John Francis Boggins

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case concerned a mother's appeal from a contempt ruling in juvenile court arising from a child custody dispute, where she was found in willful violation of parenting time orders and sentenced to a suspended 30-day jail term conditioned on compliance with specific purge requirements. The trial court had denied her requests for appointed counsel and a continuance at the contempt hearing, even though she claimed indigency and had received notice of her right to seek counsel. The appellate court reversed the contempt judgment and remanded the case, concluding that an indigent party facing potential incarceration in a civil contempt proceeding is entitled to appointed counsel because the conditional nature of the liberty interest does not diminish the due process protections when the individual cannot afford to meet the purge conditions.

family lawcriminal lawcivil rights

This case involved an at-will employee's claims against his former employer, a cemetery association, for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after his termination. The plaintiff had requested information about the company's 401(k) plan and was later reported for bringing a gun to work, leading to his arrest for aggravated menacing (to which he pled to disorderly conduct) and his firing, which the employer attributed to workplace safety concerns; the plaintiff alleged the termination and criminal process were retaliatory. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that Ohio's at-will employment doctrine permitted termination without cause, no clear public policy under ERISA overrode it to create a genuine fact issue, the abuse of process claim lacked evidence of an ulterior purpose, and the emotional distress claim failed for lack of extreme and outrageous conduct or severe distress. The court reviewed the evidence under Civ.R. 56 standards and found no material factual disputes warranting trial.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilitycriminal law

The case involved Shawn Carrico's appeal from his guilty plea and consecutive sentences totaling seven years on two counts of attempted murder arising from a 2004 stabbing incident in Stark County, Ohio. After earlier attempts to appeal were denied, Carrico raised four assignments of error claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge a purportedly defective indictment or file a timely appeal, an illegal sentence under Blakely and State v. Foster, an unconstitutional restitution order amounting to a bill of attainder, and related defects. The court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the guilty plea waived challenges to the indictment, the jointly recommended sentence was not subject to appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(D), no restitution had actually been ordered, and counsel's performance did not meet the Strickland standard for ineffectiveness.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves an appeal by a school district attorney and superintendent from a trial court's denial of a protective order to limit discovery in a defamation and civil conspiracy lawsuit filed by a former teacher. The plaintiffs sought to depose the attorney regarding communications with her clients, which the defendants argued were protected by attorney-client privilege. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the order was not final and appealable because the deposition had not yet occurred, making it premature to assess privilege issues without a developed record.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved Isaac Hubbard's conviction for having weapons while under disability after police responded to reports of a man with a gun at a residence in Canton, Ohio. Officers obtained consent to search, found Hubbard hiding in the basement, recovered a loaded revolver from a speaker based on statements from the other occupant, and noted Hubbard's admission that he withheld information due to an outstanding parole warrant. A jury found him guilty, and the trial court imposed the maximum five-year prison term. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence sufficiently established constructive possession of the firearm, and upheld the sentence under State v. Foster, which grants trial courts discretion to impose maximum terms within the statutory range without mandatory findings.

criminal lawguns

The case involved Troy W. Sullivan, who was convicted in the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas on one count of aggravated possession of drugs after pleading guilty and was sentenced to ten months in prison along with a two-year license suspension. Sullivan appealed his sentence, arguing that it was imposed under statutes later deemed unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Foster. The court agreed with the appeal and the state's concession on the issue, holding that the relevant provisions of R.C. 2929.14 and related statutes requiring judicial fact-finding for sentences above the minimum or for consecutive terms were unconstitutional following Foster. As a result, the court reversed the judgment, vacated the sentence, and remanded the case for resentencing under the revised standards allowing full judicial discretion within the statutory range without mandatory findings.

criminal law

The case concerned June E. Kenny's appeal of her sentencing after pleading guilty to vehicular homicide, a first-degree misdemeanor, for causing a fatal crash when her dump truck with unrepaired faulty brakes failed to stop at an intersection. The trial court imposed a maximum 180-day jail term (with 150 days suspended), five years of probation, 240 hours of community service, a $1,000 fine, and restitution of an unspecified amount. The appellate court sustained the challenges to restitution and the maximum sentence, holding that the trial court failed to fix a restitution amount at sentencing as required by R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) and that the sentence was imposed under sentencing statutes later invalidated in State v. Foster, requiring vacation and remand for resentencing; it overruled the challenge to the fine, finding no abuse of discretion because the court had considered the defendant's ability to pay. The judgment was therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Counts, the defendant was indicted on two counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of rape; after multiple continuances, failure to appear, rearrest, and appointment of new counsel, he was convicted by jury and sentenced to seven years in prison. On appeal, Counts argued that his statutory speedy-trial rights under R.C. 2945.71 were violated, that the verdicts were against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the state improperly used a prior witness statement under Evid.R. 607. The court held that the speedy-trial clock restarted upon his rearrest in August 2005 and that subsequent delays were attributable to the defense, that the evidence supported the convictions and created no manifest miscarriage of justice, and that the statement was used only to refresh the victim's recollection under Evid.R. 612 rather than to impeach her, rendering Evid.R. 607 inapplicable. The judgment of conviction was therefore affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Map Phin, who pled guilty to one count of engaging in corrupt activity and received an eight-year prison sentence from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas after other charges were dismissed. Phin appealed, claiming the sentence violated Blakely v. Washington because Ohio's sentencing statutes required judicial fact-finding to impose more than the minimum term without jury findings or admissions. Following the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Foster, which applied Apprendi, Blakely, and Booker to invalidate portions of the state's sentencing laws, the court agreed that the relevant statutes were unconstitutional and severed the judicial fact-finding requirements. The court therefore reversed the sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing at which the trial court has discretion to impose any term within the statutory range without mandatory findings.

criminal law

This case involved a premises liability claim in which the plaintiff appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant property owner after she fell and was injured at the junction of a ramp, sidewalk, and curb while leaving a birthday party. The plaintiff provided an expert affidavit regarding the slope and height differential of the ramp but in her deposition could not describe how she fell, whether she tripped, or confirm that the ramp played any role. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Ohio law requires a plaintiff in a premises liability action to identify or explain the reason for the fall, and that the plaintiff here failed to do so regardless of arguments about the size of any defect or attendant circumstances. The court applied the standard for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56(C), finding no genuine issue of material fact.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute between a real estate brokerage firm and a property seller over whether a commission was owed under a 1998-1999 listing agreement for the later sale of option acreage that had been part of the original contract. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims, but the appellate court reversed on the breach of contract and fraud counts while affirming on unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation. The court found genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether subsequent purchasers were alter egos of the original buyer and whether the 2003 closing constituted a continuous transaction and final disposition under the brokerage contract's terms, requiring remand for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a dispute between adjoining property owners over maintenance and replacement costs for a shared bridge on a common driveway easement. After the defendants rejected multiple proposals and refused to contribute, the plaintiff replaced the bridge and sued for contribution; the defendants filed a counterclaim seeking damages for temporary loss of vehicle access during construction. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff on the complaint and against the defendants on the counterclaim, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the award, the defendants had agreed to share costs, and there was no showing of procedural error, bias, or ex parte impropriety warranting reversal or a new trial.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case concerned a dispute in the probate of Margaret Schlegel's estate over the inventory valuation of a 100-acre farm parcel, where beneficiary Roy Schlegel challenged the executor's use of a $740,000 appraisal based on subdividing the land into lots. The probate court found the executor had improperly manipulated the appraisal process to favor his own financial interest and ordered a new appraisal whose average with an earlier $400,000 farm-use figure would set the value. On appeal, the court reversed that remedy, holding that the probate court lacked authority to average appraisals or create its own valuation and that the will's language expressing a desire to keep the land as a farm was merely precatory and not legally binding on valuation. The matter was remanded for a proper determination of the property's fair market value as of the date of death.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

This case was a divorce action in Coshocton County, Ohio, concerning the equitable division of the parties' property after a 24-year marriage, including the treatment of projected Social Security benefits, an equalization payment from one spouse to the other, spousal support, and division of a 2004 tax refund. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment on all five assignments of error. The court reasoned that the trial court properly applied the factors in R.C. 3105.171 and 3105.18, followed the approach in Neville v. Neville for Social Security offsets using stipulated expert valuations, and reached decisions supported by the evidence that were neither unreasonable, arbitrary, nor against the manifest weight of the evidence.

family lawproperty