Court Filings

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Noble County Common Pleas Court's October 28, 2025 denial of Daniel T. McElfresh’s motions seeking return of $475 and contempt against the sheriff. McElfresh had pleaded guilty to aggravated possession and later claimed money seized in 2021 was never returned. The record and sheriff jail records showed the $475 was placed in McElfresh’s commissary account on March 8, 2021, and the remaining funds were applied to outstanding jail fees. Because the money had been returned and applied to McElfresh’s debt, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence of Mashhud Petaway for felonious assault following a jury trial. Petaway challenged pretrial identification, admission of firearm photographs from his phone, limitations on cross-examination of the victim about mental health, sufficiency and weight of the evidence, cumulative error, the Reagan Tokes sentencing law, and imposition of firearm specifications. The court upheld the trial court’s rulings, finding the photographic evidence admissible (or harmless if not), the limitation on cross-examination permissible without a proffered nexus to impairments, the evidence sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence, and the sentencing (including firearm specifications) lawful under Ohio precedent.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment convicting Daryl Anderson Dillard after he pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, vandalism, and one count of OVI. Dillard argued his trial counsel was ineffective for permitting guilty pleas instead of no-contest pleas because guilty pleas waived his ability to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. The appellate court held Dillard failed to show prejudice or deficient performance: the record did not show the State would have accepted no-contest pleas on the same terms and there is no evidence what advice counsel gave, so any off-the-record claims must be raised in post-conviction proceedings.

The Montgomery County Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence of Robert Crowder Jr. after a jury trial. Crowder was convicted of trespass in a habitation, breaking and entering (merged for sentencing), forgery of an elderly person’s deed, tampering with records, and two counts for false representation as an attorney. The court held there was sufficient evidence and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence because J.C. and his electrician came to the house while Crowder remained there. The court also rejected Crowder’s challenge to merger of the forgery and record-tampering counts, finding separate victims (J.C. and the government).

The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant Precious Carmichael’s convictions following a jury trial for strangulation (fourth-degree felony) and child endangering (first-degree misdemeanor). Carmichael had sought jury instructions on a reasonable parental-discipline defense and moved to exclude certain prior-bad-acts evidence; she also challenged sufficiency/weight of the evidence and alleged ineffective assistance. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in denying the instruction or excluding evidence, concluded the State presented legally sufficient and not-contradicted evidence (including the child’s testimony, bruising and a cord pattern of injury), and rejected the ineffective-assistance claim.

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed Chelsey Lynn Boggs’s conviction and sentence for two counts of fentanyl possession after she violated intervention in lieu of conviction. The trial court terminated ILC, found her guilty and imposed three years of community control, including a residential term at the West Central community-based correctional facility. Boggs argued the West Central requirement was unnecessary and that the court erred by not obtaining a professional assessment first. The appellate court held the requirement was authorized, found no statutory mandate requiring a pre-sentence assessment for that residential sanction, and noted the issue may be moot if she already completed the program.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed Dean Dominique Gore’s convictions for engaging in prostitution and possession of criminal tools arising from an undercover online sting. Police posted an ad, Detective Haueter communicated with Gore by text and provided a false rendezvous location; officers observed Gore’s vehicle acting like it was searching for the address, stopped and arrested him, seized his phone, and later obtained his consent to search it. The court held the stop and seizure were supported by reasonable suspicion and probable cause, the phone seizure and subsequent consented search were lawful, and the evidence supported the convictions.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed Dennis Thompson Jr.’s conviction for strangulation following a jury trial in Fulton County. Thompson was acquitted of domestic violence but convicted under R.C. 2903.18(B)(3) after the victim and witnesses testified that Thompson gripped the victim’s neck, causing pain, difficulty breathing, and visible bruising. The court held the evidence was legally sufficient and the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, rejecting defense arguments about inconsistent witness accounts, lack of expert medical proof, and brief contact with the victim’s neck.

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed Anthony Mitchell’s convictions for aggravated murder, murder, felonious assault, aggravated burglary, and strangulation following a jury trial. The court found sufficient evidence linking Mitchell to the killing—most importantly, Mitchell’s DNA was found under the victim’s left fingernails and a new scar near his eye supported a struggle—so a rational juror could find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also rejected arguments that strangulation should have merged with aggravated murder, found the bill of particulars claim forfeited without prejudice, and rejected ineffective-assistance claims.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s sentence of 8 to 12 years imprisonment after defendant Antonio Castaneda pled guilty to one count of felonious assault. Castaneda argued on appeal that the trial court improperly relied on a supposed lack of remorse when imposing an above-minimum sentence. The appeals court found the remorse determination falls within the nonexhaustive factors courts may consider under R.C. 2929.12 and is not subject to reversal as contrary to law; the court distinguished the case relied on by defendant and upheld the sentence based on the defendant’s violent history, the injuries to the victim, and the allocution. Costs of appeal were assessed to Castaneda.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Anthony Sanchez’s August 2025 post-sentence motion to withdraw his 2016 guilty pleas. Sanchez claimed his trial lawyer withheld discovery and misled him about the State’s evidence, amounting to ineffective assistance. The appellate court found Sanchez’s second motion barred by claim preclusion because he had raised ineffective-assistance claims in a prior 2022 motion and had not shown the discovery was newly discovered. The court also held the submitted affidavits and documents were insufficient to show a fundamental unfairness requiring withdrawal.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the municipal-court conviction of Tangie Goodson for operating a vehicle while under the influence. Goodson argued her trial lawyer was ineffective because a motion to suppress was filed late and denied without a hearing, after which she pled no-contest. The appeals court found counsel’s delay was deficient under the rules, but concluded Goodson could not show prejudice: the traffic stop and officer observations justified tests, admissible lay observations would remain even if test results were suppressed, and the breath-test evidence was not necessary to the conviction. Therefore the conviction was affirmed.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Michael Riley’s application for postconviction DNA testing of six shell casings. Riley sought new collection and testing based on improved DNA collection techniques, but the court found he implicitly conceded that no “parent sample” (an existing collected sample of biological material containing human DNA) remains. Ohio law requires a parent sample to accept a DNA-testing application. Because Riley sought creation of a new sample from the casings rather than testing an existing parent sample, the statutory prerequisites were not met and the application was properly denied.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Mike Jones’s untimely, successive petition for postconviction relief and his motion for leave to file a motion for new trial. Jones argued newly discovered materials — an internal prosecutor memorandum and a 2024 affidavit from Larissa Taylor — would have supported his self-defense theory or shown Brady suppression. The court held Jones failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence, that the memorandum was admissible or material, or that Taylor’s affidavit would undermine confidence in the jury’s verdict. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction to grant relief and denied the motions.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in State v. Griffin. Griffin challenged a juvenile court’s probable-cause bindover and the imposition of a sentence that included both prison terms and a no-contact condition. The court held Griffin waived his challenge to the bindover by pleading guilty and did not separately raise or preserve a claim that his plea was invalid. The court also held there was no plain error in imposing a no-contact condition because the no-contact term was part of the negotiated plea agreement and Griffin invited any error by accepting the bargain. The convictions and 14-year aggregate sentence were affirmed.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed John Centers’s 66-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to amended unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, tampering with evidence, and gross abuse of a corpse. Centers argued on appeal that the tampering and corpse-abuse convictions should have merged for sentencing because they arose from the same conduct. The court applied merger statutes and plain-error review, concluded Centers did not meet his burden to show the offenses were allied, and held the record supported separate sentences because the conduct could reflect distinct acts and import.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Brianna Becks’s presentence motion to withdraw her guilty plea and upheld her conviction. Becks pled guilty to attempted endangering children as part of a day-of-trial plea agreement and later sought to withdraw the plea at sentencing, alleging ineffective assistance and pressure from counsel. The appeals court found counsel provided effective representation, rejected the claim that counsel had an adverse conflict of interest, and relied on the plea colloquy showing Becks understood the plea. The court therefore affirmed the sentence of one year community control.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed Sabestian A. Magan’s February 25, 2025 convictions for domestic violence and assault after a bench trial in Franklin County Municipal Court. Magan argued his convictions were unsupported by sufficient evidence, were against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for causing him to reject a plea offer. The court found the state presented adequate testimony and photographic evidence to prove physical harm to the victim, rejected credibility challenges to the state’s witnesses, and determined Magan failed to show prejudice under the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Michelle Saunders’s convictions and sentence for two second-degree felony drug charges. Saunders argued her guilty pleas were invalid because the trial court did not inform her, during the plea-change hearing, that any sentence in this Guernsey County case could be ordered consecutive to separate prison terms she was already serving in Union County. The appellate court held the trial judge had adequately complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) by advising Saunders of the maximum sentences for each offense and that the court could order consecutive terms between the counts in this case; the judge had no obligation to explain consecutive exposure to sentences from a different county where the defendant was already incarcerated.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Delaware Municipal Court's conviction of Samuel Baffoe for one count of menacing by stalking after a bench trial. Baffoe argued the trial court erred by not ordering a competency evaluation before trial because he told the court he did not feel competent and made various courtroom protests. The appeals court reviewed for abuse of discretion and concluded the record did not show reasonable cause to doubt competency: Baffoe made limited medical complaints, displayed understanding of the proceedings, and standby counsel (appointed by the trial court) never raised competency concerns.

The Ohio Supreme Court held that a capital defendant cannot use Civ.R. 60(B) to reopen a prior state postconviction judgment; instead, R.C. 2953.21 and R.C. 2953.23 provide the exclusive statutory mechanism for collateral attacks on criminal convictions or sentences. The court reversed the appellate court’s decision that permitted Hill to proceed under Civ.R. 60(B) and remanded for consideration of Hill’s remaining assignment of error. The court reasoned that postconviction relief is a special statutory proceeding and the Civil Rules are clearly inapplicable where the legislature has prescribed an exclusive remedy.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Akron Municipal Court conviction of Clifford Atkinson for domestic violence. Atkinson argued on appeal that the City presented insufficient evidence that the victim, L.H., was a family or household member. The appellate court reviewed the record de novo, applied Ohio precedent defining "cohabitation" and family/household status, and concluded L.H.'s testimony that Atkinson had lived with her for about a month or two, that they were boyfriend/girlfriend, and that she provided transportation and support, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find the relationship met the ordinance's definition. The conviction and sentence were therefore affirmed.

The First District Court of Appeals reversed defendant-appellant Joshua Mounts’s felony-murder conviction and remanded for a new trial. Mounts had reopened his direct appeal under App.R. 26(B) to claim ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The court found trial counsel performed deficiently by abandoning key expert testimony (Dr. Wiens) about histology slides, failing to object to undisclosed expert opinion testimony from Dr. Makoroff, and not objecting to improper prosecutorial remarks in closing. Because those errors undermined confidence in the verdict and appellate counsel should have raised them, the conviction was reversed and the cause remanded.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Odraye G. Jones’s pro se appeal from an April 2, 2026 trial-court entry requiring the State to disclose exculpatory evidence. The appellate court held it lacked jurisdiction because the trial court’s order was interlocutory and not a final, appealable order under Ohio law. The court also concluded, alternatively, that Jones lacked standing because the trial court’s ruling granted him the relief he sought, so he was not an aggrieved party. All pending motions were ruled moot and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Odraye G. Jones’s pro se appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Jones had appealed a March 13, 2026 trial-court entry denying his motions to dismiss a death-penalty specification. The appellate court held the denial was an interlocutory order that did not qualify as a final, appealable order under Ohio law and R.C. 2505.02(B), so it could not be reviewed now. Because no final judgment disposed of all claims, the appeal was dismissed and pending motions were overruled as moot.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Tonya Redmond’s conviction for felonious assault with a firearm specification and her aggregate seven-to-nine year prison sentence. Redmond was convicted after a jury trial for shooting a 62-year-old man who had been housing her; she claimed the gun discharged accidentally while she was trying to turn on a light. The appellate court rejected her challenges to limits on displaying a written definition of “knowingly” during opening statement, found the trial court erred in declining to instruct that accident can negate knowledge but held that error harmless, and concluded the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence given contradictory testimony and other evidence suggesting a knowing shooting.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s August 28, 2025 denial of Charles McRae’s motion for leave to file an untimely petition for postconviction relief. McRae sought to challenge his 2023 convictions and sentence based on various ineffective-assistance, plea, competency, and record-related claims. The appellate court held the petition was untimely under R.C. 2953.21, McRae did not show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts or rely on a new retroactive right under R.C. 2953.23, and his claims were barred by res judicata. The court also found no evidentiary materials showing entitlement to a hearing.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Martin Holloman’s convictions after a jury trial for failure to comply with a police order and theft. Holloman argued the trial court should have instructed the jury on the affirmative defense of duress because he fled when an officer allegedly used force during an attempted arrest. The appellate court held the evidence did not support duress: Holloman initiated the struggle by pulling away and reentering his vehicle, any alleged force was not constant or imminent, and his fear of future harm was not objectively reasonable. The court therefore found no abuse of discretion in refusing the instruction.

The Ohio Supreme Court reversed part of the First District Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the municipal trial court’s denial of J.B.’s applications to seal five misdemeanor convictions prosecuted by the county. J.B. sought sealing of seven misdemeanor convictions; two prosecuted by the city were sealed by the court of appeals and not appealed. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding J.B. had not shown rehabilitation and that the government’s interest in public records outweighed hers. The Court rejected the court of appeals’ substitutions of judgment and novel limitations on what a trial court may consider under R.C. 2953.32.

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's April 14, 2025 sentencing of Paul Tunison to a total of 36 months' imprisonment and restitution after he pled guilty to multiple theft offenses, including thefts involving victims in a protected class. Tunison argued on appeal that the sentencing hearing recording was incomplete, violating Crim.R. 22 and preventing meaningful review, and asked for resentencing. The appellate court held the trial court had a duty to record but Tunison failed to use App.R. 9 to reconstruct the missing portions or show material prejudice, so any error was waived and the judgment was affirmed.