Court Filings

The Court of Appeals dismissed Willie Clarence Lee Jr.'s appeal from the trial court's December 4, 2025 dismissal of his motion to vacate, set aside, or reverse judgment because his notice of appeal, filed January 7, 2026, was untimely. The court explained that Georgia law requires a notice of appeal within 30 days of the judgment or order being appealed and that timely filing is an absolute jurisdictional requirement. Because Lee filed his notice 34 days after the order, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal without reaching the motion's merits.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an Application for Discretionary Appeal in case A26D0443, Nancy Pierce Jo Jenkins v. Michelle Jenkins, arising from Liberty County case number 24CV002090. The court issued a short order dated April 23, 2026, denying the application for discretionary appeal. No opinion or reasoning beyond the denial was provided in the extract; the court simply ordered that the application be denied and the Clerk certified the minutes.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an application for discretionary appeal filed by Marquez Hutchinson from a case involving the Georgia Department of Human Services (ex rel. Jordan Hutchinson). After review, the Court denied the application for discretionary appeal on April 23, 2026. No opinion or substantive reasoning is included in the entry; the document is a short entry from the Clerk certifying denial of the application and recording the case and lower-court number.

The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's order discontinuing reunification services and approving a permanency plan of adoption for two minor children after finding the parents subjected the younger child, A. A., to chronic physical abuse. Medical evidence showed A. A. suffered twelve fractures in various healing stages; a child-abuse pediatrician concluded the injuries resulted from repeated adult-inflicted pulling and twisting. The parents invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege at the nonreunification hearing, and the court drew adverse inferences from that refusal. The appellate court held that the evidence met the clear-and-convincing standard for nonreunification and aggravated circumstances.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Ergin Tek’s direct appeal of a trial court order that removed a mechanic’s lien and found slander of title because the case was not final. The trial court reserved damages and attorney-fee issues for a later hearing, so the case remained pending. The Court explained that Tek needed either a final judgment, an express determination that there is no just reason for delay, or compliance with interlocutory appeal procedures (including a certificate of immediate review) to obtain appellate jurisdiction. Because Tek did not follow those procedures, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Allied Property Group, LLC’s application for interlocutory review as untimely. Allied sought review after the trial court dismissed all its claims and granted a certificate of immediate review on March 17, 2026. Georgia law requires an application to this Court within ten days of that certificate, but Allied filed on March 31, 2026—four days late. Because compliance with OCGA § 5-6-34(b) is jurisdictional, the Court lacked authority to consider the late application and dismissed it, leaving Allied to await final judgment to pursue an appeal.

The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of class certification in Stewart v. Farmers Insurance. The plaintiff insured’s vehicle was declared a total loss and Farmers invoked a court-ordered, binding appraisal provision in the policy. The appraisal produced a higher actual-cash-value award, which Farmers paid. The appellate court held that because the appraisal award resolved the plaintiff’s individual contract claim before class certification, the controversy was moot and the entire action — including class claims — had to be dismissed. The court declined to apply the “pick-off” exception because the payment resulted from an enforceable contractual appraisal, not a unilateral settlement tactic.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Michael Riley’s application for postconviction DNA testing of six shell casings. Riley sought new collection and testing based on improved DNA collection techniques, but the court found he implicitly conceded that no “parent sample” (an existing collected sample of biological material containing human DNA) remains. Ohio law requires a parent sample to accept a DNA-testing application. Because Riley sought creation of a new sample from the casings rather than testing an existing parent sample, the statutory prerequisites were not met and the application was properly denied.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Mike Jones’s untimely, successive petition for postconviction relief and his motion for leave to file a motion for new trial. Jones argued newly discovered materials — an internal prosecutor memorandum and a 2024 affidavit from Larissa Taylor — would have supported his self-defense theory or shown Brady suppression. The court held Jones failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence, that the memorandum was admissible or material, or that Taylor’s affidavit would undermine confidence in the jury’s verdict. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction to grant relief and denied the motions.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in State v. Griffin. Griffin challenged a juvenile court’s probable-cause bindover and the imposition of a sentence that included both prison terms and a no-contact condition. The court held Griffin waived his challenge to the bindover by pleading guilty and did not separately raise or preserve a claim that his plea was invalid. The court also held there was no plain error in imposing a no-contact condition because the no-contact term was part of the negotiated plea agreement and Griffin invited any error by accepting the bargain. The convictions and 14-year aggregate sentence were affirmed.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed John Centers’s 66-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to amended unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, tampering with evidence, and gross abuse of a corpse. Centers argued on appeal that the tampering and corpse-abuse convictions should have merged for sentencing because they arose from the same conduct. The court applied merger statutes and plain-error review, concluded Centers did not meet his burden to show the offenses were allied, and held the record supported separate sentences because the conduct could reflect distinct acts and import.

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 Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Delaware County contempt order that jailed Dominic Anusionwu for seven days with a $1,200 purge for failing to pay child support. The court held that because imprisonment was a likely outcome, the trial court was required to ensure Anusionwu either had appointed counsel or knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to counsel via a formal colloquy. The Superior Court found the trial court erred by not conducting that waiver inquiry or determining indigency at the March 12, 2025 hearing and remanded the matter for compliance with the applicable procedures.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a juvenile court order changing 13-year-old C.B.’s permanency goal from reunification to subsidized permanent legal custodianship (SPLC). The stepfather, I.Q., appealed and appointed counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous. The appellate court found counsel complied with Anders procedural requirements, reviewed the record, and held that the juvenile court’s factual findings and legal conclusions — including that placement remained necessary, reunification efforts were thwarted by the parent’s noncooperation, and C.B. had a strong bond with her foster custodian — were supported by the record. The court granted counsel’s withdrawal and affirmed the goal change order.