Robert A. Hendrickson

In State v. Stiggers, the defendant, an inmate at Warren Correctional Institution, appealed his conviction for felonious assault arising from a January 2024 assault on his cellmate that caused severe injuries including traumatic brain injury, facial fractures, and a coma; he was acquitted of attempted murder and argued on appeal that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress his statements to police, request a second competency evaluation, object to certain evidence, and present mitigation at sentencing. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The court held that counsel's performance was not deficient under the Strickland standard, as a motion to suppress would have been futile because the record showed the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights after receiving them, despite his mental health diagnoses and prior drug use, and the other claimed deficiencies likewise lacked merit because the existing competency and NGRI evaluations supported proceeding to trial and no prejudice was shown.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Philip Floyd Hartsfield's convictions in Butler County for rape, kidnapping, and robbery stemming from an incident on May 8, 2025, in which he was accused of forcing H.L. into an SUV at gunpoint threats, driving her around Hamilton for hours while making statements about prior killings, stealing her jewelry, and compelling her to perform oral sex before releasing her. Hartsfield pled not guilty, went to trial, and was convicted by a jury on all counts after the victim testified to the use of threats, locked doors, and physical force, corroborated by DNA evidence on a discarded napkin; he appealed solely on manifest-weight grounds, claiming the encounter was consensual. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the rape and kidnapping convictions (declining to review robbery due to briefing deficiencies), holding that the jury did not lose its way because it was entitled to credit the victim's detailed account of coercion over the defendant's contrary testimony, and the evidence of force and threats was sufficient to support the verdicts.

criminal law

The case involved a post-divorce dispute in which Lamin Suwareh (Father) sought to terminate the parties' shared parenting plan for their two minor children, be designated sole residential parent and legal custodian, and hold Chinelo Nwankwo (Mother) in contempt for repeatedly denying him court-ordered parenting time after their 2015 divorce. The Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, granted Father's motions: it terminated shared parenting, named Father the residential parent and legal custodian with Mother receiving limited visitation, and found Mother in contempt (sentencing her to jail time consecutive to a prior contempt finding and ordering payment of Father's fees). The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court properly applied the best-interest factors in R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) and (2) in concluding shared parenting was no longer viable due to the parents' inability to cooperate, Mother's interference with Father's parenting rights, and resulting alienation of the children. The appellate court reviewed only for plain error because Mother filed untimely objections to the magistrate's decision and failed to provide a transcript of the hearing.

family law

In State v. Williams, the defendant appealed his community control sentence after pleading guilty to aggravated assault (reduced from felonious assault) for striking his neighbor with a hammer during an altercation outside their adjacent homes on Kunz Avenue. The trial court imposed five years of community control that included a condition barring Williams from the Kunz Avenue neighborhood except for two hours on Thursdays or Fridays to maintain his mother's property there, along with a 500-foot no-contact order with the victim. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that Williams had actively participated in crafting the condition at sentencing without objection, which invoked the invited-error doctrine, and that even on the merits the restriction satisfied the relevant factors because it was reasonably related to the crime, rehabilitation, and preventing future criminality given the documented history of neighborhood conflicts.

criminal law

The case involved Bakhodir Toshniyazov, a lawful permanent resident, who sought to withdraw his no contest plea to aggravated vehicular homicide and five counts of vehicular assault before sentencing, claiming his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to clearly advise him that the convictions would trigger mandatory deportation. The trial court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing, applying the nine-factor test from State v. McWhorter for presentence plea withdrawals rather than the two-prong Strickland standard. On appeal, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that when a defendant moves to withdraw a plea based on ineffective assistance regarding immigration consequences, the trial court must first evaluate the claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), by determining whether counsel's performance was deficient and whether it prejudiced the defendant. The court noted conflicting evidence about what counsel told Toshniyazov but emphasized that the wrong legal framework had been used below.

criminal lawimmigrationprocedure

In In re L.K.H-R., a 16-year-old juvenile was charged with obstructing official business after police responded to a report that he had run away from a locked group home; when an officer attempted to stop him on State Route 63, the juvenile fled across multiple lanes of traffic, ignored repeated commands to stop, and evaded capture for roughly two minutes before surrendering. The juvenile court adjudicated him delinquent on the charge, elevating it to a fifth-degree felony because his flight created a risk of physical harm to himself and others. On appeal, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence sufficiently proved the juvenile acted without privilege and with the purpose to impede the officer's lawful duties, that even a brief interference satisfies the statute, and that crossing heavy traffic at night established the required risk of harm.

criminal law

This case concerns whether the biological mother of N.P. (born 2020) must consent to the child's adoption by the maternal grandmother and her wife. After the mother relapsed on drugs in 2021, a domestic violence civil protection order was issued against her that barred contact with N.P. for five years, named the grandmother legal custodian, and authorized her to make medical decisions; a later juvenile court order confirmed the grandmother's custody without ordering child support. The grandmother filed an adoption petition in 2023, arguing the mother's consent was unnecessary due to failure to provide maintenance and support in the prior year. The probate court ruled that the mother had shown justifiable cause for the lack of support, and the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the protection order, custody arrangements, and surrounding circumstances (including the mother's homelessness, treatment, and limited resources) provided competent evidence supporting that conclusion under R.C. 3107.07.

family law

In Myers v. Clerk of Courts, Gregory Myers petitioned the Warren County Court of Common Pleas under R.C. 4505.10(A) for a court-ordered certificate of title to a 1970 Chevrolet Nova left behind at a storage facility on property he purchased at a sheriff’s sale in 2024. The magistrate initially granted the title, but after Zachary Potter—son of the deceased titled owner—moved to intervene with evidence that the car had been willed to him and that he held the original title and had paid storage fees, the trial court set aside the magistrate’s order and dismissed Myers’ petition with prejudice. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Myers failed to show ownership transferred to him by operation of law and that, because the vehicle remained personal property of a decedent who died in 2006, only the probate court had jurisdiction to determine its ownership and title.

propertyprocedurefamily law

In Thomason v. Thomas, Brittney Thomason petitioned for a three-year civil stalking protection order against William Thomas after he posted multiple social media entries on his "Change Clermont" page that included her family photograph, derogatory comments about her and her son, and implications that her cleaning business was a drug front, which she claimed caused her anxiety and harmed her reputation. The trial court granted the CSPO following a full hearing. On appeal, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the CSPO's issuance, holding that credible evidence supported each element of Thomason's menacing-by-stalking claim. However, the court vacated the order's Paragraph 7 as overbroad because it broadly prohibited Thomas from making any reference to Thomason or her family, functioning as an impermissible prior restraint on speech that was not narrowly tailored to the least restrictive means of protection, and remanded for a revised, narrower definition of prohibited contact.

free speechcriminal lawprocedure

In State v. Barrow, Geoffery Barrow appealed his conviction in Warren County Common Pleas Court for one count of fifth-degree felony theft under R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), stemming from four thefts of Nike Outlet merchandise totaling $2,334.44 in June and July 2024. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The court held that the trial court properly extended speedy-trial time due to good cause from Barrow’s withdrawal of his waiver, request for new counsel, failures to appear, and the court’s calendar, and that any erroneous admission of irrelevant testimony about marijuana found in his vehicle was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including security footage, Barrow’s admissions, and items recovered from his car.

criminal lawprocedure

In re E.T.J. involved separate appeals by the child's mother and father from a Butler County Juvenile Court order denying their motions for visitation with their son, who was born in 2020 and later adjudicated dependent. The child had been placed in the temporary custody of a nonrelative caregiver after concerns arose over the parents' substance use, unsupervised contact, and the child's failure to thrive; the father’s paternity was formally established in 2024, and prior orders had restricted or barred parental contact while granting limited companionship time to the maternal grandmother. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's denial of both parents' visitation motions. The court held that the juvenile court properly weighed the totality of the circumstances—including the parents' histories of criminality, substance abuse, and (for the father) gambling issues—against the child's best interests, and reasonably concluded that the parents' recent period of improvement was too brief and occurred under court supervision to warrant visitation at that time.

family law

In the case In re D.R., Mother appealed a Clinton County Juvenile Court decision granting legal custody of her two young daughters to their paternal great-aunt after the children had been placed with the aunt under a 2025 safety plan due to concerns over family "out of control behavior and drug use," following a prior extended placement and ongoing visits. The juvenile court awarded Aunt custody after a hearing that included testimony from Aunt, a caseworker, Mother, and the guardian ad litem, while granting Mother supervised parenting time and suspending Father's contact. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding Mother unsuitable under the Perales standard because placing the children with her would be detrimental to their well-being, a conclusion supported by the family's extensive history with Hamilton County Jobs and Family Services and the evidence presented. The court noted that only one such circumstance was required to adjudge a parent unsuitable and that trial courts receive wide latitude in weighing custody evidence.

family law

In In re G.P., the Butler County Court of Appeals reviewed separate appeals by a mother and father from a juvenile court order granting permanent custody of their son to the Butler County Department of Jobs and Family Services. The case began in 2021 when the agency removed the child after finding the parents homeless, struggling with severe drug addiction and domestic violence, and unable to provide care; the child, who has significant behavioral and mental health diagnoses, had been in temporary agency custody for most of the time since August 2021. The appellate court affirmed the order, holding that the agency made reasonable efforts to reunify the family through a case plan requiring substance abuse treatment, mental health services, domestic violence counseling, parenting classes, and stable housing, but the parents failed to complete those objectives. The court concluded that clear and convincing evidence showed the child needed a legally secure permanent placement that the parents could not provide.

family law

The case involved a fee dispute in which Bahodir Abdulhakov sued attorney Chelsea Panzeca in Mason Municipal Court small claims division for $1,500, alleging she converted unearned legal fees paid as a retainer to her law firm in connection with his dismissed misdemeanor case. The municipal court dismissed the claim with prejudice for want of prosecution after a magistrate hearing at which Abdulhakov presented evidence. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. It held that Abdulhakov had appeared and prosecuted his case, and that the cited local rule on dismissal for failure of service, default, or three months of inaction did not apply, rendering the dismissal arbitrary and unreasonable.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Jones, Stephen A. Jones appealed his bench-trial convictions in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas for rape, unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, and two counts of gross sexual imposition. The charges stemmed from allegations that Jones sexually abused his brother's 15-year-old stepdaughter, Ella, on two occasions in 2023 while the family was staying in a motel, including one incident involving alcohol where he touched her breasts and digitally penetrated her vagina. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, concluding that any error in admitting Ella's cell phone records was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the trial court expressly based its guilty verdict on the credibility of her testimony, which it found believable and consistent with other witnesses, rather than on the phone data.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Brandi Booth suing Dr. Jonathan Lazzara for professional negligence and wrongful death after he treated and discharged her husband Dustin from a hospital behavioral health unit in February 2022. Dustin had been involuntarily committed ("pink slipped") due to acute mental health symptoms, was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder I with mania, placed on medication, and released after showing improvement; he died days later following a police confrontation. The Warren County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment to Dr. Lazzara, and the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Dr. Lazzara was entitled to statutory immunity under R.C. 5122.34, which protects good-faith decisions regarding the treatment, care, and discharge of mentally ill persons subject to hospitalization, and that Brandi failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact showing the absence of good faith.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Brandi Booth suing Dr. Jonathan Lazzara for professional negligence and wrongful death after he treated and discharged her husband Dustin from a hospital behavioral health unit in February 2022. Dustin had been involuntarily committed ("pink slipped") due to acute mental health symptoms, was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder I with mania, placed on medication, and released after showing improvement; he died days later following a police confrontation. The Warren County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment to Dr. Lazzara, and the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Dr. Lazzara was entitled to statutory immunity under R.C. 5122.34, which protects good-faith decisions regarding the treatment, care, and discharge of mentally ill persons subject to hospitalization, and that Brandi failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact showing the absence of good faith.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Janosky, Loren C. Janosky appealed his sentence from the Madison County Court of Common Pleas after pleading guilty to one count of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, a third-degree felony under R.C. 2921.331(B), which alleged that his conduct created a substantial risk of serious physical harm. The charge stemmed from a July 2024 incident in which Janosky led police on a high-speed chase exceeding 10 minutes and 9 miles, during which he ran stop signs, overtook vehicles, drove toward officers and fishermen, damaged crops, and evaded arrest for several days while possessing a firearm and fictitious plates. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's prison sentence, holding that it was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law. The court reasoned that the trial judge had properly weighed the seriousness of the offense, Janosky's risk of recidivism, his mental health history and decision to discontinue medication, his statements regarding firearms, and other relevant factors under Ohio sentencing law without relying on impermissible considerations.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved post-divorce disputes between Adam Schaible and Natalie Schaible nka Slater over cross-motions for contempt related to child support payments, reimbursement of medical expenses, unpaid attorney fees, and cooperation with retirement account distributions, as well as a request to address Adam's claimed overpayment of more than $8,000 in child support. The magistrate found Natalie in contempt, declined to find Adam in contempt, and directed that the overpayment be transferred to Natalie's new child support obligation as an arrearage owed to Adam; the domestic relations court then denied Natalie's motion to extend time to file objections to that magistrate's decision. On appeal, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's rulings in full. The court held that the domestic relations court did not abuse its discretion by declining to hold Adam in contempt given the evidence of his overpayment, that the magistrate's handling of the support credit and other issues was supported by the record without plain error, and that Natalie's appeal, though unsuccessful, was not frivolous. The court also denied Adam's separate request for attorney fees under local rules.

family law

In Wilder v. Hicks, Candice Wilder sued landlord Donald Jones and others for injuries she suffered as a child in 2014 when a pit bull owned by tenants Hicks and Pickron bit her face while she was on the tenants' rented property at 1901 Shuler Avenue in Hamilton, Ohio. Wilder brought both a common-law negligence claim and a statutory claim under R.C. 955.28, alleging Jones was a "harborer" of the dog. The trial court granted Jones summary judgment, and the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Jones was not a harborer because the bite occurred on the leased premises rather than in a common area he controlled, and there was no evidence he harbored the dog; as a result, Wilder could not establish the elements needed for either claim.

torts & liabilityproperty