Court Filings

The court affirmed a district court’s post-answer default order in a suit affecting the parent–child relationship, except it removed the portion changing the child’s last name. The mother sought sole managing conservatorship and child support; the father filed an answer but did not appear at trial. The trial court granted sole managing conservatorship and child support and ordered a name change. On appeal the father argued lack of notice, due process violations, recusal error, venue and evidentiary complaints. The appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief, but the name change was unauthorized because no petition sought it, so that part was deleted and the order was otherwise affirmed.

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas reviewed an interlocutory appeal by Nidal T. Baem from a trial court’s temporary injunction freezing all First National Bank of Texas accounts in his name. Western Frontier Trading alleged Baem embezzled customer payments and sought to freeze accounts where those funds were deposited. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support a temporary injunction in part but held the injunction was overbroad: it unlawfully froze all Baem’s bank accounts and did not limit the freeze to the dollar amount tied to Western’s disputed funds. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a narrowly tailored injunction and further hearing.

The Appellate Division reviewed a dismissal of a pro se plaintiff's complaint against multiple insurers and Copart that alleged fraud, conversion, conspiracy and negligent hiring tied to sales of salvaged vehicles and parts. The court affirmed dismissal of the claims against the insurer defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction because the plaintiff served them by certified mail instead of through the strict methods required for corporations. The court reversed the dismissal as to Copart, finding Copart had answered and participated in discovery and therefore had not preserved lack-of-service defenses. The case against Copart is reinstated and returned for further proceedings.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed part of a trial court order in a parenting-plan modification case. Ellen-Rose Fitzgerald sought temporary and permanent relief to relocate with her children; the hearing was noticed only for temporary relief. The trial court nonetheless entered an order granting permanent relief. The appellate court held that granting relief beyond the noticed subject violated due process, affirmed the portion granting temporary relief, reversed the portion granting permanent relief, and remanded for a properly noticed final hearing on permanency.

The court reviewed Antonio Lee Grey’s appeal after the trial court revoked his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of attempted assault of a family/household member with a prior conviction, and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. The State conceded the sentence was illegal because attempted assault (as an attempt to a third-degree felony) is a state jail felony with a statutory maximum of two years. The court held the sentence exceeded the authorized range, reversed the punishment portion of the judgment, remanded for a new punishment hearing within the proper statutory range, and otherwise affirmed the conviction.

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 Court of Appeals reviewed a challenge to the Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) determination of nonsignificance for the Wishbone Timber Sale, a proposed harvest of about 100 acres within a larger sustainable harvest plan. The court held the DNS was not clearly erroneous and struck the lower court’s order requiring a site-specific climate impact assessment. However, it held DNR must perform an alternatives analysis under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(e) because the sale presents an actual choice of uses for the trees at the sale site. The case is partially reversed, partially affirmed, and remanded for that limited compliance.

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.

A Wayne County jury convicted Brodey I. Murbarger of first-degree murder for the death of Megan Nichols; the court sentenced him to a 50-year term with 3 years of mandatory supervised release. On appeal Murbarger argued the court erred by denying a change of venue and funding for a phone-survey expert, that he was entitled to a Miller/Harris-type hearing because he was a young adult at the time of the crime, and that multiple murder convictions violated the one-act, one-crime rule. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and most rulings, held the venue and expert denials were not an abuse of discretion, declined to grant a Miller-type remedy on direct appeal, but vacated two duplicate murder convictions and ordered the mittimus corrected.

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 Superior Court reviewed a trial court’s pretrial evidence rulings in the Commonwealth’s vehicular homicide prosecution of Joshua A. Rivera. The panel affirmed some exclusions and reversed others: it upheld exclusion of body-camera audio and a Facebook video, but reversed the exclusion of non-numeric lay descriptions of driving by certain eyewitnesses and reversal of the exclusion of drug-related items found in Rivera’s impounded vehicle. The court reasoned that in a criminal case where the prosecution must prove state of mind, lay witnesses may give contextual, non-numeric testimony about driving, and items found pursuant to a lawful warrant were relevant and not rendered inadmissible by the time gap while the car was impounded.

Three brothers were tried jointly and convicted of sexual offenses against a single complainant from events when she was a minor. The Superior Court reversed Damien’s sentence because the Commonwealth failed to specify the date of his alleged offense with sufficient particularity. The Court reversed Rian’s sentence and ordered a new trial because consolidation of his trial with Damien’s was an abuse of discretion and prosecutorial closing remarks improperly invited guilt by association. The Court affirmed Sean’s convictions but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing because his convictions for involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and indecent assault must merge for sentencing.

The Court of Appeals affirmed most of a trial court’s April 19, 2024 agreed order in a suit to modify the parent–child relationship between Russell Lerner and Geraldine Schott, but removed a requirement that Lerner post a $25,000 bond before filing any future pleadings. The court held Lerner cannot appeal terms he expressly agreed to at the April 9, 2024 hearing (such as lifting geographic restrictions, dismissal of pending motions, child-support and fee provisions), and he waived claims about findings of fact and docket management. The bond requirement was improper because the court never followed Texas statutory procedures for declaring a party a vexatious litigant.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed Jason Padilla’s bench-trial convictions for three counts of sexual assault of a child, one count of indecency with a child, and one count of possession of a controlled substance. The court held that testimony about prior minor acts of violence in the household was admissible to explain the victim’s delayed reporting and did not unduly prejudice Padilla. However, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove the seized residue was cocaine (no lab analysis or expert testimony), reversed the possession conviction, rendered an acquittal on that count, and modified one judgment to correct the statutory citation.

The Court of Appeal reviewed a 2024 trial-court proceeding in which the trial court attempted to correct an error on the 2019 abstract of judgment for Victor Lopez Sanchez. The appellate court held that the 2019 error was a clerical mistake (a math/recording error that included county-jail misdemeanor time in the stated state-prison total) and therefore the trial court was not required to conduct full resentencing. The denial of a Romero motion and denial of full resentencing were affirmed. However, the trial court exceeded its authority by altering misdemeanor terms (reducing and making them concurrent), so that portion of the 2024 order was vacated and the case remanded to amend the abstract to reflect the lawful 2019 sentence.

The Court of Appeal reversed in part a trial-court dismissal of an attorney-plaintiff’s lawsuit against Wells Fargo and a branch employee. The court held the complaint failed to state breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, and negligent hiring claims because the bank agreement and pleading did not support those theories, and amendment would be futile. But the court concluded the negligent misrepresentation claim survived: the complaint alleged a bank employee told the plaintiff the check had “cleared” despite lacking a reasonable basis and after the plaintiff warned the bank the check might be fraudulent. The dismissal is reversed only as to negligent misrepresentation; all other rulings are affirmed.

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 appellate court reviewed Michael Southall’s convictions for attempted residential arson and related domestic-violence offenses. Southall argued the Will County Sheriff’s Office violated his due process rights and Supreme Court Rule 412 by destroying a seized Kingsford charcoal lighter fluid container, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent or a substantial step toward arson. The court held the destruction did not violate due process because it was routine, not shown to be in bad faith, and the missing item was not shown to be clearly exculpatory. The court affirmed the arson and aggravated battery convictions but vacated two domestic-battery convictions under the one-act, one-crime rule.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Spectrum and its award of prejudgment interest, but vacated and remanded solely to recalculate the prejudgment interest start date. Spectrum demanded payment of the fixed arbitration award by letter on December 9, 2020, and later sought confirmation when Amendia did not pay. The court held Spectrum’s demand (and its later oral request at a 2022 hearing) sufficed as a timely request for prejudgment interest under Georgia law, so interest must be awarded; however, interest should run from the expiration of the payment deadline set in the demand letter, not from the letter date itself.

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.