Court Filings

The Court of Appeals dismissed Tommy Martin’s direct appeal of a trial court order denying his motion to confirm service and reinstate a child support enforcement case because the court lacked jurisdiction. Georgia law requires appeals in domestic relations matters, including child support collection, to proceed by application for discretionary review. Martin used a direct appeal rather than the required discretionary-review procedure, and that failure is jurisdictional, so the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the Mulbahs' application for discretionary review in a dispossessory (eviction) case because it was untimely. After the magistrate ruled for defendant KL Capital, LLC, the Mulbahs sought review in superior court; that court dismissed their petition on 2026-02-12 and denied reconsideration on 2026-03-04. The Mulbahs filed for discretionary review on 2026-03-09, but Georgia law requires such appeals in dispossessory actions to be filed within seven days of the judgment, and a reconsideration motion does not extend that deadline. Because timeliness is jurisdictional, the court dismissed the application.

The Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed a direct appeal by the mother of minor J. G. challenging a juvenile court order that terminated her parental rights. The court held it lacked jurisdiction because the mother failed to file the required application for discretionary review under Georgia law. The opinion cites the statute and precedent establishing that compliance with the discretionary-review procedure is jurisdictional, so dismissal — not a decision on the merits of the termination — was required.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant John A. Marre in a foreclosure/lien dispute brought by plaintiff John D. Allen. Allen claimed Marre agreed to pay him $365,000 and filed a UCC financing statement and lien when payment was not made. Marre submitted an affidavit and exhibits showing there was no enforceable contract or security interest, and Allen did not respond to the motion for summary judgment. The appellate court concluded no genuine issue of material fact existed and Marre was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The court affirmed the trial court’s grant of defendant Terence Woods’s motion to suppress a firearm found in his apartment after officers entered without a warrant. The appellate court held that, while Woods’s actions could reasonably be viewed as implied consent for officers to enter the apartment, the officers’ subsequent warrantless protective sweep of the bedroom where the gun was seen exceeded what was justified under the Fourth Amendment. Because the State failed to prove the protective sweep fell within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, the firearm must be suppressed.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed Derrick Warren’s convictions for four counts of rape and the trial court’s designation of him as a sexually-violent predator. Warren was tried for a 2012 attack on A.L.; a jury convicted him on the rape counts after hearing the victim’s testimony and DNA evidence linking Warren to semen and hairs collected in 2012. The court rejected Warren’s challenges to sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence and upheld the sexually-violent-predator finding based on his pattern of sexually-motivated offenses, including later related convictions in 2013 and 2019.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed Deon Slaughter’s convictions after a jury trial for third-degree felony strangulation and domestic violence. The court reviewed three assignments of error: objections to a police detective’s lay-opinion testimony about strangulation, admission of the victim’s testimony that another case against Slaughter was dismissed hours earlier, and a claim that the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court held the detective’s testimony admissible under Evid.R. 701, found the dismissed-case testimony part of the immediate background and relevant under Evid.R. 404(B), and concluded the jury’s verdicts were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Marvin Rachells’s conviction for aggravated murder and related offenses after a jury trial. Rachells challenged the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, a late discovery disclosure of cell-phone mapping, and his lawyers’ failure to request a continuance. The court found overwhelming circumstantial and direct evidence tying Rachells to the crime (vehicle and store video, clothing, DNA in the suspect vehicle, and the murder weapon in his safe), held the late disclosure was inadvertent and not prejudicial, and concluded defense counsel’s alleged omission did not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

The court reversed the trial court’s denial of Solomon Lewis’s timely petition for postconviction relief because the lower court failed to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Ohio law. Lewis had pleaded guilty and was sentenced; after a prior direct-appeal remand and resentencing he filed timely postconviction petitions. The trial court denied relief in a one-sentence entry without explaining the bases for the decision. The appellate court held that such an entry is insufficient under R.C. 2953.21(H) and remanded for the trial court to issue proper findings and conclusions.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed Taze Lawrence’s convictions and sentences after he pleaded guilty to aggravated murder and aggravated robbery with three-year firearm specifications. The court rejected two challenges: (1) that the plea was invalid because the trial judge misstated which fines applied and failed to fully advise on fines, and (2) that the sentencing court failed to give full notifications required by the Reagan Tokes Law. The court found no prejudice from the partial advisements because no fines were imposed and the Reagan Tokes advisements could not practically affect Lawrence’s concurrent life sentence.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Stetson Franklin’s motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of his vehicle after a traffic stop. Officers stopped Franklin for speeding, observed a loaded magazine in the center console, learned he was prohibited from possessing firearms, and summoned a drug dog. After Franklin was removed from the car, officers performed a protective sweep of the passenger compartment and discovered a loaded firearm. The court held the sweep reasonable given officer safety concerns and that the canine sniff did not unreasonably extend the stop.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Christopher Etheridge’s 2025 petition for postconviction relief. Etheridge, sentenced in 2007 to life with parole eligibility after 28 years for aggravated murder and felonious assault following a guilty plea, argued the court failed to consider his youth at sentencing. The appeals court held his petition was untimely under R.C. 2953.21 because the direct-appeal transcripts were filed in 2008 and the 365-day filing window closed in 2009. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider Etheridge’s claim based on Ohio cases and therefore properly denied relief without findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed Datwan Hall’s conviction for domestic violence after a bench trial in South Euclid Municipal Court. The court held Hall was not entitled to claim self-defense because he uninvitedly entered the victim’s apartment, provoked the encounter by pushing past her and taking her phone, and thus created the situation that led to the altercation. The court also found trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a written notice of self-defense because asserting that defense would have been futile. Finally, the court concluded the State produced sufficient evidence, including testimony and injury photographs, to support the conviction.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of MAZCleveland and third-party defendant Steven Morris’s renewed motion for sanctions against defendant Sherry Hall under Ohio Rev. Code 2323.51. The appellants sought sanctions claiming Hall’s claims were frivolous and filed to harass, but the trial court determined the renewed motion merely restated previously-decided claims resolved by an agreed judgment. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion: winning on the merits does not by itself prove frivolousness, the statutory standard requires egregious conduct, and the trial court had sufficient familiarity with the prior proceedings to deny a hearing.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s default judgment against defendant-appellant Armand DiNardo in a dispute over lead-hazard remediation costs following Lofty Holding’s purchase of real property. Lofty served DiNardo by certified mail (returned unclaimed) and then by ordinary mail to a Kenwood Drive address; the clerk’s docket reflected ordinary-mail service and no return showing failure. The trial court held hearings and afforded DiNardo multiple chances to respond; DiNardo failed to appear or rebut service with convincing evidence. The appeals court held service was proper and the default judgment was valid.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for defendant-appellant J.P.S. Properties Diversified, Inc. The dispute involved whether a deed use restriction barred an Amazon fulfillment center and whether that restriction was enforceable. A prior appellate decision (Jay Realty I) had already concluded the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Jay Realty and that the restriction was enforceable and ran with the land. The trial court improperly reinstated its prior summary-judgment entry contrary to the appellate mandate; the appeals court ordered entry of judgment for JPS because no claims remained pending after the earlier opinion.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision awarding legal custody and residence of minor S.B. to her mother. Father, appearing pro se, had sought shared parenting and custody but the trial court and guardian ad litem concluded the parents could not communicate effectively or set aside personal disputes for the child’s benefit. The appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining shared parenting was not feasible and in designating Mother as the residential parent after considering statutory best-interest factors and trial testimony.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s decision denying the father’s motion to modify parental rights and granting in part the mother’s modification requests. The dispute involved a 2016 parenting agreement naming mother residential custodian and the child’s wishes to live with father and play football at a different high school. The trial court found no material change in circumstances to justify changing custody to father but modified certain logistical terms (travel notice, single phone, sharing activity costs) as in the child’s best interest. The court also properly handled the guardian ad litem (GAL) report and fee requests.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals reviewed two Parma Municipal Court matters involving Michael C. Dunn. One case (drug charges) resulted in acquittal at trial, so the appeal is dismissed as moot. The court affirmed Dunn’s convictions for multiple traffic violations in the related traffic case. The appellate court held the municipal court had personal jurisdiction over Dunn because he was arrested, arraigned, and voluntarily continued to participate in proceedings, and it had subject-matter jurisdiction because the alleged infractions occurred in Broadview Heights and the traffic ticket satisfied rule requirements.

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Apex Security Group, Inc. in a negligence suit by pro se plaintiff Joshua Bradley, Sr., who was punched at a Cleveland Browns game. The court concluded Apex did not owe Bradley a duty to prevent the unforeseeable assault under the contract and Ohio law governing private security duties, and Bradley failed to show a genuine issue of material fact. The court also rejected Bradley’s procedural and bias claims, found no abuse in evidence rulings or refusal to grant default judgment, and affirmed the judgment for Apex.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s post-trial rulings in a fraudulent-transfer suit brought by Raida Allan against her ex-husband Tareq, his brother Qais, and two corporate gas-station entities. A jury found the transfers occurred, were not in good faith, and awarded Raida damages, but the trial court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for Qais and the Gas Stations on statute-of-limitations grounds and denied JNOV as to Tareq. The appellate court held the trial court improperly weighed evidence when granting JNOV, found the jury’s verdict legally supported, reversed those rulings, and remanded for the trial court to enter judgment consistent with the jury and determine damages against Tareq.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed most rulings in State v. Craft but reversed and remanded limited parts of the sentence. Ervin Tyrone Craft challenged speedy-trial computations, denial of his motion to suppress after a K-9 alerted to drugs during a traffic stop, and the validity of his no-contest plea. The court rejected his speedy-trial and suppression claims and found the plea valid because the record shows Craft understood the plea's consequences. However, the court found plain error at sentencing: the trial court merged two allied first-degree-felony counts but imposed a five-year sentence on each. The appeals court reversed the sentence and remanded for limited resentencing so the state may elect one merged count for sentencing.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed Warren D. Bartos’s convictions and sentence after he pled guilty to trespass in a habitation, possession of a fentanyl-related compound, aggravated possession of methamphetamine, and resisting arrest. The trial court accepted Bartos’s guilty pleas after a proper on-the-record colloquy and written plea form, and imposed the parties’ joint recommendation of one year of community control. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief saying no non-frivolous issues exist; the appeals court independently reviewed the record, found the plea and sentence lawful, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the judgment.

The Ohio Supreme Court denied a mandamus petition by Jocelyn Rosnick (ACLU of Ohio) seeking contracts and related documents the Geauga County Sheriff’s Office allegedly executed with DHS, ICE, or the U.S. Marshals Service between June 1, 2024 and March 3, 2025. The sheriff’s office initially cited federal-law restrictions for denial but later submitted a records-clerk affidavit stating it did not execute any such contracts during that period. Because Rosnick failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that responsive records exist and were withheld, the court denied the writ and denied statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs. A motion to file late rebuttal evidence was also denied as untimely.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Seventh District’s judgment holding that a 1953 deed reservation of “all the coal below the horizon of the No. 8 coal . . . and other minerals, with the right to mine and remove such coal or other minerals of any vein” did not reserve rights to oil and gas. The trial court had granted summary judgment to the surface owner (Faith Ranch) and the court of appeals affirmed based on extrinsic evidence; the Supreme Court agreed the outcome was correct but held the deed was unambiguous on its face. The Court explained that the reservation’s words (mine/mining, vein, and related phrasing) show an intent to reserve solid, mineable minerals like coal, not migratory oil and gas.

The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed a disciplinary complaint against Judge John W. Rudduck arising from his personal Facebook activity endorsing his son’s campaign and defending him online. The Board of Professional Conduct had found violations of several judicial-conduct rules and recommended a public reprimand, but the Court held that Jud.Cond.R. 4.1(A)(3) — the rule prohibiting judges from publicly endorsing candidates for other offices — is a content-based restriction on political speech that fails strict scrutiny and therefore violates the First Amendment. Because the finding under Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 relied on the invalidated rule, and the Court also found no violation of Jud.Cond.R. 1.3, the complaint was dismissed.

The Appellate Division affirmed Eric T. Seddens's convictions for aggravated manslaughter, unlawful possession of a weapon, and automobile theft. The main issue was whether the trial court properly admitted evidence of an aggravated assault Seddens committed against the same victim in 2018 under Rule 404(b) to prove motive and identity for the 2020 killing. The court held the prior assault was highly probative of motive (retaliation after his 2018 prosecution and imprisonment) and probative of identity (multiple shared characteristics of the two attacks). The trial court properly balanced prejudice against probative value, gave limiting instructions, and did not need to further sanitize the evidence.

The Court of Appeal granted Alonzo Devon Melson’s petition for habeas corpus and vacated his conviction for crimes arising from a 2017 gang-related shooting. The court found that two prosecution eyewitnesses gave trial testimony that was false about what they had told police after the shooting, and the prosecutor failed to correct those statements. Defense counsel at the retrial also failed to adequately prepare to impeach those witnesses. Under controlling precedent, the false testimony was material and the People did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt it did not contribute to the verdict.

The Court of Appeal reversed a trial-court judgment that sustained defendants’ demurrer and dismissed a qui tam claim under the California False Claims Act (CFCA). Relator Jamal Albarghouti filed a sealed complaint alleging false claims involving Los Angeles public entities, served the Attorney General by certified mail, and waited more than 60 days before serving defendants. The trial court held the complaint was improperly unsealed and dismissed it. The appellate court held the CFCA creates a 60-day default seal period that lifts automatically absent a government motion to extend the seal, that failure to allege compliance with the seal rules is not grounds for demurrer, and directed the trial court to overrule the demurrer and proceed.

The Court of Appeal granted The Merchant of Tennis’s petition for extraordinary writ and directed the trial court to modify its curative notice scheme regarding roughly 954 individual settlement agreements (ISAs) obtained by Merchant from putative class members. The trial court had found the ISAs voidable as procured by fraud or coercion and ordered a curative notice advising members they could rescind and join the class without having to immediately return settlement payments (though payments could be offset against any later recovery). The appellate majority concluded the trial court must follow California rescission statutes and preserved the judgment, adding that each side bear its own costs on appeal.