Court Filings
1,103 filings indexedRecent court opinions cross-linked with public notices by case number, summarized and classified by AI.
State v. Wilson
The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s March 10, 2025 judgment convicting Theodore Wilson of burglary, gross sexual imposition, and pandering obscenity and upholding concurrent prison terms with a seven-year minimum and a ten-and-one-half-year maximum for the burglary count. Wilson argued his sentence exceeded the agreed seven-year recommendation. The court held the plea agreement and related forms informed him that a second-degree felony carries an indefinite sentence under the Reagan Tokes law (minimum plus a maximum 50% longer), and because the State and Wilson jointly recommended the seven-year sentence which the court imposed (including the statutory maximum), the sentence was authorized and not subject to appellate modification.
Criminal AppealAffirmedOhio Court of AppealsL-25-00130State v. Unser
The court affirmed the municipal-court judgment against Diane Unser. Unser was stopped for traffic violations, a K9 unit conducted a free-air sniff that alerted to narcotics, and a subsequent search uncovered two used syringes in her purse. The trial court denied her motion to suppress and she pled no contest to possessing drug abuse instruments. The appellate court held the dog sniff did not unlawfully prolong the stop, found the K9 was reliably trained and certified, and concluded the record (including counsel’s statements and hearing evidence) supplied the facts needed to convict her of a first-degree misdemeanor.
Criminal AppealAffirmedOhio Court of AppealsC-250329State v. Smith
The First District Court of Appeals affirmed Melissa Smith’s misdemeanor conviction for disorderly conduct (R.C. 2917.11(A)(1)) after a bench trial in Hamilton County Municipal Court. Smith had argued she acted in self-defense after the victim, D.J., knocked Smith’s phone from her hand, but the court found the state proved Smith engaged in fighting and turbulent behavior and recklessly caused inconvenience, alarm, and annoyance. The court credited the testimony of the victim and responding officers over Smith’s account and concluded the evidence was sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence.
Criminal AppealAffirmedOhio Court of AppealsC-250216State v. Boddy
The First District Court of Appeals affirmed Paul Boddy’s convictions following no-contest pleas for illegal possession of a firearm in a liquor-permit premises, carrying a concealed weapon, using a weapon while intoxicated, and possessing a defaced firearm. Boddy argued the trial court erred by not obtaining oral no-contest pleas, by failing to inform him on the record of the effect of his no-contest pleas, and by denying his motion to dismiss on Second Amendment grounds. The court held Boddy properly tendered written no-contest pleas, any Rule 11 advisory defect did not require vacatur because he did not show prejudice, and he waived his constitutional dismissal argument by entering pleas without pursuing the motion.
Criminal AppealAffirmedOhio Court of AppealsC-250250In re B.B.
The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s denial of a mother’s 2024 motion to regain legal custody of her two children, B.B. and R.W. The juvenile court and magistrate found the mother failed to prove changed circumstances since the 2018 legal-custody disposition to father. The court concluded the evidence (photos, medical summaries, and testimony) did not substantiate abuse or medical neglect by father nor show missed medical care produced harmful consequences sufficient to overcome the statutory presumption of permanency for juvenile-court custody orders.
FamilyAffirmedOhio Court of AppealsC-250428Asbury Woods Senior Apts. v. Render
The court of appeals affirmed the municipal-court judgments awarding Asbury Woods Senior Apartments $659.23 for unpaid rent, late fees, and a utility payment after defendant Gloria Render objected to the magistrate’s decision. The court found: (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider Render’s post-judgment motion for reconsideration because the court’s March 28, 2025 judgment was final; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a utility-transfer form despite Render’s claim the signature was forged, because the factfinder could compare signatures; and (3) Asbury’s damages claim was separate from the eviction claim, so dismissing the eviction did not require dismissal of the damages claim.
CivilAffirmedOhio Court of AppealsC-250297, C-250298State v. Robinson
The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Summit County Common Pleas Court's denial of Jacky Robinson Jr.'s successive motion to withdraw his 2005 guilty plea to aggravated murder and aggravated burglary. Robinson argued sentencing errors, ineffective assistance of counsel, and breach of a plea agreement, but the appellate court held his claims were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised earlier or on direct appeal. The court explained that Robinson did not show the trial court lacked jurisdiction (which would render the sentence void) and therefore his motion was properly denied as successive and meritless.
Criminal AppealAffirmedOhio Court of Appeals31676In re J.J.
The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed a juvenile court judgment awarding permanent custody of infant J.J. to Lucas County Children’s Services (LCCS). The agency filed an original permanent-custody complaint two days after J.J.’s birth based on parents’ extensive prior child-welfare history, unresolved substance-use, housing, and domestic-violence concerns, and prior involuntary termination of parental rights to siblings. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the parents had not rebutted the presumption in R.C. 2151.414(E)(11) and that awarding permanent custody to LCCS was in J.J.’s best interest, so parental rights were terminated.
FamilyAffirmedOhio Court of AppealsL-25-00257, L-25-00258State v. Bookhamer
The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Jack L. Bookhamer Jr.’s conviction for domestic violence following a jury trial in Mount Vernon Municipal Court. Bookhamer argued his verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the State failed to disprove his claim of self-defense. The court reviewed competing witness accounts, assessed credibility, and found objective evidence (photographs and officer observations of injuries to the victim but not to appellant) supported the jury’s conclusion that Bookhamer was the aggressor. The court held the jury did not lose its way and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Criminal AppealAffirmedOhio Court of Appeals25CA000005DNW Properties III, L.L.C. v. Tucker
The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Canton Municipal Court's judgment granting DNW Properties possession of rental premises and denying tenant David Tucker a jury trial in a forcible entry and detainer action. DNW served termination notices and filed the eviction complaint; Tucker was served and filed a jury demand after the statutory deadline. The appellate court held that R.C. 1923.09(A) — which requires a jury demand on or before the return day of the summons in forcible entry and detainer proceedings — is constitutional and that Tucker waived his jury right by failing to timely demand it.
CivilAffirmedOhio Court of Appeals2025CA00090State v. Smith
The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Ross County Common Pleas Court's judgment revoking community control and imposing a 36-month prison term for Kirby Smith after finding multiple violations. Smith argued the trial court wrongly denied his mid-hearing request to proceed pro se and denied a continuance to obtain private counsel. The appellate court held both rulings were within the trial court’s discretion: Smith's invocation of the right to self-representation was untimely and the court properly balanced disruption and prior opportunities, and the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion under the Unger factors.
Criminal AppealAffirmedOhio Court of Appeals25CA23State v. Wiggers
The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed two Washington County trial-court rulings involving David S. Wiggers, Sr. In Case No. 25CA5 the court upheld his bench conviction for fourth-degree domestic violence, finding the State proved he knowingly attempted to cause physical harm by swinging an axe handle at his brother. In Case No. 25CA10 the court affirmed revocation of Wiggers’s community control and the imposition of a 15-month prison term after he refused to sign community-control terms and admitted the violation. The court relied on witness testimony, medical records, appellant's inconsistent statements, and the sentencing record.
Criminal AppealAffirmedOhio Court of Appeals25CA5 & 25CA10State v. Turner
The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed Richard Turner’s convictions for attempted murder (reduced charge), felonious assault, and breaking and entering following a jury trial. Turner argued insufficient evidence and that the verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court reviewed the record, testimony (including the deputy victim, medical witnesses, and Turner’s statement), and applicable Ohio law, concluding the jury reasonably found Turner lured the deputy into a swamp, resisted arrest, grabbed the deputy’s radio, and placed him in a chokehold that led to near-drowning and serious physical harm. The court found the convictions supported by the evidence and not a miscarriage of justice.
Criminal AppealAffirmedOhio Court of Appeals24CA4066Mapes v. Gibbs
The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Adams County Court's February 5, 2025 judgment granting Joyce Mapes a forcible entry and detainer (eviction) against Ewing “Toby” Gibbs and denying Gibbs' counterclaim asserting ownership under a $45,000 land contract. Gibbs argued the county court lacked jurisdiction and the case should have been transferred to the common pleas court. The appellate court reviewed jurisdiction de novo, relied on statutes authorizing county courts to decide contract-based equitable remedies, and followed precedent holding such courts may adjudicate contract enforcement tied to a possession action, so no transfer was required.
CivilAffirmedOhio Court of Appeals25CA1211McIntyre v. May
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of inmate Lewis Leroy McIntyre Jr.’s habeas petition seeking immediate release. The appeals court had dismissed the petition sua sponte for noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) because McIntyre’s affidavit listing prior civil actions omitted required details for one listed case. McIntyre argued the case need not have been listed, but the Supreme Court held he voluntarily included it and therefore cannot complain under the invited-error doctrine. The dismissal was affirmed for failure to strictly comply with the statute.
Habeas CorpusAffirmedOhio Supreme Court2025-0974Columbus Bar Assn. v. Armengau
The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed disciplinary proceedings against attorney Javier Horacio Armengau arising from his criminal convictions for rape, kidnapping, gross sexual imposition, sexual battery, and a misdemeanor public indecency. The Board of Professional Conduct had found those convictions established violations of professional-conduct rules and recommended permanent disbarment. The court rejected Armengau’s objections — including attempts to relitigate his criminal convictions, to introduce a polygraph, and to rely on character evidence — and held certified convictions are conclusive in disciplinary matters. The court adopted the board’s findings and permanently disbarred Armengau to protect the public and preserve professional integrity.
OtherAffirmedOhio Supreme Court2019-0500In re: Nom. of King; Appeal of: King
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a per curiam order dated April 8, 2026, affirmed the Commonwealth Court's April 2, 2026 order in the appeal concerning Tony Dphax King's nomination petition as the Democratic candidate for the 188th Legislative District. The Supreme Court reviewed the lower court's decision and concluded no basis existed to disturb it, resulting in affirmation of the Commonwealth Court's ruling. No additional reasoning or opinion text is provided in the document.
OtherAffirmedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania14 EAP 2026Tulare Medical Center Property etc. v. Valdivia
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction that would have enjoined a family planning provider from offering abortion services at a parcel subject to recorded CC&Rs. The CC&Rs were adopted and recorded in 1991 by the Tulare Local Hospital District and expressly prohibited abortion clinics within the Tulare Medical Center development. The court held the prohibition is unenforceable because (1) the District’s adoption and recording of the CC&Rs is government action that interferes with the fundamental right of reproductive choice under the California Constitution and (2) Civil Code section 53, read with section 531 and the Unruh Act, voids recorded covenants that indirectly limit property use because of a characteristic protected by the Unruh Act (the decision to have an abortion).
CivilAffirmedCalifornia Court of AppealF089334In the Interest of B.M.W and L.LW v. Department of Family and Protective Services
The First District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights to her nine-year-old twins and awarding sole managing conservatorship to the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). The court reviewed an accelerated appeal from a bench trial and found the evidence legally and factually sufficient to show the mother knowingly placed or allowed the children to remain in endangering conditions (unsanitary, no utilities, presence of feces and urine, reports of physical abuse) and that termination was in the children’s best interest. The court relied on the children’s improved stability and care in their foster home, the mother’s criminal history, repeated positive drug tests, failure to complete services, and prior dangerous living conditions to support its decision.
FamilyAffirmedTexas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)01-25-00847-CVGeorge E. Saldana v. Carolyn Pena
The First Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed a trial court's modification of a 2016 custody order that named Carolyn Pena sole managing conservator and restricted George E. Saldana’s visitation. Saldana, representing himself, argued the trial was void because a recusal motion was pending, he lacked adequate notice of the trial, and his arrest and detention around trial made the proceedings unfair. The court held that a “tertiary recusal” statute allowed the trial judge to proceed, that the record shows Saldana had actual notice more than 45 days before trial, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial despite the arrest and security incidents.
FamilyAffirmedTexas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)01-24-00271-CVGaige Porter v. the State of Texas
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's adjudication of guilt and 14-year sentence for Gaige Porter after a hearing on the State's motion to adjudicate his deferred-adjudication community supervision. Appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders, and the court independently reviewed the record, finding no reversible error. Because the trial court's written judgment did not match its oral findings, the appellate court reformed the judgment to reflect that Porter violated supervision by contacting the complainant, leaving the state without permission, and removing his ankle monitor, then affirmed as reformed and granted counsel's withdrawal.
Criminal AppealAffirmedTexas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)01-24-00766-CRAda U. Oguamanam v. Tony Oguamanam
The First District of Texas affirmed the divorce decree in Ada U. Oguamanam v. Tony Oguamanam. Ada argued on appeal that she was harmed because the trial court signed findings of fact and conclusions of law that she did not receive notice of, preventing her from timely requesting additional findings. The court held that Ada failed to show the required injury — she could have requested additional findings after learning of them or sought abatement but did not — and that the proposed additional findings she identified were largely evidentiary or unnecessary to decide the controlling issues. The judgment is affirmed.
FamilyAffirmedTexas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)01-24-00628-CVMuhammad v. PNC Fin. Servs.
The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas' dismissal of Haneef Muhammad’s complaint against PNC Financial Services. Muhammad sued PNC for claims arising from a 2023 bank-branch incident. The trial court granted PNC’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, concluding res judicata barred the claims because Muhammad previously sued PNC in federal court and that court dismissed several claims for failure to state a claim. The appellate court found the federal dismissal on those claims to be an adjudication on the merits under Ohio precedent, so the state action was precluded and the trial court’s dismissal was proper.
CivilAffirmedOhio Court of Appeals25AP-696State v. King
The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Anthony Cooper-King’s motion for leave to file a petition for postconviction relief. Cooper-King had been convicted of several drug-possession offenses and filed the postconviction materials more than 365 days after the trial transcript was filed in his direct appeal. The appellate court held the petition was untimely, Cooper-King failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts supporting his claims, and his claim that retained appellate counsel failed to timely file postconviction documents did not excuse the statutory deadline.
Criminal AppealAffirmedOhio Court of Appeals2025 CA 00166State v. Jefferson
The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Preston D. Jefferson's convictions after a jury trial for possession of over 100 grams of cocaine with a major drug offender specification and operating a vehicle while under the influence. The stop, inventory search of Jefferson's truck, body-camera footage, narcotics testing, and field-sobriety observations supported the convictions. The court found the evidence — including a large brick of cocaine in a compartment behind the driver's seat, drug paraphernalia within reach, traffic infractions, and poor performance on sobriety tests — did not create a manifest miscarriage of justice.
Criminal AppealAffirmedOhio Court of Appeals25-COA-021Cedar One Properties, Ltd. v. Rudolph
The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Harrison County Court's judgment granting Cedar One Properties possession of rental premises after finding tenant Isis Rudolph breached her lease by failing to pay rent. Rudolph argued various due-process, bankruptcy-stay, and disability-accommodation defects, and contended the bankruptcy court's order lifting the automatic stay was void. The appellate court found many issues involved the federal bankruptcy proceeding (beyond its jurisdiction), noted Rudolph's briefing and record deficiencies (no trial transcript, App.R. violations), and concluded the eviction was authorized because the bankruptcy court had granted relief from the stay limited to pursuing eviction.
CivilAffirmedOhio Court of Appeals25 HA 0003State v. Perenkovich
The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Stark County Common Pleas Court's dismissal without a hearing of Nicole Perenkovich's petition for post-conviction relief. Perenkovich argued trial counsel was ineffective for not subpoenaing a stepsister to testify, for failing to use Snapchat photos to impeach police testimony about an unoccupied bedroom, and for not using a phone record to impeach testimony about a jail-call. The appellate court found the submitted affidavits and exhibits did not provide sufficient, authenticated operative facts showing counsel's performance was deficient or that the outcome would likely have changed, so no evidentiary hearing was required.
Criminal AppealAffirmedOhio Court of Appeals2025CA00108State ex rel. Stokes v. Combs
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of inmate Patrick O. Stokes’s mandamus action seeking copies of an electronic kite and its response. Stokes filed the action against A. Combs but, in the affidavit required by R.C. 2969.25(A), failed to provide the case numbers for three appeals he said he filed within the prior five years. The court held that the statute requires strict compliance and that an inmate must list and describe all civil actions and appeals filed in the previous five years, including their case numbers, so dismissal was proper.
OtherAffirmedOhio Supreme Court2025-0973Com. v. Steager, K.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment of sentence imposed on Kevin Lee Steager after he pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offenses against his daughter. Steager received an aggregate term of 4½ to 9 years’ imprisonment and 4 years’ probation, and was later designated a sexually violent predator (SVP). Appellate counsel sought to withdraw under Anders; the court found counsel’s submission compliant and conducted an independent review. The court held that challenges to the plea, merger, sentencing legality, SVP designation, and discretionary sentencing were either waived or lacked merit, so the appeal was frivolous and the sentence was affirmed.
Criminal AppealAffirmedSuperior Court of Pennsylvania1103 MDA 2025In re: Nom. of LaVelle; Appeal of: LaVelle
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the candidate Mark Lavelle leave to file an amended jurisdictional statement and to supplement his brief after receiving trial notes, but otherwise affirmed the Commonwealth Court's prior order. The appeal concerned Lavelle's nomination petition for the Democratic primary for the 177th Legislative District. The court noted jurisdiction and allowed procedural relief to complete the appellate record, while concluding that the Commonwealth Court's disposition should stand. A concurring opinion was filed by Justice Brobson, joined by Justices Dougherty and Mundy.
OtherAffirmedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania9 EAP 2026