Court Filings

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed Mark Moore’s conviction for third-degree domestic violence following a bench trial. The case arose from the defendant’s mother reporting that Moore shoved her into a refrigerator door on February 28, 2025. The trial court credited the victim’s testimony, medical records, and photographs over Moore’s denial that he assaulted his mother. On appeal Moore argued the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, but the appeals court found the trial court, as factfinder, reasonably resolved credibility disputes and did not clearly lose its way.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed a 17-to-20 year aggregate prison sentence imposed on defendant-appellant Dameon Kijanski after he pled guilty to multiple felonies arising from a November 29, 2024 shooting of two teens. The trial court ordered three counts to run consecutively (two felonious-assault counts for separate victims and one having-weapons-while-under-disability count) and the remaining counts concurrent. The appeals court held the record supported the required statutory findings for consecutive sentences — including multiple victims and the defendant’s criminal history — and applied the deferential standard of review to affirm.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Arto D. Green III’s postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea and rejected his ineffective-assistance claim. Green had pled guilty to aggravated robbery with a one-year firearm specification and was sentenced under the Reagan Tokes Law to a minimum of seven up to ten years. He later argued he suffered mental-health problems at the time of plea and that counsel failed to investigate or seek transfer to the court’s mental-health docket. The appellate court found the record did not show qualifying mental-health issues or prejudice from counsel’s actions, and no manifest injustice or need for an evidentiary hearing was shown.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence of Augustus G. Frazier, IV for murder, felonious assault, and having weapons while under disability arising from the August 8, 2023 killing of Alexander Eaton. The jury convicted Frazier of murder and related firearm specifications after trial; two weapons counts were tried to the bench. The court held the evidence — eyewitness testimony of a codefendant, corroborating video, GPS data, tattoos, and forensic findings — was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence. The court also rejected claims of improper jury guidance, an improper complicity instruction, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Ohio Court of Appeals (Eighth District) affirmed the convictions of defendant-appellant Cecil Fluker for burglary, menacing by stalking, and intimidation following jury trial. Fluker challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, joinder of indictments, jury instructions, admission of evidence (including jail calls and hearsay), and effectiveness of trial counsel. The court found the jail calls admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, any hearsay error harmless because the declarant testified and was cross-examined, joinder and instructions proper, and trial counsel’s strategic choices reasonable. The convictions were therefore affirmed and the case remanded for execution of sentence.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed Todd Clark’s nine-year aggregate prison sentence for sexual battery and two counts of gross sexual imposition following his guilty pleas. Clark argued the trial court erred by stating a statutory presumption of imprisonment applied to sexual battery. The court found the trial judge misstated the law but that the error did not change the outcome because the judge independently considered required sentencing factors (including the victim’s age, psychological harm, the familial relationship that facilitated the offenses, and Clark’s lengthy criminal history) and expressly rejected community control. The sentence was supported by the record and law.

The Cuyahoga County Probate Court appointed an independent, non‑interested attorney as successor trustee of the Gary L. Bryenton Declaration of Trust after the named successor declined and a proposed beneficiary appointment was disputed. Barbara Bryenton had filed a notice appointing herself and her daughter Elisabeth as co‑trustees, but the court struck that notice, found conflicts among beneficiaries (notably Susan’s allegations of bias), and, after a short hearing with no sworn evidence, appointed a neutral trustee. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and that the probate court followed the statutory priority for filling trustee vacancies.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court’s order keeping a one-year civil domestic violence protection order (DVCPO) in place against B.S. (“Stepfather”). Father filed for the DVCPO after Stepfather pushed his son T.H. into a wall twice in November 2024, causing a concussion; CCDCFS substantiated physical abuse and a municipal temporary protection order accompanied a related criminal case. The magistrate found the child-abuse evidence credible and the trial court overruled Stepfather’s objections. The appellate court held the continuance and the DVCPO were not an abuse of discretion and were supported by the record.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of medical-malpractice claims against Dr. Faisal Quereshy. Plaintiffs had originally filed suit in May 2022 and obtained extensions to file a required affidavit of merit, but failed to timely produce one. After refiling in November 2023 and receiving another 90-day extension, plaintiffs again missed the deadline and later attempted to cure the defect by filing an amended complaint with an affidavit. The court held that Civ.R. 10(D)(2)’s strict extension limits control and plaintiffs’ late affidavit could not cure the deficiency, so dismissal was proper.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed appellant Lashawn M. Slaughter’s convictions for two counts of nonsupport of dependents (fifth-degree felonies). The jury found he failed to pay court-ordered child support for his son over two consecutive two-year periods (2014–2018). The court concluded the State proved failure to pay under R.C. 2919.21(B) and that the defendant failed to meet the affirmative defense that he provided support within his means. The court found no reversible error in sufficiency, weight of the evidence, jury instructions, prosecutorial comments, or trial counsel’s performance.

The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision granting permanent custody of two-year-old A.S. to Franklin County Children Services (FCCS), thereby terminating the parental rights of mother L.S. After FCCS filed for permanent custody following nearly two years of involvement because of mother’s mental-health crises, housing instability, and inconsistent engagement with case-plan requirements, the juvenile court found permanent custody was in the child’s best interest. The appeals court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a day-of-trial continuance and that mother failed to show she received ineffective assistance of counsel or that any alleged deficiency prejudiced her case.

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s September 9, 2025 decision awarding Lucas County Children Services (LCCS) permanent custody of the minor E.D.-P. The child had been adjudicated dependent and temporarily placed with paternal relatives in Texas; LCCS later sought permanent custody. The appellate court held the juvenile court properly found by clear and convincing evidence that R.C. 2151.414(E)(11) applied because Mother had previously had parental rights involuntarily terminated to a sibling and failed to prove she could now provide a legally secure, adequate permanent placement. The court found Mother remained cohabiting and dependent with the child’s father, who showed no engagement in parenting, and the record supported the juvenile court’s findings that reunification was not feasible within a reasonable time.

The Ohio Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of John Eugene Morgan's postconviction petition. Morgan had been convicted of voluntary manslaughter, murder, and felonious assault after shooting a man; he argued that dash‑cam footage was improperly admitted, the search warrant for the footage was defective, and jury instructions were erroneous or resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court found most claims barred by res judicata because Morgan could have raised them earlier (including in his direct appeal or an application to reopen), and where those claims were considered, the record established no reasonable probability of a different outcome without the disputed evidence.

The Ohio Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Belmont County Common Pleas Court’s grant of a civil stalking protection order (CSPO) sought by Petitioner D.F. against Respondent Melissa Starkey. The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Starkey engaged in a pattern of conduct—social media posts, a threatening phone call to a bar owner, and related statements—that caused D.F. to reasonably believe Starkey would cause physical harm or mental distress. The appellate court held the evidence was legally sufficient, the trial court’s credibility findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the five-year duration was not an abuse of discretion.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s determinations that the Hendersons’ attempts to abandon severed mineral rights under Ohio’s Dormant Mineral Act were ineffective. Plaintiffs (heirs and assignees of John W. Means and Wolf Run II, LLC) sought declaratory judgment and quiet title to minerals under 160 acres. The court concluded the Hendersons failed to exercise reasonable diligence in locating mineral holders (they did not search Stark County records where holder addresses existed), so notice by publication was improper and abandonment failed. The court therefore affirmed quiet-title judgments for the plaintiffs and two defendant-holders (Means and Doxzen).

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth District Court of Appeals' dismissal of Ramone Wright’s petition for a writ of mandamus against the Franklin County Municipal Court Clerk. Wright sought to compel the clerk to vacate an allegedly unconstitutional 2009 municipal-court conviction based on an apparent error in the judgment entry. The court held that Wright failed to state a mandamus claim because he did not show a clear legal right to vacatur, the clerk had no clear legal duty to vacate the judgment, and Wright had an adequate remedy by appeal. A separate request for judgment was denied as moot.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of inmate Nikko N. Jones’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Jones argued that a judge who accepted his 2022 guilty pleas and sentenced him lacked authority because the judge had not been formally assigned to the case. The court held Jones’s petition was procedurally defective for failing to comply with R.C. 2969.25 and substantively deficient because any improper judicial assignment would make a judgment voidable, not void, and therefore is not a cognizable basis for habeas relief while his sentence remains unexpired.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court's April 1, 2026 order upholding a decision involving Taiba Sultana's nomination petition for the Democratic nomination for state senator in the 18th Legislative District for the May 19, 2026 primary. The appeal by Taiba Sultana was considered and denied, and her separate application for a stay was dismissed as moot. One justice did not participate. The court issued a short per curiam order adopting the lower court's disposition without extended opinion.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed an appeal by Christina Marie Seeling from a Commonwealth Court order dated March 24, 2026, concerning the nomination petition of Robyn Bird for the Republican nomination for the State House 177th District in the May 19, 2026 primary. The Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision dated April 9, 2026, affirmed the Commonwealth Court's order. No further reasoning or factual detail is included in the short order beyond the affirmance.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied an appellant’s motion to supplement the record, noted jurisdiction, and affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s March 26, 2026 order. The case concerned an objection to Summer Lee’s nomination petition for the Democratic primary for the 12th U.S. Congressional District. The Supreme Court issued a brief per curiam order on April 9, 2026, leaving the lower court’s decision in place without adding materials to the record.

The Texas Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed Markeith Terrell Oliver’s conviction and ten-year sentence for unlawful carrying of a weapon by a felon. Oliver filed a consolidated brief raising a single appellate point that did not challenge the conviction in this particular appellate cause. Because the sole point of error concerned Oliver’s other cases and raised no issue about the conviction at hand, the court found there was nothing to review and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court issued a brief memorandum opinion denying relief in this cause.

A jury convicted Markeith Terrell Oliver of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and the trial court sentenced him to nine years in prison. On appeal Oliver argued the trial court should have instructed the jury that witness Carlina McComb was an accomplice as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals held McComb was not an accomplice as a matter of law because she was not a felon at the time and her conviction for unlawful carrying was not a lesser-included offense of Oliver’s charge; the evidence showed separate, parallel possession of different weapons. The court therefore affirmed the conviction.

The Texas Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed Markeith Terrell Oliver’s conviction and six-month sentence for attempted tampering with physical evidence. Oliver filed a notice of appeal and later submitted a single consolidated brief raising one point of error, but that point did not challenge the tampering-with-evidence conviction at issue in this appeal. Because the brief contained no argument directed to the conviction in this cause, the appellate court found there was nothing to review and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Manuel Mata’s conviction for interference with public duties (a Class B misdemeanor) following his arrest during a police DWI investigation. Mata argued the statute was unconstitutional as applied, that the evidence was insufficient, and that the jury charge improperly used the word “belligerent.” The court held Mata waived the as-applied constitutional challenge, found the evidence legally sufficient because he approached officers, recorded a patrol computer displaying confidential data, and repeatedly refused to obey a clearly established boundary, and rejected charge-error claims as invited or harmless.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Derwin Dewayne Bell’s conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Bell was tried for two counts; a jury convicted him on Count I (threatening Robert Curry by shooting at him) and the court declared a mistrial on Count II. Bell argued (1) the jury charge improperly defined “firearm” and (2) the evidence was insufficient. The court upheld the conviction, finding the evidence (eyewitness IDs, shell casings, vehicle damage, sign-in sheet, and other testimony) was sufficient and that any error in including a nonstatutory definition of “firearm” did not cause egregious harm or deprive him of a fair trial.

The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed Derwin Dewayne Bell’s convictions for three counts of possession of controlled substances with intent to deliver (methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine) after a jury trial. The court reviewed sufficiency-of-the-evidence and jury-charge complaints. It held the evidence — including controlled-substance testing, large quantities and packaging consistent with distribution, scales, guns, cash, matching bags found in a vehicle and a residence linked to Bell, social-media and mail evidence, and his gang leadership — provided affirmative links supporting possession and intent. The court also held the trial court properly omitted a DEA-registration instruction because Bell bore the burden to produce any exemption evidence and did not do so or request such an instruction.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of appellants' request for a second temporary injunction seeking to stop the homeowners association's election to amend its declaration to allow sale of a subdivision park. Appellants (residents) had a prior temporary injunction preventing sale of Thrush Ridge Park and sued for declaratory and injunctive relief; the Association held an election and appellants sought to enjoin it. The appeals court concluded the record lacked the evidentiary exhibits from the injunction hearing, so the appellants failed to show the trial court abused its discretion in denying relief.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s May 2024 order terminating Mother C.A.’s parental rights to infant G.M.L. The Department of Family and Protective Services had removed the children after repeated concerns about Mother’s substance use, hazardous home conditions, and a domestic-violence incident. The appeals court held that the Department gave fair notice and presented clear-and-convincing evidence that it made reasonable reunification efforts and that a continuing danger remained in Mother’s home, supporting termination and appointment of the Department as permanent managing conservator.

The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's civil commitment of Jose Arredondo, Jr. after a jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a sexually violent predator. Arredondo appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by refusing a jury instruction telling jurors to treat expert testimony "just like any other testimony." The appellate court held the requested instruction would effectively single out the State's sole expert and thus improperly comment on the weight of the evidence, contrary to Davidson v. Wallingford and Texas procedural rules, so the refusal was not an abuse of discretion.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of co-defendants Hakeem Neal and Lokari Boyd for home invasion and armed robbery following a joint jury trial. Neal argued the evidence was insufficient and his motion for directed verdict and new trial should have been granted; Boyd argued ineffective assistance of counsel and Confrontation Clause error. The court held the evidence was sufficient (including corroboration of an accomplice) and that Boyd’s challenges failed because the contested testimony was intrinsic or invited by defense, and counsel’s choices were strategic. Both appeals were affirmed.