Court Filings

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Brianna Becks’s presentence motion to withdraw her guilty plea and upheld her conviction. Becks pled guilty to attempted endangering children as part of a day-of-trial plea agreement and later sought to withdraw the plea at sentencing, alleging ineffective assistance and pressure from counsel. The appeals court found counsel provided effective representation, rejected the claim that counsel had an adverse conflict of interest, and relied on the plea colloquy showing Becks understood the plea. The court therefore affirmed the sentence of one year community control.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals dismissed a mandamus complaint filed by James and Cynthia Lundeen and Sir Isaac Newton Enterprises seeking to force Cuyahoga Common Pleas Judge Sherrie Miday to vacate her order dismissing the Lundeens’ counterclaim for false-light invasion of privacy. The court held Judge Miday had subject-matter jurisdiction after the case was transferred to common pleas court and that any error in her ruling would make the judgment voidable, not void, meaning mandamus was not an appropriate remedy because an appeal is an adequate remedy at law. The court also declared the Lundeens vexatious litigants and barred pro se filings without leave.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals, on remand from the Ohio Supreme Court, affirmed the trial court’s ruling that relators’ writ of mandamus alleging inverse condemnation against the City of Cleveland was not barred by the four-year statute of limitations. The court concluded the cause of action did not accrue until the airport runway expansion at issue was completed in August 2004, because that completion was when all events fixing Cleveland’s alleged liability occurred. Because the relators filed their mandamus petition on August 1, 2008, the court held the action was timely and remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits of the taking claim.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody of 10-year-old C.F. to the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (CCDCFS), terminating the parental rights of L.Y. (mother) and D.F. (father). The child had been repeatedly removed for concerns including domestic violence, parental substance use, and unmet mental-health and educational needs. The court held that statutory grounds for permanent custody were met and that permanent custody best served the child’s interests because C.F. was thriving in his caregiver J.F.’s home while Mother had not remedied the conditions that led to removal or demonstrated reliable sobriety or engagement with services.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Euclid Municipal Court’s denial of Malik Dahdouh’s last-minute motion to continue a small-claims trial. The case arose after the plaintiff sued for vehicle damage; the trial was scheduled within the 40-day small-claims deadline. Dahdouh filed a pro se continuance request the day before trial, citing overseas travel, which the magistrate denied. The appellate court held the trial court properly applied the factors governing continuances (including statutory timing, delay length, prejudice to the plaintiff, and the defendant’s contribution to the delay) and did not abuse its discretion in refusing the continuance.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Dr. Anthony Gingo in his defamation suit against Jane Hanak based on a Yelp review. The appellate court held the challenged statements were false, defamatory per se, and not protected by any qualified privilege; damages (total $245,000, including $145,000 compensatory and $100,000 punitive) and attorney fees were upheld after a hearing. The court also affirmed the trial court’s prior designation of Hanak as a vexatious litigator. The ruling rests on undisputed admissions, admissible record evidence, and the conclusion that the statements alleged criminal conduct and attacks on professional reputation.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Shawn Hamilton's negligence and intentional-tort claims against Ameristone, American Countertops, and employee Noah Troyer. Hamilton was injured at work and sued for negligence, negligence per se, and under Ohio's intentional-tort statute. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings and denied leave to amend because the complaint did not allege deliberate intent to injure, and the employers were covered by the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation. The appellate court agreed that the pleadings failed to state an actionable intentional-tort claim and affirmed.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed Sabestian A. Magan’s February 25, 2025 convictions for domestic violence and assault after a bench trial in Franklin County Municipal Court. Magan argued his convictions were unsupported by sufficient evidence, were against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for causing him to reject a plea offer. The court found the state presented adequate testimony and photographic evidence to prove physical harm to the victim, rejected credibility challenges to the state’s witnesses, and determined Magan failed to show prejudice under the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals denied Monica G. Justice’s request for a writ of mandamus that would have ordered the Franklin County clerk to serve her a July 22, 2025 amended sentencing entry. The court adopted the magistrate’s decision and granted the State’s motion to dismiss because Justice, an incarcerated pro se relator, failed to comply with statutory procedural requirements for inmate litigants. Specifically, she did not file the required affidavit listing prior civil actions, did not provide the certified inmate-account statements/affidavit of indigency needed to waive fees, and did not caption the petition in the name of the State on her relation.

The court denied Sterling Robinson’s request for a writ of mandamus seeking an order that Judge Jaiza N. Page vacate his criminal judgment. Robinson argued the trial court’s judgment was void because he withdrew his consent to the proceedings. The magistrate recommended and the court agreed that a criminal judgment is not a “consent judgment” and that a defendant’s alleged refusal or withdrawal of consent does not deprive a common pleas court of subject-matter jurisdiction over felony charges. Because Robinson failed to allege a clear legal right or a clear legal duty owed by the judge, the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals dismissed Mao Ju’s mandamus action seeking to force a Xenia Municipal Court magistrate to further process her citizen criminal affidavit charging her former spouse with interference with custody. The court held that the magistrate properly reviewed the affidavit and determined it did not establish probable cause for a misdemeanor, and that Ohio statutes do not require the magistrate to docket the affidavit, assign a case number, refer misdemeanor allegations to a prosecutor, or hold a formal probable-cause hearing. Because Ju could not show a clear legal right or a mandatory duty owed by the magistrate, the writ was denied.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the Cicorettis’ complaint against A&M Total Restoration. The Cicorettis repeatedly filed complaints captioned as breach of contract but pleaded only negligent, defective, and unworkmanlike performance and failed to attach a written contract or adequately plead contract terms as required by Civ.R. 10(D). The appellate court agreed the complaint failed to state a cognizable breach claim and that negligence/oral-contract claims were time-barred, so dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was proper.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Michelle Saunders’s convictions and sentence for two second-degree felony drug charges. Saunders argued her guilty pleas were invalid because the trial court did not inform her, during the plea-change hearing, that any sentence in this Guernsey County case could be ordered consecutive to separate prison terms she was already serving in Union County. The appellate court held the trial judge had adequately complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) by advising Saunders of the maximum sentences for each offense and that the court could order consecutive terms between the counts in this case; the judge had no obligation to explain consecutive exposure to sentences from a different county where the defendant was already incarcerated.

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 Ohio Supreme Court held that a capital defendant cannot use Civ.R. 60(B) to reopen a prior state postconviction judgment; instead, R.C. 2953.21 and R.C. 2953.23 provide the exclusive statutory mechanism for collateral attacks on criminal convictions or sentences. The court reversed the appellate court’s decision that permitted Hill to proceed under Civ.R. 60(B) and remanded for consideration of Hill’s remaining assignment of error. The court reasoned that postconviction relief is a special statutory proceeding and the Civil Rules are clearly inapplicable where the legislature has prescribed an exclusive remedy.

The Ohio Supreme Court denied mandamus relief to inmate-relator Devin D. Howard against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s chief inspector’s office. Howard had appealed an institutional grievance and included a request for two correction-officer work schedules and copies of two ODRC policies. The inspector’s office maintained it did not view the grievance appeal as a public-records request and therefore did not respond as a records custodian. The Court concluded Howard did not carry his burden to show he clearly submitted a public-records request in that context, and it denied the writ and his requests for statutory damages and costs.

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 First District Court of Appeals reversed defendant-appellant Joshua Mounts’s felony-murder conviction and remanded for a new trial. Mounts had reopened his direct appeal under App.R. 26(B) to claim ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The court found trial counsel performed deficiently by abandoning key expert testimony (Dr. Wiens) about histology slides, failing to object to undisclosed expert opinion testimony from Dr. Makoroff, and not objecting to improper prosecutorial remarks in closing. Because those errors undermined confidence in the verdict and appellate counsel should have raised them, the conviction was reversed and the cause remanded.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded consolidated medical-malpractice and related tort judgments against Dr. Abubakar Durrani and the Center for Advanced Spine Technologies. The jury had found for three plaintiffs on negligence, lack of informed consent, battery, and fraud and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The court held consolidation was proper, expert testimony and jury instructions were allowable, and prejudgment interest was properly awarded; but it vacated the awards for future medical expenses as unsupported and remanded to calculate statutory setoffs against plaintiffs’ settlements with other tortfeasors.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Odraye G. Jones’s pro se appeal from an April 2, 2026 trial-court entry requiring the State to disclose exculpatory evidence. The appellate court held it lacked jurisdiction because the trial court’s order was interlocutory and not a final, appealable order under Ohio law. The court also concluded, alternatively, that Jones lacked standing because the trial court’s ruling granted him the relief he sought, so he was not an aggrieved party. All pending motions were ruled moot and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Odraye G. Jones’s pro se appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Jones had appealed a March 13, 2026 trial-court entry denying his motions to dismiss a death-penalty specification. The appellate court held the denial was an interlocutory order that did not qualify as a final, appealable order under Ohio law and R.C. 2505.02(B), so it could not be reviewed now. Because no final judgment disposed of all claims, the appeal was dismissed and pending motions were overruled as moot.

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 Supreme Court reversed part of the First District Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the municipal trial court’s denial of J.B.’s applications to seal five misdemeanor convictions prosecuted by the county. J.B. sought sealing of seven misdemeanor convictions; two prosecuted by the city were sealed by the court of appeals and not appealed. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding J.B. had not shown rehabilitation and that the government’s interest in public records outweighed hers. The Court rejected the court of appeals’ substitutions of judgment and novel limitations on what a trial court may consider under R.C. 2953.32.

The Ohio Supreme Court held that Nationwide Energy Partners (NEP), a company that purchases electricity and resells it to apartment tenants using equipment it installs and maintains, is an "electric light company" and therefore a public utility subject to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). The court concluded tenants qualify as "consumers" under R.C. 4905.03(C) and that NEP is plainly engaged in the business of supplying electricity because it buys power, sets resale prices, bills tenants, and may disconnect service. The Court reversed PUCO’s jurisdictional ruling and remanded for further proceedings on the remaining claims and tariff issues.

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.