Court Filings

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 Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's October 6, 2025 judgment denying Lynette L. Shidaker’s post-judgment motions seeking to reopen or set aside the May 31, 2023 divorce judgment. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Civ.R. 60(B) motion untimely despite being filed within one year, concluding Appellant had known of the asserted grounds earlier and offered no sufficient explanation for delay. The court also rejected Civ.R. 60(A) relief for alleged clerical error in spousal-support calculations and found it lacked jurisdiction to review arguments that should have been raised in a timely appeal from the 2023 judgment.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s award of legal custody of two-year-old D.W. to the child’s paternal grandmother and her partner. The juvenile court had previously adjudicated D.W. dependent and placed the child in temporary custody after concerns about Mother’s methamphetamine use, unstable housing, and association with a drug-using boyfriend. The appellate court found the record shows Mother failed to comply with her case plan (substance use and mental health treatment, drug screens, and housing stability), while custodians provided a stable, supportive home and facilitated parental visitation. The court concluded the award was supported by the greater weight of the evidence and was in the child’s best interest.

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 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 Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Ryan Karr's pro se complaint against the Estate of Dianna Sayre and Joseph Aaron Sayre. Karr had alleged perjury, abuse of a disabled person, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and other misconduct tied to a prior CPO proceeding, but his nine-page complaint failed to plead distinct causes of action, facts, dates, or the elements required to give defendants adequate notice. The appellate court held the complaint did not satisfy Civ.R. 8(A) and affirmed dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), noting Karr also failed to meaningfully brief his assignments of error on appeal.

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.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed Andrew Symington’s 11-month prison sentence for a fifth-degree felony theft after a guilty plea. The trial court considered but rejected community control, citing factors including economic harm, that the offense was for hire, and Symington’s prior felony conviction and prior prison term. The appellate court found those findings supported by the record and concluded that even if the court erred in labeling the conduct organized crime or “for hire,” other valid statutory findings (notably Symington’s prior felony and prison term) independently authorized a prison sentence, making any error harmless.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Wood County Common Pleas Court’s June 27, 2024 judgments denying John E. Gebrosky’s consolidated petitions for post-conviction relief in two criminal cases. Gebrosky argued his trial lawyers were ineffective and that the trial court erred by applying res judicata, denying counsel appointment, and refusing an evidentiary hearing. The court held some claims were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised on direct appeal, but acknowledged other ineffective-assistance claims relied on evidence outside the trial record. After reviewing the affidavits, reports, and trial record, the court concluded the remaining claims did not raise substantive grounds for relief and that no hearing or appointed counsel was required.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County trial court’s March 27, 2025 judgment that granted intervenor Kelly Moore’s motion for relief from judgment, ordered genetic testing of the older child (L.M.), and denied plaintiff-appellant Joyce Wilson’s motion for reconsideration. Joyce had sought custody of her two grandchildren and argued the court lacked jurisdiction because a 2010 paternity affidavit for the older child established paternity. The appeals court held that Ohio law (R.C. 3119.962) allows challenge to an acknowledgment of paternity via genetic testing and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Moore to intervene despite procedural shortcomings.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County domestic relations court’s adoption of a magistrate’s decisions that established paternity, named Jessica L. Jackson sole residential parent and legal custodian of the minor child J.J., granted parenting time to Rajael H. Tyler, and ordered Tyler to pay about $140 per month in child support. Jackson appealed, alleging evidentiary error and perjury at a child-support hearing, but she did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision. The appellate court declined to consider the hearing transcript not before the trial court and found any unobjected-to errors waived absent a showing of plain error, which Jackson did not raise.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Jody Jones's petitions for postconviction relief in six consolidated Richland County felony cases. Jones had pleaded guilty in multiple indictments and later claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to share discovery, unlawful stops/searches, and unreliable drug testing. The appellate court held most claims were forfeited or barred by res judicata because they could have been raised earlier or were contradicted by the record (including the guilty pleas and provided discovery). The court found no abuse of discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Richland County Common Pleas Court's convictions and sentence of Charles R. Feagin. Police initiated a traffic stop after officers observed a lane violation while conducting surveillance; subsequent events led to a 12-count indictment for drug and related offenses. The trial court denied Feagin’s motion to suppress, he pleaded no contest to all counts, and received an aggregate sentence of 37 to 42.5 years. The appeals court held the trial court reasonably credited officer testimony, found the suppression and sentencing rulings supported by the record, and rejected ineffective-assistance claims for lack of record support.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Twelfth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of Ramone Wright’s mandamus petition asking the Madison County Municipal Court to vacate a prior traffic conviction. Wright argued he could not have committed the traffic offense because he was allegedly jailed on another matter at the time, and said his time to appeal had passed. The Supreme Court held Wright had an adequate remedy at law—direct appeal or postconviction procedures—and therefore mandamus was not available. The municipal court’s motion to dismiss the appeal was denied as procedurally improper but its brief was considered on the merits.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Matthew Pajestka’s conviction for operating a vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration. After two prior remands and appointment of a visiting judge, Pajestka sought a continuance shortly before a November 21, 2024 jury trial because his defense expert was unavailable; the municipal court denied the requests and proceeded. The appellate court held that denial of the continuance was not an abuse of discretion, declined to review ineffective-assistance claims raised on direct appeal because the same firm represented him at trial and on appeal, and found the breath-test evidence sufficient and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed Todd A. Dunlap’s convictions for multiple sexual offenses based on abuse of his niece between about ages 12–14. Dunlap waived a jury; the trial court found him guilty on eight counts and sentenced him to consecutive terms on rape counts, finding him a sexual predator. On appeal he raised ten assignments of error challenging sufficiency and weight of evidence, pre-indictment delay, destroyed evidence, other-acts evidence, indictment specificity, chain of custody, cumulative error, and ineffective assistance. The appellate court found the evidence credible, no actual prejudice from delay or destroyed items, no bad-faith destruction, proper handling of other-acts and chain-of-custody issues, and no ineffective assistance.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Trumbull County Common Pleas Court’s sentence of an aggregate 7-to-10½ year prison term for David Lucero, who pleaded guilty to ten second-degree felony counts involving creation and distribution of sexual material depicting minors. The appellate court reviewed Lucero’s claim that the trial court failed to properly consider sentencing statutes and alternatives to prison but found the trial court expressly stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and the imposed sentences fall within the statutory range. Because the record shows consideration of the required factors, the court found no reversible error and affirmed.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Clermont County Domestic Relations Court's final divorce decree between Kenyata (Wife) and Chris Packer (Husband). The appellate court upheld the trial court's $480,000 valuation of Husband's 75% interest in his company Rod-Techs, finding the valuation supported by competent, credible evidence from experts and rejecting Husband's challenges under the rules for expert testimony. The court also upheld the property equalization payment of about $80,000 to Wife and the spousal support award of $1,520 per month for 106 months, finding the trial court appropriately considered statutory factors.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's denial of Mother's Civ.R. 60(B) motion seeking relief from the adjudication that one child was abused and three were dependent and the related dispositional orders. Mother argued she lacked counsel at critical stages, counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain discovery, the juvenile court failed to comply with procedural safeguards for stipulations, WCCS committed fraud by labeling kinship placements as "foster children" on clothing vouchers, and no safety plan was offered. The appellate court held these claims either were not operative facts warranting an evidentiary hearing, were time-barred or barred by res judicata, and did not satisfy the three-part Civ.R. 60(B) test.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's denial of Mother's petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking return of four children removed to protective custody. The children were adjudicated in juvenile court after a May 31, 2023 shelter-care removal; Mother later revoked consent to a proposed legal custody transfer and pursued various postjudgment motions and appeals. The juvenile court denied habeas relief because Mother had an adequate remedy at law (a motion for further disposition and appeals) and the lack of notice of the initial shelter-care hearing did not strip the juvenile court of jurisdiction. The appellate court found no reversible error.

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision terminating parental rights and granting permanent custody of three children to the Erie County Department of Job & Family Services. The children were removed after incidents involving domestic violence, unsafe home conditions, and Mother’s criminal charges; Father had minimal contact. The court held the juvenile court properly found the children could not be placed with either parent within a reasonable time, that statutory factors (including failure to remedy conditions, lack of commitment, and a qualifying conviction) were met by clear and convincing evidence, and that permanent custody was in the children’s best interests.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court's judgment denying relief to Robert Phelps. Phelps had pleaded guilty in 2020 and was sentenced to 15 years under a plea agreement. He later sought recusal of the trial judge; an entry labeled as denying judicial release appeared in filings but was not in the record. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous. The appellate court found no arguable appealable error, held it lacked authority to review recusal under R.C. 2701.03, granted counsel's motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court judgment.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed Kelsey Amos’s conviction for Theft (R.C. 2913.02(A)(1)) after a bench trial. The court reviewed sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges to evidence that Amos aided or abetted a co-defendant (K.B.) who took the victim’s e-bike. The court concluded the record supports a finding that Amos spoke with K.B., positioned the vehicle next to the bike, followed him after the bike was taken, and associated with K.B. before and after the offense; the trial court reasonably credited the prosecution’s theory of complicity and did not err in finding Amos guilty.

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court's denial of Raymond Warren’s application for postconviction DNA testing of three shell casings. Warren had sought testing for touch DNA after his 1995 murder conviction; the trial court initially denied testing, this court remanded for further factfinding about whether the casings remained suitable for testing, and on remand the trial court again denied the application. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion because testing authorities concluded the casings were at substantial risk of contamination and the record did not show the parent samples remained scientifically suitable for testing.

The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the Greene County Common Pleas judgment. William J. Sawyer, bound over from juvenile court, pleaded guilty to rape and related sexual-offense charges and received a four-to-six year prison term and Tier III sex-offender classification. On appeal he argued the juvenile court erred by transferring him for adult prosecution and the trial court erred by denying suppression motions. The court held Sawyer waived suppression challenges by pleading guilty and concluded the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding him not amenable to juvenile rehabilitation based on the statutory factors and expert testimony.

The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s restitution order requiring Jermaine Reynolds to pay $3,067 to his domestic-violence victim for medical expenses. Reynolds had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence; the felony strangulation count was dismissed. The trial court relied on the presentence investigation report (which included the victim’s impact statement and three medical bills showing $3,067.54 owed) when ordering restitution. Because Reynolds did not object below, the appeals court reviewed only for plain error and concluded the PSI provided competent, sufficient evidence to support the restitution award.

The appellate court affirmed the domestic relations trial court's dismissal of a husband's objections to a civil protection order (DVCPO) as moot. The husband challenged the trial court's finding that two alleged lasting harms — loss of a military housing entitlement and revocation of Global Entry — were not proven collateral consequences of the DVCPO. The appeals court held the husband provided only speculative testimony and no documentation linking the DVCPO to those consequences, so the collateral-consequences exception to mootness did not apply and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s August 6, 2025 judgment awarding permanent custody of three children to the Clark County Department of Job and Family Services (JFS) and denying the maternal aunt’s request for legal custody. The children were removed after deplorable home conditions and prior dependency adjudications; parents made minimal progress on case plans and mother admitted ongoing drug use. The appellate court found no reversible error in notice to the father, held the mother lacked standing to challenge denial of the aunt’s motion, and concluded the record supported that permanent custody was in the children’s best interest.