-imposition counts) because the evidence was not so weak or inconsistent that the jury clearly lost its way. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

The Ohio Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s rulings in the death-penalty case of State v. Myers. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision to allow Myers to file a motion for a new trial, but it reversed the trial court’s grants of a new trial and of postconviction relief. The appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion and applied incorrect legal standards when it granted a new trial based on recently obtained DNA and forensic critiques, and the court lacked jurisdiction to grant postconviction relief because it failed to follow statutory gatekeeping procedures and applied the wrong legal tests.

The court reviewed Seandell McCrary’s appeal of convictions for fentanyl trafficking and possession after a jury trial where he represented himself. The court held the trial court erred by failing to conduct a sufficient on-the-record inquiry under Crim.R. 44 before allowing McCrary to waive counsel, so his waiver was not shown to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The court nevertheless found the suppression ruling and the sufficiency of the evidence supported retrial: probable cause supported the arrest and evidence seized is admissible. The convictions are reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

The First District Court of Appeals reviewed two consolidated criminal appeals by Sparkle Jones after bench convictions in municipal court. The court affirmed Jones’s conviction for permitting drug abuse based on evidence found in her home (drug paraphernalia, cash, and firearms) but reversed and discharged her on two child-endangerment convictions because the State failed to show she had custody, control, or a parental role over her boyfriend’s children. The court therefore found sufficient evidence for the drug-related conviction but insufficient evidence to prove the required relationship/duty element for child endangerment.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals reviewed a trial court's grant of a three-year civil stalking protection order (CSPO) against appellant William Thomas after he posted repeatedly about appellee Brittney Thomason on his public Facebook page. The appellate court found sufficient credible evidence that Thomas engaged in a pattern of conduct that knowingly caused Thomason mental distress, so it affirmed the issuance of the CSPO. However, the court concluded one provision was an unconstitutional, overbroad prior restraint on speech because it effectively barred Thomas from posting anything concerning Thomason, and it vacated that portion and remanded for a narrower order.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendants' convictions for robbery, kidnapping, grand theft, and possession of criminal tools, but reversed sentencing in part and remanded for limited resentencing. The court held that the kidnapping and robbery convictions merge for sentencing because the victim's movement through the store was instrumental to the theft and did not create an independent risk or purpose. By contrast, possession of criminal tools (bags, gloves, masks) did not merge with robbery because those items facilitated but did not constitute the instrument of the robbery. The court also found procedural sentencing errors: the trial court failed to provide oral postrelease-control advisals and failed to make required consecutive-sentence findings at the sentencing hearing.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded defendant Derrick J. Wilson’s convictions for multiple counts of rape and gross sexual imposition arising from allegations by his stepdaughter. The court upheld the convictions and most evidentiary rulings (including Mayerson Center and therapist testimony under the medical-diagnosis exception) but found sentencing error: the trial court failed to make the statutory findings required for consecutive sentences. The court vacated the consecutive nature of the sentence and remanded for resentencing limited to the consecutive-sentence findings.

The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed Jerry Ray Blevins’s convictions for fourth-degree and second-degree aggravated trafficking in methamphetamine after a jury trial, finding the record contained substantial, credible evidence to support the verdicts despite the confidential informant’s criminal history and incentives. However, the court reversed and remanded the postrelease-control portion of the sentence because the trial court failed to orally advise Blevins at sentencing whether postrelease control was discretionary or mandatory and the consequences for violating it, as required by statute. The remainder of the sentence was left intact.