Peter B. Abele

In State v. Rogers, defendant Robert Rogers appealed his convictions and sentences from the Ross County Common Pleas Court in two consolidated cases involving multiple first-degree felony counts of cocaine trafficking and possession, along with third-degree felony weapons-under-disability charges. He argued that the trial court committed plain error by imposing consecutive sentences, claiming violations of due process and protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the aggregate 33.5- to 39-year prison term. The court held that the trial court properly made the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) both on the record and in the sentencing entry, that the sentences fell within statutory ranges, and that the record supported the findings under the deferential standard of R.C. 2953.8(G)(2). Because Rogers did not object at sentencing, the court reviewed only for plain error and found none.

criminal law

The case involved A.K.'s appeal from his Adams County convictions for one count of rape, two counts of gross sexual imposition, and felonious assault with a sexual motivation specification, arising from allegations that he sexually abused his biological daughter M.K. multiple times when she was between the ages of about five and eight. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment of conviction and sentence. It held that allowing the victim to testify outside the defendant's presence via closed-circuit television did not violate the Confrontation Clause under existing precedent and satisfied R.C. 2945.481(C) and (E), because the State showed by a preponderance of the evidence (including the victim's own statements and observed emotional distress on the stand) that she would suffer serious emotional trauma if required to testify in A.K.'s presence, and the prosecutor established good cause for the untimely request. The court also rejected the remaining assignments of error concerning the late discovery issue, amendment of the indictment, evidentiary sufficiency and weight, and sentencing compliance.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In State v. Withers, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of involuntary manslaughter and multiple counts of failing to confine or control his dogs, based on evidence that his two pit bulls escaped his home in October 2024 and fatally attacked a neighbor. Withers appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of a prior 2023 dog attack and prior observations of his unsecured door, that the evidence was insufficient, and that his counsel was ineffective. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. The court held that Withers forfeited his evidentiary objections, so review was for plain error only, and found no obvious error: the prior-attack evidence was relevant to establish that the dogs were dangerous or vicious for purposes of the felony enhancements under the applicable version of R.C. 955.22 and 955.99, Evid.R. 404(B) does not apply to animals, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; the door evidence argument was not properly developed on appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Withers, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of involuntary manslaughter and multiple counts of failing to confine or control his dogs, based on evidence that his two pit bulls escaped his home in October 2024 and fatally attacked a neighbor. Withers appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of a prior 2023 dog attack and prior observations of his unsecured door, that the evidence was insufficient, and that his counsel was ineffective. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. The court held that Withers forfeited his evidentiary objections, so review was for plain error only, and found no obvious error: the prior-attack evidence was relevant to establish that the dogs were dangerous or vicious for purposes of the felony enhancements under the applicable version of R.C. 955.22 and 955.99, Evid.R. 404(B) does not apply to animals, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; the door evidence argument was not properly developed on appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Rickey L. McKnight, who was charged with aggravated burglary and felonious assault after entering a residence he owned (where J.M. was a tenant) on December 10, 2024, using a key, striking the sleeping victim to wake him, and then assaulting him during a dispute over a $20 debt, resulting in J.M.’s injuries including a fractured vertebra and broken rib. McKnight was acquitted of aggravated burglary but convicted by a jury of burglary and felonious assault; the trial court sentenced him to prison terms totaling 7.5 years. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that they were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court reasoned that McKnight trespassed by stealth when he entered without announcement while the victim slept, that any consent to enter was revoked once the assault began, and that the jury reasonably rejected his self-defense claim after weighing the conflicting testimony.

criminal lawproperty

The case involved Rickey L. McKnight, who was charged with aggravated burglary and felonious assault after entering a residence he owned (where J.M. was a tenant) on December 10, 2024, using a key, striking the sleeping victim to wake him, and then assaulting him during a dispute over a $20 debt, resulting in J.M.’s injuries including a fractured vertebra and broken rib. McKnight was acquitted of aggravated burglary but convicted by a jury of burglary and felonious assault; the trial court sentenced him to prison terms totaling 7.5 years. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that they were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court reasoned that McKnight trespassed by stealth when he entered without announcement while the victim slept, that any consent to enter was revoked once the assault began, and that the jury reasonably rejected his self-defense claim after weighing the conflicting testimony.

criminal lawproperty

The case arose from a 2018 written contract between Candlewood Custom Homes and the Saunderses for construction of a home, which ended in 2020 when Candlewood stopped work; Candlewood then sued for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and other claims while seeking to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, and the Saunderses counterclaimed for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and slander of title. After a bench trial, the magistrate recommended denying the contract and most other claims, invalidating the lien, and awarding Candlewood $20,544 in unjust enrichment damages (after a reduction for incomplete work); the trial court adopted those recommendations, denied the Saunderses’ post-judgment motions for a new trial or relief from judgment (which asserted that the magistrate should have recused due to a $100 campaign contribution to their counsel’s opponent), and denied Candlewood prejudgment interest. On appeal, the Saunderses challenged the denial of their new-trial motion and the unjust-enrichment liability, while Candlewood cross-appealed the damages reduction and interest ruling. The appellate court reviewed the new-trial denial for abuse of discretion, outlined the standards under Civ.R. 59(A) for irregularities in proceedings and under the Code of Judicial Conduct for disqualification based on campaign activity, and examined whether the magistrate’s $100 contribution created an appearance of impropriety requiring recusal.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatoryelections

The case arose from a 2018 written contract between Candlewood Custom Homes and the Saunderses for construction of a home, which ended in 2020 when Candlewood stopped work; Candlewood then sued for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and other claims while seeking to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, and the Saunderses counterclaimed for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and slander of title. After a bench trial, the magistrate recommended denying the contract and most other claims, invalidating the lien, and awarding Candlewood $20,544 in unjust enrichment damages (after a reduction for incomplete work); the trial court adopted those recommendations, denied the Saunderses’ post-judgment motions for a new trial or relief from judgment (which asserted that the magistrate should have recused due to a $100 campaign contribution to their counsel’s opponent), and denied Candlewood prejudgment interest. On appeal, the Saunderses challenged the denial of their new-trial motion and the unjust-enrichment liability, while Candlewood cross-appealed the damages reduction and interest ruling. The appellate court reviewed the new-trial denial for abuse of discretion, outlined the standards under Civ.R. 59(A) for irregularities in proceedings and under the Code of Judicial Conduct for disqualification based on campaign activity, and examined whether the magistrate’s $100 contribution created an appearance of impropriety requiring recusal.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatoryelections

In Handy v. Patriot Management & Investments Co., plaintiff Beulah Handy sued Heartland-Riverview nursing home and co-defendant Patriot for medical negligence after she fell from a defective wheelchair during transport to a medical appointment in June 2021, sustaining serious leg injuries. Heartland appealed the trial court’s denial of its motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, arguing that Handy had signed an arbitration agreement upon admission. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court held that the evidence, including Handy’s post-surgical confusion, medications such as Norco and Ambien, and staff testimony about her mental state, supported the finding that she lacked capacity to understand the arbitration agreement when she signed it. This conclusion disposed of the need to consider the separate claim of unconscionability.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

Kelsey Mallory appealed his Scioto County convictions and sentence after pleading guilty to aggravated drug trafficking (with a major drug offender specification and forfeiture), failure to comply with a police order, and tampering with evidence, as part of a negotiated agreement that dismissed other felony drug counts and produced a jointly recommended 15-year definite sentence (11 years mandatory) up to a maximum of 20½ years. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, overruling Mallory’s claims that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; that his sentence was contrary to law; and that trial counsel was ineffective. The court reasoned that the plea colloquy, signed forms, and Mallory’s affirmative responses and questions demonstrated he understood the charges, penalties, and appeal waiver; the agreed sentence was authorized by statute and far below the potential maximum exposure; and counsel’s performance was not deficient given the substantial reduction in charges and sentence achieved through negotiation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a Pike County trial court’s denial of a motion to set aside a sheriff’s sale of real property in a foreclosure action brought by the county treasurer for delinquent taxes against the unknown heirs of Chadwick Damron. Appellant Gary Damron, one of the known heirs, argued that notice by publication was inadequate for known heirs and that email notice of the sale sent to his deceased attorney’s account during a holiday weekend violated due process and procedural rules. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that email service under Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(f) was complete upon transmission and had reached counsel’s account, and that the initial publication notice for unknown heirs was sufficient given the circumstances and prior appearance by counsel. The court found no legal support for the claim that holiday timing invalidated the notice.

taxespropertyprocedure

In State v. Smith, Kirby Smith appealed his conviction and sentence from the Ross County Common Pleas Court after pleading guilty to tampering with evidence and later having his community control revoked for multiple violations, including new criminal charges, drug possession, firearm possession, and failure to report. Smith raised two assignments of error, claiming the trial court violated his right to self-representation by denying his request to discharge counsel and proceed pro se, and abused its discretion by denying his request for a continuance of the revocation hearing. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in full. It overruled the self-representation claim after finding the request was not properly made or preserved, and it overruled the continuance claim after applying the Unger factors, determining that counsel was prepared, the request came late, and Smith showed no prejudice from proceeding. The court therefore held that neither ruling violated Smith’s rights or constituted reversible error.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In *State v. Blevins*, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of aggravated trafficking in methamphetamine arising from controlled purchases made by a confidential informant. The trial court imposed consecutive prison sentences totaling 9 to 13 years and a period of postrelease control. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, finding that the informant’s testimony, corroborated by video recordings, police observation, and laboratory analysis confirming the drug quantities, provided sufficient evidence and that the jury’s credibility determinations were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court reversed only the postrelease-control portion of the sentence, holding that the trial court failed to properly advise Blevins of the applicable postrelease-control terms as required by statute, and remanded for resentencing on that issue alone.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Derrick Beverly’s appeal from a Highland County Juvenile Court judgment that upheld an administrative order terminating his child support obligation for a child who had reached majority and graduated high school, leaving arrears of over $13,000. Beverly raised multiple objections, claiming lack of personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, fraud and misrepresentation in the original 2006-2007 administrative paternity and support orders (including alleged errors in genetic testing of another individual), due process violations, coercion, and newly discovered evidence that he never voluntarily submitted to testing; he argued these flaws rendered the orders void and unenforceable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that Beverly failed to file any timely objection to the 2007 administrative support order within the required 30-day period under Ohio law, making that order final and modifiable only through statutory procedures that were not followed here. The court further noted that the trial court had conducted multiple hearings at which Beverly was allowed to present evidence, and no basis existed to vacate or reconsider the underlying orders on grounds of fraud or lack of jurisdiction.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Robison, Carl Robison appealed his Washington County convictions after a jury trial on charges including aggravated trafficking in methamphetamine (in an amount over the bulk amount, near juveniles), multiple counts of aggravated drug possession (methamphetamine, psilocyn, and amphetamine), and related offenses stemming from a 2022 traffic stop. The trial court had denied his motion to suppress, admitted evidence including drugs found on his person and in his vehicle, and imposed both a prison term and community control sanctions. Robison argued that the trafficking conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the combined prison and community control sentence was unlawful. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the jury's findings were supported by the evidence presented at trial, but sustained the sentencing challenge under Ohio law prohibiting the simultaneous imposition of prison and community control for the same offenses, and remanded the case to vacate the community control portion.

criminal law

In State v. Yates, the defendant appealed after the Adams County Common Pleas Court revoked his community control and imposed a reserved three-year prison sentence. Yates had pleaded guilty to aggravated drug possession and received a four-year community control term in 2022 that included requirements for drug testing, twice-weekly AA/NA meetings for two years, and other conditions; the trial court had expressly warned that a positive drug test would result in the prison term. In 2025, after a probation officer testified that Yates tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC and had failed to complete the required meeting attendance, the trial court found violations and revoked community control. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record contained substantial proof of the violations and that the trial court acted within its discretion under R.C. 2929.15 to impose the previously specified prison term.

criminal law

The case involved an appeal by T.R., the biological mother of X.P. and I.R., from a Scioto County Juvenile Court judgment granting permanent custody of the children to Scioto County Children Services. The children had been removed in 2021 after the mother’s arrest for shoplifting and drug use, and the putative father tested positive for multiple substances; they were adjudicated neglected and dependent in early 2022 and remained in agency temporary custody for over 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period. The trial court granted the agency’s motion for permanent custody after a hearing, finding it was in the children’s best interests due to the mother’s incomplete case-plan compliance, ongoing substance issues, lack of independent housing, and other statutory factors. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court’s best-interest determination was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

family law

The case concerns an appeal by D.T., the biological father of four-year-old I.R., from a Scioto County Juvenile Court judgment that granted permanent custody of the child to Scioto County Children Services. The agency had taken temporary custody after the mother’s 2021 arrest for shoplifting and drug use, and after the initial putative father tested positive for multiple substances; D.T. was later identified through DNA testing in 2024. After the child had been in agency custody for the statutory 12-of-22-month period, the trial court granted permanent custody on the grounds that the child could not be placed with the father within a reasonable time and that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeals overruled all eight assignments of error—covering statutory timelines, recording of hearings, reasonable efforts, the guardian ad litem’s performance, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel—and affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding the evidence sufficient to support the permanent-custody determination.

family law

In October 2024, Evanda Oatis was charged with assault and domestic violence after an incident at the marital home during his divorce proceedings, in which he arrived while his estranged wife was packing, yelled about their children, threw boxes and other items including a lamp and bleach container, and caused her to hide in fear. A jury convicted him of domestic violence but acquitted him of assault, and the trial court imposed a five-day jail sentence plus community control. On appeal, Oatis argued that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the trial court improperly admitted testimony about his prior violent behavior in violation of Evid.R. 404(B). The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the victim’s testimony, the cell-phone video, and other evidence allowed the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Oatis caused her to believe she faced imminent physical harm, and that any evidentiary error did not rise to plain error or affect the outcome.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

The case concerned the State Medical Board of Ohio's revocation of physician assistant Rufus Frank Lowman's license after he issued dozens of schedule II controlled-substance prescriptions between 2022 and 2024 without required physician supervision or prescriptive authority under R.C. 4730.411(A). Lowman argued that his conduct fell within the behavioral-health exception added by R.C. 4730.411(B)(14) effective October 2023, claiming his practice focused on mental-health and substance-use treatment and that he had a supervisory agreement with a physician. The hearing examiner rejected that claim, finding no evidence that the clinic operated or held itself out as a qualifying behavioral-health practice or that the supervising physician was employed by it, and recommended permanent revocation plus a $5,000 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the common pleas court's upholding of the Board's order, holding that the roughly 40 pre-exception prescriptions alone constituted violations sufficient to authorize revocation under R.C. 4730.25(B), regardless of whether the later exception applied to any of the remaining prescriptions.

business & regulatoryhealthcare