Court Filings

The Court of Appeals reviewed an appeal by Shiviez Montrel Howard from his conviction in Butler County Common Pleas. Counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no nonfrivolous issues exist but identified two potential arguable errors and sought permission to withdraw. The appellate court independently reviewed the record, found no prejudicial error or infringement of appellant's rights, granted counsel's motion to withdraw, and dismissed the appeal as wholly frivolous. The court ordered the trial-court mandate issued and costs taxed to appellant.

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 Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed Geoffery Barrow's conviction for fifth-degree theft arising from four shoplifting incidents at a Nike outlet totaling $2,334.44. The court reviewed Barrow's speedy-trial, sufficiency, and evidentiary challenges. It held Barrow forfeited some speedy-trial claims by failing to move to dismiss in the trial court and by absconding, which reset the speedy-trial clock. The court found the evidence (surveillance video, store receipts, witness testimony, and items recovered from Barrow's vehicle) sufficient to prove the aggregate value exceeded $1,000. Any evidentiary errors were harmless.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals vacated a juvenile-court order that had granted visitation rights to the paternal grandfather because the juvenile court in Madison County lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to decide a grandparent-visitation claim under R.C. 3109.11. The appellate court reviewed statutory text and Ohio Supreme Court precedent establishing that only the common pleas general division has jurisdiction under R.C. 3109.11 and that juvenile courts have only the powers expressly granted by statute. Because Madison County's juvenile division has not been granted the common-pleas division's powers, the visitation judgment was void and therefore vacated.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Butler County trial court's adoption of a magistrate's decision awarding Klein Engineering $233,554.95 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages. Appellants (Thiemann) argued they were denied a fair trial because the magistrate issued its decision 15 months after a bench trial and the first day's proceedings were not recorded. The appellate court held Ohio civil and appellate rules provide remedies (recall witnesses, stipulations, affidavits, or an App.R. 9(C) statement) to reconstruct an unrecorded record, and Thiemann failed to use those procedures in the trial court, so remand or reversal was not warranted.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that Mid-Ohio Coal Company no longer owns the mineral rights beneath a 35-acre tract owned by Doris and Robert Williams. The court found that a 1954 quiet-title default judgment that awarded full fee title (including minerals) to the Williamses’ predecessors is binding on Mid-Ohio because Mid-Ohio succeeded to the same mineral interest as the party named in the 1954 suit. An 1891 indexing error in the county recorder’s office prevented discovery of the chain of title, so a diligent 1954 search would have shown Wheeling & Lake Erie Coal Company as record owner and thus the default judgment binds Mid-Ohio by privity.

The court reviewed an appeal by inmate Mourice Neal from the Richland County Common Pleas Court's dismissal of his writ of habeas corpus. The trial court had granted the warden's motion to dismiss Neal's petition, and the appellate court affirmed. The panel found Neal failed to support his assignments of error with citations to the record or legal authority as required by the appellate rules, so the court declined to consider the substantive claims and upheld the dismissal. Costs were assessed to Neal.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Clay A. Hammond’s conviction and sentence after he pled guilty to unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (fourth-degree felony) and received a five-year term of community control. The appellate court found counsel complied with Anders procedures and, after independent review, identified no meritorious issues. The court held the plea colloquy complied with Crim. R. 11, the jointly recommended sentence is not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting Hammond’s medical marijuana use as a condition of community control because R.C. 2929.17(H) authorizes drug-use monitoring. The appeal was found wholly frivolous and counsel’s withdrawal was permitted.

The Ohio Court of Appeals dismissed Jeremy Richards’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging three pending criminal cases. The court held his claims (false arrest, police and prosecutorial misconduct, due-process violations, double jeopardy, and judicial bias) are not cognizable in habeas corpus, and the petition had multiple procedural defects: failure to attach commitment papers, naming an improper respondent (a judge), and failing to provide the required inmate account certification. Because of these substantive and procedural deficiencies, the court dismissed the petition sua sponte and ordered Richards to pay costs.

The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the Defiance County Common Pleas Court’s denial of the Latin American Club of Defiance, Ohio’s motion for relief from an August 16, 2022 default judgment under Ohio Civil Rule 60(B). The LAC argued the judgment should be vacated because the plaintiff secured the default through misconduct and inadequate service after the club had been dormant and its corporate charter cancelled. The appeals court held the trial court reasonably found service by publication appropriate, that the LAC failed to show extraordinary fraud on the court or timely fraud against a party, and therefore did not meet the requirements for relief under the governing Rule 60(B) standards.

The Athens County Juvenile Court’s grant of permanent custody of two children to Athens County Children Services was affirmed on appeal. The children had been in agency custody for more than 12 of a consecutive 22-month period. The parents argued the award was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the agency failed to make reasonable reunification efforts. The court held prior trial-court orders had already found reasonable efforts and that clear-and-convincing evidence supported that permanent custody served the children’s best interests given parental mental-health issues, unresolved interpersonal violence between the parents, the daughter’s refusal to reunify, and the children’s need for stability.

The California Supreme Court reversed the defendant Omar Richard Deen’s death-row conviction and sentence and remanded for a new trial. Deen was convicted of murdering his mother and a police chief, and a capital trial proceeded in competency, guilt, sanity, and penalty phases. The Court found reversible error in the trial court’s handling of a defense challenge for cause to a prospective juror (Juror No. 5). The trial court applied an unduly narrow standard, accepted the juror’s self-assessment without properly weighing the totality of circumstances, and failed to make the findings necessary for meaningful appellate review.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment revoking Miguel Whitney’s community control and sentencing him to 18 months in prison for violating the terms of his supervision. Whitney argued the trial court had failed to give the full statutory warnings under R.C. 2929.19(B)(4) when it imposed community control in 2021. The appellate court held that although some statutory warnings were omitted, Whitney suffered no prejudice because he had been explicitly told at the original sentencing that a violation could result in an 18-month prison term, and the trial court imposed that exact sanction after the violation.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s adoption of a magistrate’s decision modifying parenting time for the parties’ minor son C.K., and partially granting a contempt finding and awards. The court held that modification was in C.K.’s best interest based on evidence that he was triggered by mother and preferred to reside primarily with father; the court found father in contempt only for failing to pay child support, not for other alleged violations. The court also affirmed allocation of guardian ad litem fees (split roughly two-thirds to father) and a small $500 attorney-fee award to mother.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s rulings awarding legal custody of J.L. to the maternal grandmother. The appeal arose from a custody petition filed by the grandmother after the child’s mother died and subsequent interim-custody orders. The appellate court found challenges to the interim emergency orders moot because the juvenile court later made a final custody determination. The court upheld the juvenile court’s finding that the father was an unsuitable parent based on abandonment and detriment to the child, and it affirmed denial of the father’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief for failure to plead operative facts warranting relief.

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed Jeffrey Roscoe Sharpe’s convictions following a jury trial for cocaine possession, one count of having a weapon while under disability, and two counts of improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle. The court rejected Sharpe’s claims that his speedy-trial rights were violated, that a mistrial was required after the jury heard about a separate indictment, that the evidence was legally insufficient or against the weight of the evidence, that allied-offense merger was required, and that trial counsel was ineffective. The court concluded statutory speedy-trial procedures and evidentiary rules supported the convictions and found no plain or structural error that would justify reversal.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment convicting Kevin Fowler of two counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor or impaired person. Fowler pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to two pandering counts; other counts were dismissed. He appealed, arguing his pleas did not comply with the criminal rule requiring that pleas be knowing and informed because the record lacked factual detail. The appellate court held that a guilty plea admits the facts in the indictment, Fowler stated he understood the charges, and the record shows his pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, so the conviction was affirmed.

The Montgomery County Court of Appeals affirmed Quinita L. Coffey’s conviction for domestic violence following a bench trial in Kettering Municipal Court. The court reviewed trial testimony from the victim (B.K.), two police officers, and Coffey, and found sufficient evidence that Coffey knowingly caused physical harm to B.K., the father of her child. The appellate court concluded the trial court reasonably credited the victim’s and officers’ testimony over Coffey’s account and held the verdict was neither legally insufficient nor against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed a juvenile court’s October 30, 2025 judgment granting legal custody of two children, K.M.H. and D.J.L.H., to their maternal grandparents. The grandparents had filed motions for custody after longstanding involvement with the children; a magistrate heard evidence in 2021, issued a decision in 2024, and after a status hearing in 2025 issued a new decision adopted by the trial court. The appellate court held the juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction, found the October 30, 2025 order final and appealable, and concluded no plain error invalidated the custody award because the magistrate expressly found awarding custody to the mother would be detrimental and considered the children’s best interests.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s grant of permanent custody of B.H. to the Montgomery County Department of Job and Family Services (MCCS). The child entered agency custody shortly after birth and, despite periods of compliance, Mother repeatedly relapsed into substance abuse, missed services, lost housing, and failed to maintain regular contact or visitation. The court found MCCS had custody for more than 12 of 22 consecutive months, made reasonable reunification efforts, and that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest given the need for a stable, legally secure placement with foster parents willing to adopt.

The Ohio Court of Appeals vacated a trial-court default judgment and receivership appointment entered against Janiene Johnson in a public-nuisance action brought by Community Gain. The court found that the affidavit supporting Community Gain’s request for service by publication did not identify the efforts taken to locate Johnson or show her address could not be ascertained with reasonable diligence, as required by Civ.R. 4.4 and R.C. 2703.14. Because service by publication was therefore improper, the trial court lacked jurisdiction and the default judgment is void; the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Ross County Common Pleas Court’s judgment sentencing Kevin A. Redmond on guilty pleas to multiple drug counts. Redmond argued the trial court lost jurisdiction to sentence him because of an unreasonable delay between when he became available in custody and his November 8, 2024 sentencing. The appeals court held the delay was largely attributable to Redmond (he missed an earlier sentencing and incurred other charges), R.C. 2941.401 did not apply to a defendant already convicted and awaiting sentencing, and Redmond failed to prove the prison warden or court received proper certified notice. The court therefore denied vacatur and affirmed the sentence.

The Ohio Supreme Court denied an inmate’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to force the Grafton Correctional Institution warden to place him in the opioid-treatment track (OTP) of the state medication-assisted-treatment (MAT) program. The court found that the inmate did not show by clear and convincing evidence that he had a clear legal right to receive buprenorphine or methadone specifically, or that the warden had a clear legal duty to provide that particular treatment. The court also held the inmate had an adequate remedy at law (a motion to enforce the trial court’s amended order).

The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Tenth District and issued a limited writ directing the Industrial Commission to vacate its order and reconsider whether a nine-month Columbus City Schools speech therapist, who elected stretch pay but was not scheduled to work over the summer, was eligible for temporary-total-disability (TTD) benefits during the 2022 summer recess. The Court held the Commission failed to properly apply R.C. 4123.56(F), which requires assessment of whether an employee’s inability to work or wage loss is the direct result of an impairment from an allowed injury or instead the direct result of reasons unrelated to that injury. The case was remanded for the Commission to apply R.C. 4123.56(F) and determine eligibility.

The appellate court affirmed the Illinois Department of Human Services’ decision requiring Kenwood-Oakland Community Organization (KOCO) to repay $451,198 in grant funds. KOCO had challenged IDHS’s recovery determination after administrative and circuit-court review, arguing it properly spent the grants and that IDHS denied due process and changed its basis for recovery. The court held KOCO failed to rebut the statutory presumption favoring recovery because it did not produce adequate accounting records—most critically, KOCO refused to provide its general ledger—so IDHS permissibly sought recovery under the Grant Funds Recovery Act and related regulations.

The Court of Appeal affirmed a postjudgment order in a divorce case that awarded the wife $12,500 in attorney’s fees (rather than about $49,000 she sought) after she prevailed on a dispute over the family home. The trial court reduced the requested fees based on the parties’ limited finances, overlitigation, and the reasonableness of the fees. The appellate court held the family law court did not err: when a marital settlement agreement contains a prevailing-party fee clause, the trial court may still consider Family Code factors (including ability to pay) in fixing the amount of fees, and it did not abuse its discretion here.

The Washington Supreme Court answered a certified question from the Ninth Circuit about whether a consumer who buys and keeps a product at its advertised price but was induced to buy it by a false representation about the product’s former price has a cognizable injury under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The Court held that such a buyer does not allege an injury to “business or property” under the CPA when the purchased, fungible product conforms to its advertised qualities and the purchaser paid the advertised price. The Court explained that mere disappointed expectations or being tricked into buying an item that is not objectively less valuable do not establish CPA injury, though other theories (e.g., objectively inferior goods) could.

The Georgia Court of Appeals considered an emergency motion from James Caparco seeking a supersedeas (stay) and denied that motion on April 2, 2026. The order is brief and procedural: the court did not grant a stay of the lower-court action or judgment while further proceedings continue. No written opinion explaining the court's reasoning is provided in the document; the entry simply records the denial and the clerk’s certification.

The Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal by E. Marcellus Windhom challenging the trial court’s November 19, 2025 order that dismissed his motion for leave to file an out-of-time motion for new trial. Windhom filed his notice of appeal on February 12, 2026, 85 days after the order, but Georgia law requires a notice of appeal within 30 days. Because timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The Georgia Court of Appeals granted discretionary review of Akeno Reid’s challenge to trial-court orders denying his motions to vacate child support and contempt orders. After reviewing the full record and a related earlier appeal (A25A0917), the Court concluded that granting review was improvident and dismissed Reid’s appeal. The court did not address the merits of Reid’s claims and instead ended the appeal because discretionary review was inappropriate under the circumstances.