Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Ohio Court of Appeals
State v. McCall, Unpublished Decision (3-6-2007)
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007-03-06 · cited 2×
The case involved defendant Eugene McCall's appeal of his resentencing in the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas on convictions for aggravated robbery and robbery. McCall argued that the trial court violated his due process rights by resentencing him to the maximum ten-year term without providing reasonable notice of the hearing, which prevented adequate preparation. The court affirmed the sentence. It held that McCall had waived the notice issue by failing to raise any objection or request for additional time at the resentencing hearing itself. Under established precedent, issues not presented to the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
criminal lawprocedure
Wayland v. Wayland, Unpublished Decision (3-1-2007)
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007-03-01
This case is a cross-appeal by Scott Wayland from a divorce decree in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, involving the division of marital assets and liabilities, determination of the parties' earning capacities, and orders for spousal and child support. The appellate court held that the trial court failed to conduct an independent review of the magistrate's decision as required by Civ.R. 53 and did not explain why its unequal division of property and debts was equitable under R.C. 3105.171, sustaining those assignments of error and remanding for further proceedings. It found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's adoption of income projections or support calculations based on the evidence presented, nor in its consideration of third-party assets tied to the parties' business interests. The court affirmed the judgment in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the trial court to address the identified deficiencies.
family lawpropertyprocedure
State v. Mobley, Unpublished Decision (2-15-2007)
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007-02-15 · cited 1×
This case involved an appeal by a defendant convicted by jury of multiple counts including aggravated robbery, kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and abduction, each with a gun specification, stemming from an alleged armed robbery attempt at a delicatessen where two employees were held at gunpoint and forced into a freezer. The defendant challenged the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence supporting the convictions, arguing contradictions in testimony and limited physical evidence, as well as the imposition of a non-minimum sentence based on facts not found by the jury. The court rejected the evidentiary challenges, finding that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, supported the jury's verdicts and that the jury did not lose its way in assessing credibility. However, it sustained the sentencing challenge under State v. Foster, which applied Blakely v. Washington to Ohio law, because the trial court had referenced provisions later deemed unconstitutional, and thus vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
criminal lawprocedure
Deal v. C. J. Kraft Ents., Unpublished Decision (2-9-2007)
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007-02-09
This case involved an appeal from a directed verdict in favor of an employer in a lawsuit by employee Dawn Deal, who was injured when a workplace lift malfunctioned and dropped eight feet, breaking her ankle; the lift had experienced a similar cable failure ten years earlier but had been used regularly since without incident. The trial court granted the employer's motion for directed verdict after the plaintiff's case, finding insufficient evidence to support an intentional tort claim. The appellate court affirmed, applying the three-prong test from Fyffe v. Jeno's, Inc. for employer intentional torts and concluding that the evidence failed to show the employer had knowledge of a dangerous condition or that injury was substantially certain to occur, as required to overcome workers' compensation immunity. The court conducted a de novo review under Civil Rule 50 standards for directed verdicts, determining that reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion adverse to the plaintiff.
labor & employmenttorts & liability
In Re Fogle, Unpublished Decision (2-8-2007)
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007-02-08 · cited 4×
This case involved a 16-year-old juvenile, Chad Fogle, charged in Stark County Juvenile Court with domestic violence as a third-degree felony based on two prior delinquency adjudications for acts against his mother. The juvenile court adjudicated him delinquent after ruling that the prior adjudications qualified as convictions for felony enhancement under R.C. 2901.08 and 2919.25. On appeal, Fogle argued that the enhancement statute does not apply to juveniles in juvenile court and that counsel was ineffective for not adequately raising the issue. The appellate court affirmed the adjudication, holding that the statute's language expressly permits use of prior juvenile adjudications to enhance the current charge to felony level. The ineffective counsel claim was rejected as meritless given the validity of the enhancement.
criminal lawfamily law
In Matter of Crigger, Unpublished Decision (2-7-2007)
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007-02-07
This case involved the termination of parental rights of Willis Crigger and Tamara Blake regarding their minor child Jaden Crigger, who was placed in the custody of Fairfield County Children's Services shortly after birth due to dependency. The Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, granted permanent custody to Children's Services after finding that the parents had failed to remedy concerns, abandoned the child, and could not provide a suitable home, particularly given Jaden's special medical needs. The court affirmed this decision on appeal, reasoning that the parents' extensive criminal histories, lack of visitation and compliance with case plans, and inability to meet the child's needs demonstrated that the child could not be placed with them within a reasonable time and that permanent custody was in the child's best interest under relevant statutory factors.
family law