Court Filings

The Eighth District Court of Appeals reviewed a juvenile court’s orders on parenting time, modification of a shared-parenting plan, and a contempt finding. The appellate court affirmed most rulings: it upheld the denial of Mother’s motion to terminate the shared-parenting agreement and the juvenile court’s decision not to further modify parenting time based on the record and the guardian ad litem’s findings. However, the court reversed the contempt finding against Mother because she established a reasonable, good-faith basis for withholding Father’s parenting time due to concerns about his housing, utilities, and alleged substance use and she promptly sought court intervention. The remainder of the juvenile court’s orders were left intact.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals reviewed an administrative appeal by Dr. Joseph Badie Abdelmalak challenging the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court’s affirmation of the State Medical Board of Ohio’s revocation of his medical license and $20,000 fine. The appeals court upheld most rulings but found reversible error because the common pleas court failed to determine whether the Board’s order was supported by substantial evidence as required by R.C. 119.12(N). The court affirmed that the Board did not improperly shift the burden of proof and did not deny due process by admitting a two-page ombudsman excerpt, but remanded for the common pleas court to assess the substantial-evidence question.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals reviewed a default-judgment ruling in a bailment case where Mahadev Logistics claimed Columbus Truck & Equipment failed to safeguard and return a 2015 Volvo truck after it was stolen from the repair facility. The trial court found breach and awarded only $1,447.94 for increased repair costs, denying towing, storage, replacement-key, and lost-profit claims. The appellate court affirmed liability but reversed the damages ruling in part, finding insufficient evidence to support the trial court's limited calculation and remanding for a hearing to quantify repair- and towing-related damages while rejecting lost-profit and most storage claims.

The Ohio Court of Appeals reviewed a final divorce decree after the wife filed for annulment and the husband counterclaimed for divorce. The court reversed the trial court only to the extent it awarded $3,000 in attorney’s fees to the husband, and affirmed the remainder of the decree. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s finding that the wife engaged in financial misconduct — transferring and spending the husband’s premarital funds during the parties’ cohabitation — and approved a $58,827.40 distributive award to compensate the husband and an unequal allocation of marital debts reflecting the wife’s misconduct.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals reviewed a summary judgment the Summit County Common Pleas Court granted to defendants Mike and Janine Brustoski against plaintiff Nahas Construction. The trial court deemed Nahas’s responses to requests for admission admitted after Nahas missed the discovery deadline, and then granted summary judgment finding Nahas breached the construction contract and the Brustoskis were justified in withholding final payment. The appeals court affirmed that breach was established by the admitted facts but reversed as to the damages award, finding the Brustoskis failed to present competent evidence of the amount of damages and remanded for a determination of damages.

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 First District Court of Appeals reviewed two juvenile cases against T.B. after police stopped him and three companions for jaywalking and found a handgun on his person following a frisk. The court affirmed the juvenile court’s denial of suppression and the concealed-weapons adjudication, concluding the frisk was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion, the gun was properly authenticated, and was shown operable. But the court reversed the jaywalking adjudication because the juvenile court abused its discretion by implicitly denying T.B.’s timely pre-disposition motion to withdraw his plea without explanation. The matter was remanded for withdrawal of the jaywalking plea.

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 Ohio Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part James Quinn’s mandamus request to compel Judge Douglas Rastatter to rule on filings in Quinn’s 2014 criminal case. Quinn had filed a petition for postconviction relief and a combined motion for leave to file a new-trial motion plus the new-trial motion itself in April 2024. Because the trial judge later denied the postconviction petition, the Court denied that part of the writ as moot. The Court held the judge must rule on the motion for leave to file a new-trial motion (Crim.R. 33(B)) but denied relief as to the substantive new-trial motion because the rules require the motions be decided sequentially.

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 court reviewed an appeal by Rialto on Hurstbourne, LLC against US LBM Operating Co. after the trial court granted summary judgment to US LBM and denied Rialto’s motion. The appellate court held that genuine factual disputes exist about whether the ExtremeGreen flooring component breached express warranties of merchantability and fitness for its intended use (based on acoustical testing and expert reports), so summary judgment on those claims was improper. The court affirmed summary judgment for US LBM on Rialto’s design-defect warranty and on indemnity for interparty attorney fees, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining warranty claims.

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.