Court Filings

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.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed Andrew Symington’s 11-month prison sentence for a fifth-degree felony theft after a guilty plea. The trial court considered but rejected community control, citing factors including economic harm, that the offense was for hire, and Symington’s prior felony conviction and prior prison term. The appellate court found those findings supported by the record and concluded that even if the court erred in labeling the conduct organized crime or “for hire,” other valid statutory findings (notably Symington’s prior felony and prison term) independently authorized a prison sentence, making any error harmless.

The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Wood County Common Pleas Court’s June 27, 2024 judgments denying John E. Gebrosky’s consolidated petitions for post-conviction relief in two criminal cases. Gebrosky argued his trial lawyers were ineffective and that the trial court erred by applying res judicata, denying counsel appointment, and refusing an evidentiary hearing. The court held some claims were barred by res judicata because they could have been raised on direct appeal, but acknowledged other ineffective-assistance claims relied on evidence outside the trial record. After reviewing the affidavits, reports, and trial record, the court concluded the remaining claims did not raise substantive grounds for relief and that no hearing or appointed counsel was required.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County trial court’s March 27, 2025 judgment that granted intervenor Kelly Moore’s motion for relief from judgment, ordered genetic testing of the older child (L.M.), and denied plaintiff-appellant Joyce Wilson’s motion for reconsideration. Joyce had sought custody of her two grandchildren and argued the court lacked jurisdiction because a 2010 paternity affidavit for the older child established paternity. The appeals court held that Ohio law (R.C. 3119.962) allows challenge to an acknowledgment of paternity via genetic testing and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting Moore to intervene despite procedural shortcomings.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Franklin County domestic relations court’s adoption of a magistrate’s decisions that established paternity, named Jessica L. Jackson sole residential parent and legal custodian of the minor child J.J., granted parenting time to Rajael H. Tyler, and ordered Tyler to pay about $140 per month in child support. Jackson appealed, alleging evidentiary error and perjury at a child-support hearing, but she did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision. The appellate court declined to consider the hearing transcript not before the trial court and found any unobjected-to errors waived absent a showing of plain error, which Jackson did not raise.

The court reversed a juvenile delinquency judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The juvenile, D.W.R., had been adjudicated for gross sexual imposition and sexual imposition based principally on testimony from a developmentally disabled adult, N.O. The state moved to dismiss the appeal as moot after community supervision ended; the court denied that motion because the adjudication still carries a firearms disability. The court concluded N.O. was incompetent to testify because he lacked a basic understanding of truth, so admitting his testimony was prejudicial. Because the evidence (including the admitted testimony) was nonetheless sufficient, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with law.

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of Jody Jones's petitions for postconviction relief in six consolidated Richland County felony cases. Jones had pleaded guilty in multiple indictments and later claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to share discovery, unlawful stops/searches, and unreliable drug testing. The appellate court held most claims were forfeited or barred by res judicata because they could have been raised earlier or were contradicted by the record (including the guilty pleas and provided discovery). The court found no abuse of discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Richland County Common Pleas Court's convictions and sentence of Charles R. Feagin. Police initiated a traffic stop after officers observed a lane violation while conducting surveillance; subsequent events led to a 12-count indictment for drug and related offenses. The trial court denied Feagin’s motion to suppress, he pleaded no contest to all counts, and received an aggregate sentence of 37 to 42.5 years. The appeals court held the trial court reasonably credited officer testimony, found the suppression and sentencing rulings supported by the record, and rejected ineffective-assistance claims for lack of record support.

The Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals reviewed a bench trial where Yangtze Railroad Fasteners sued Ohio Valley Trackwork (OVT) for breach of contract and unjust enrichment over about $40,000 for delivered railroad materials. The court found Yangtze proved the contract and delivery, but the trial court had concluded OVT was not liable because payment was misdirected to a third party after fraudulent email instructions. The appeals court held the trial court’s decision on breach of contract was against the manifest weight of the evidence, reversed that portion, and remanded for further proceedings while affirming the unjust enrichment judgment portion not appealed.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Twelfth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of Ramone Wright’s mandamus petition asking the Madison County Municipal Court to vacate a prior traffic conviction. Wright argued he could not have committed the traffic offense because he was allegedly jailed on another matter at the time, and said his time to appeal had passed. The Supreme Court held Wright had an adequate remedy at law—direct appeal or postconviction procedures—and therefore mandamus was not available. The municipal court’s motion to dismiss the appeal was denied as procedurally improper but its brief was considered on the merits.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Matthew Pajestka’s conviction for operating a vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration. After two prior remands and appointment of a visiting judge, Pajestka sought a continuance shortly before a November 21, 2024 jury trial because his defense expert was unavailable; the municipal court denied the requests and proceeded. The appellate court held that denial of the continuance was not an abuse of discretion, declined to review ineffective-assistance claims raised on direct appeal because the same firm represented him at trial and on appeal, and found the breath-test evidence sufficient and not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed Todd A. Dunlap’s convictions for multiple sexual offenses based on abuse of his niece between about ages 12–14. Dunlap waived a jury; the trial court found him guilty on eight counts and sentenced him to consecutive terms on rape counts, finding him a sexual predator. On appeal he raised ten assignments of error challenging sufficiency and weight of evidence, pre-indictment delay, destroyed evidence, other-acts evidence, indictment specificity, chain of custody, cumulative error, and ineffective assistance. The appellate court found the evidence credible, no actual prejudice from delay or destroyed items, no bad-faith destruction, proper handling of other-acts and chain-of-custody issues, and no ineffective assistance.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the Trumbull County Common Pleas Court’s sentence of an aggregate 7-to-10½ year prison term for David Lucero, who pleaded guilty to ten second-degree felony counts involving creation and distribution of sexual material depicting minors. The appellate court reviewed Lucero’s claim that the trial court failed to properly consider sentencing statutes and alternatives to prison but found the trial court expressly stated it considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, and the imposed sentences fall within the statutory range. Because the record shows consideration of the required factors, the court found no reversible error and affirmed.

The Court of Appeals reversed a Trumbull County Central District Court order that had prohibited a surety, Chuck Brown II Bail Bonds, from posting any future bonds until a $1,000 forfeited bond for defendant Breonne F. Davis was paid. The trial court revoked Davis’s bond after she failed to appear, declared the bond forfeited, and imposed the prohibition without following the statutory notice-and-hearing procedures. The appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion by not providing ordinary-mail notice and a 45–60 day period to show cause under Ohio law, and remanded for compliance with the statute.