Anthony Orlando Calabrese jr

This case involved relator Dru Pottinger seeking a writ of prohibition against the Cleveland Municipal Court, a judge, and the Cleveland Animal Protective League to prevent them from exercising jurisdiction over eight dogs seized on animal neglect and cruelty allegations in underlying municipal court cases. The relator argued that his indictment on related charges in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court transferred exclusive jurisdiction to that court and divested the municipal court of authority, including over care bonds or custody orders. The court denied the writ, holding that R.C. 959.132 forfeiture and care proceedings are civil in nature and separate from the criminal case, so the jurisdictional-priority rule does not apply and the municipal court retained authority to set bonds and determine custody. The court also found that any apparent clerical issues with case numbers did not void the orders and that the Animal Protective League was not exercising judicial authority.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the administration of the estate of Charles W. Buckner Sr., who died intestate in 2022. Charles Buckner Jr. was appointed administrator over objections from one of the decedent's children, Carolyn Hasan, who filed numerous motions and appeals challenging the appointment and related proceedings. The probate court authorized the sale of estate real estate under R.C. 2127.04(B), found Hasan guilty under R.C. 2109.50 and 2109.52 for conveying and possessing estate funds, and awarded attorney fees. Hasan appealed these rulings to the Eighth District Court of Appeals, raising arguments including challenges to jurisdiction based on sovereign-citizen theories. The appellate court affirmed the judgments in full, concluding that Hasan failed to demonstrate any merit to her claims or procedural errors by the trial court.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved homeowners who contracted with a construction company to replace their roof but faced issues when the work was halted due to the company's lack of local registration, missing permits, and failure to obtain architectural approval. The homeowners sued for breach of contract, violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, negligence, and unjust enrichment after the company left the job without refunding the deposit and a new contractor had to complete a different roof. After a trial with an advisory jury, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the homeowners, including attorney fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that the appellants failed to provide the trial transcript and exhibits, preventing meaningful review of the lower court's decisions, including the fee award.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a father's appeal of a juvenile court judgment that established his child support obligations for minor child K.L.D. after the Office of Child Support Services intervened to seek a support order following prior custody proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, finding that the juvenile court had improperly calculated support by imputing income to the unemployed father without evidence of his actual or potential income. It also noted issues with service of the support motion at an updated address without explanation. The court affirmed the provisions on health insurance and medical support because no order required the father to obtain private insurance at that time. The decision centered on the need for accurate income evidence and compliance with support statutes.

family lawprocedure

Jared Rainey filed a complaint for a writ of procedendo to compel Judge William L. Vodrey to issue a ruling on a motion for jail-time credit in Rainey's underlying criminal case, State v. Rainey. The court granted the judge's motion to dismiss the complaint. The request was moot because the judge had already ruled on the motion in April 2023. Any errors in calculating jail-time credit must be addressed through direct appeal rather than an extraordinary writ. The complaint was also dismissed for failing to meet the mandatory filing requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C).

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Graves, the defendant was charged with murder and felonious assault after a physical altercation that led to his wife's death from a brain bleed; he entered a negotiated plea to involuntary manslaughter, a third-degree felony, and requested a presentence investigation report before sentencing. The trial court denied the request, proceeded directly to sentencing, and imposed a 36-month prison term. Graves appealed, arguing that the denial prevented proper consideration of sentencing factors and community control options. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that under Crim.R. 32.2 and R.C. 2951.03 a presentence investigation report is required only when community control or probation is imposed, not when a prison term is ordered, and that the record contained sufficient facts for the court to apply the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Katrina Robinson's administrative appeal from the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission's denial of her application for unemployment benefits, which was based on her failure to meet the statutory requirements for qualifying weeks or wages during the relevant base period. The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas dismissed the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Robinson filed her notice of appeal more than 30 days after the Review Commission's decision was mailed, contrary to the deadline in R.C. 4141.282. On appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the statutory time limit is jurisdictional and that Robinson's separate complaint and additional claims against her former employer and union could not cure the untimely filing or convert the matter into a different type of action. The court reasoned that when a statute provides the right to appeal an administrative decision, its procedural requirements must be strictly followed, and creative pleading does not expand the court's authority.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Edward Hochevar appealing the trial court's grant of four motions for summary judgment in a civil lawsuit against multiple school districts, a community college, boards of education, and individual defendants. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, concluding that the trial court's August 2025 order was not a final appealable order. The court reasoned that the order failed to dispose of all parties because two Polaris board defendants had not moved for summary judgment and were not properly included in the granted motions, and the order lacked the Civ.R. 54(B) "no just reason for delay" language required for appealability under R.C. 2505.02.

procedure

This case concerns a family dispute over the estate of William J. Deckman, in which his nieces allegedly used powers of attorney to alter his life insurance beneficiary designations and other estate planning documents after he suffered a stroke. The plaintiffs, including the decedent's sons, ex-wife, and estate representatives, filed claims in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court seeking declaratory relief, damages for undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty, and remedies such as a constructive trust over the insurance proceeds. The trial court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and to dismiss multiple counts. On appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of counts that were not independent causes of action but reversed the dismissal of the undue influence claim, holding that the plaintiffs had alleged facts that could entitle them to relief and that certain remedies remained available for the surviving claims, then remanded the case.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved the State of Ohio appealing a trial court's order terminating defendant Larry Cannon's parole from previous criminal cases after he pleaded guilty to new burglary and theft charges. The appellate court vacated the termination order and remanded the case, holding that the trial court lacked authority to terminate parole supervision from earlier cases. The reasoning centered on Ohio's sentencing laws distinguishing between pre-1996 parole under old law and post-release control under S.B. 2, with R.C. 2929.141(A) permitting termination only of post-release control, not parole. The court also rejected claims of invited error by the prosecution.

criminal lawprocedure

In Shaker Hts. v. Thompson, the defendant appealed the municipal court's denial of his 2025 renewed motion under Crim.R. 32.1 to withdraw his 2003 no-contest plea and vacate his domestic-violence conviction, arguing the plea was not knowing and intelligent because he was not advised of potential future sentencing enhancements and because the record of the plea hearing was incomplete. The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, affirmed the denial. The court held that the 2003 plea form and journal entry showed the defendant had waived counsel and entered the plea voluntarily after being informed of his rights, that lack of advice on collateral consequences did not invalidate the plea, and that the defendant's attempts to reconstruct or supplement the record did not demonstrate prejudice or grounds for relief. The opinion rejected claims of procedural errors in handling the motion and prior filings as either waived or unsupported.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Michael Smith's application under App.R. 26(B) to reopen his appeal of convictions in Lakewood Municipal Court for violating an ex parte civil stalking protection order. The Eighth District Court of Appeals had previously affirmed the convictions while ruling that sealed testimony from the related protection order proceeding was improperly admitted at trial. Smith claimed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not raising issues such as sufficiency of the evidence on service of the order, manifest weight, plain error regarding sealed records and hearsay, confrontation clause violations, and denial of a continuance. The court denied the reopening application, holding that counsel had directly and successfully challenged the admission of the sealed records, exercised reasonable professional judgment in selecting other arguments, and could not have advanced claims without adequate support in the record.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a landlord-tenant dispute in which Nicole Orlove sued Gregory Bringht over a 2023 residential lease in Parma, Ohio, seeking both eviction through a forcible entry and detainer claim (Count 1) and money damages for back rent and other charges (Count 2). The trial court granted judgment on the eviction claim after a hearing but denied Bringht's later motions to quash service and dismiss Count 2 for improper service. On appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's orders and remanded the case, holding that Orlove failed to perfect service of Count 2 on Bringht within six months as required by Civ.R. 3(A) and 4(E), leaving the court without personal jurisdiction over that claim. The court further determined that Bringht had preserved his service objection throughout the proceedings and that his participation in the eviction hearing did not waive it, rendering any judgment on Count 2 void. The matter was remanded with instructions to dismiss Count 2 without prejudice.

propertyprocedure

This case involves defendant Mike Jones's appeal from the denial of his untimely and successive petition for postconviction relief and motion for leave to file a motion for new trial following his 2001 conviction for the murder of a 12-year-old boy during a gang-related shooting incident. The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court reasoned that Jones failed to demonstrate he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the purported new evidence, including a prosecutor's interoffice memorandum and potential witness testimony, which was required to overcome the untimeliness and successive filing bars under Ohio law. It further held that res judicata applied to certain ineffective assistance of counsel claims and that any hearing on the new trial motion would have been futile given the deficiencies in the postconviction petition.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Dameon Kijanski, who pleaded guilty to multiple felonies including discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises, two counts of felonious assault, tampering with evidence, and having weapons while under disability after he shot two teenagers he encountered on the street. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences on three of the counts. Kijanski appealed, arguing that the consecutive sentences were not supported by the record. The court of appeals affirmed the sentence, holding that the trial court made the required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and that the record supported those findings based on the facts of the offense and the defendant's conduct.

criminal lawguns

In State v. Green, the defendant appealed the trial court's denial of his postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea to amended charges of aggravated robbery with a firearm specification, which arose from an incident in which he robbed an Uber driver at knife and gunpoint. Green argued that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate or present his mental-health history to the court or seek transfer to a mental-health docket, and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion without a hearing or finding of manifest injustice. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that Green failed to demonstrate manifest injustice because nothing showed he qualified for mental-health court or that counsel's conduct fell outside the range of reasonable professional assistance under Strickland standards, and that no hearing was required since the alleged facts, even if true, did not necessitate plea withdrawal. The court applied deferential review to counsel's performance and the high bar for postsentence plea withdrawal under Crim.R. 32.1.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Moore, the defendant was charged with felony domestic violence after his mother reported that he had shoved her into a freezer door during an argument in their shared home. Following a bench trial, the trial court found Moore guilty and imposed community-control sanctions. On appeal, Moore argued that the guilty verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence, citing inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and the timing of the alleged incident relative to prior police involvement. The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court was entitled to credit the victim's account and that the state's photographic and medical evidence was sufficient to support the verdict under R.C. 2919.25(A).

criminal law

Charles Wright appealed his conviction and sentence in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas after pleading guilty to sexual battery and endangering children arising from allegations that he abused his three children over several months. The charges stemmed from reports of physical abuse causing a broken arm and sexual abuse of one child. Wright claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not request that the trial court state the elements of sexual battery during the plea hearing and did not move to withdraw the plea after statements at sentencing. The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that Wright failed to show deficient performance by counsel or prejudice to his defense, as the record indicated his plea was knowing and voluntary and his statements did not amount to a request to withdraw the plea.

criminal law

In State v. Taylor, the defendant appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress a firearm discovered during a traffic stop that led to charges of having weapons while under disability, carrying a concealed weapon, and improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle. The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, affirmed the denial. The court reasoned that the stop was lawful based on the observed window tint violation, the order to exit the vehicle was permissible under established precedent, and the subsequent pat-down was justified by the trooper's reasonable suspicion that the defendant might be armed, drawn from his unusual hunched posture and hand positioning near his waistband, combined with an inconsistent identification and broken glass in the vehicle, consistent with Terry v. Ohio standards for a limited protective search.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

State v. Giles involved a defendant initially charged with rape and kidnapping, both with sexually violent predator specifications, who waived a jury on the specifications and later entered a guilty plea to reduced charges of abduction with sexual motivation and attempted felonious assault after a hung jury. The defendant appealed his convictions and sentence, arguing that the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11 during the plea hearing and erred in sentencing, including by imposing postrelease control as a statutory range in violation of separation of powers. The Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the plea hearing satisfied all procedural requirements and that the sentencing, including postrelease control notification, was proper under Ohio law with no basis for the separation-of-powers challenge.

criminal lawprocedure