Matthew Walden McFarland

In State v. Gray, the defendant pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to reduced third-degree felony counts of cocaine trafficking and possession, with a joint recommendation for community control; after he failed to report to probation, the trial court revoked community control following a hearing and imposed consecutive prison terms totaling 48 months. Gray appealed, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the consecutive sentences and a due process violation because the counts should have merged and he should have received the statutory minimum term. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, holding that counsel’s performance was not deficient and that Gray had waived the merger protections of R.C. 2941.25 by agreeing in the plea that the offenses involved separate animus; the court also found that the trial judge had made the required findings for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Burke, Emory Burke was charged with multiple offenses including forgery, theft, receiving stolen property, and tampering with evidence. He initially pleaded not guilty, then entered guilty pleas to all counts in two consolidated cases after a Crim.R. 11 hearing. Before sentencing, Burke orally moved to withdraw his pleas, citing a desire for a furlough to visit family and later claiming he did not understand the proceedings because he was under the influence of marijuana. The trial court denied the motion after questioning him and proceeded to impose a prison sentence of two years and eleven months. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court acted within its broad discretion by determining that Burke’s request amounted to a change of heart unsupported by credible reasons or a claim of innocence, given the thorough plea colloquy and lack of other justification.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Cook, the defendant appealed his convictions for possession of heroin and cocaine, trafficking in heroin, and tampering with evidence, which arose from a 2014 traffic stop for illegal window tint during which a state trooper discovered a warrant for Cook’s arrest and later saw on dashcam video that Cook had tossed a bag of drugs out of view while the trooper was on the radio. The Fourth District Court of Appeals sustained Cook’s first assignment of error, reversed the tampering conviction, and vacated the related 36-month sentence, but overruled his second assignment of error regarding the trial court’s reference to the substance as heroin. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support tampering because nothing showed Cook knew an official investigation into his drug possession was underway or likely when he discarded the bag. It rejected the second claim because Cook did not object at trial and failed to demonstrate any prejudice from the remark.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. White, the defendant appealed his convictions in Vinton County for felonious assault, disrupting public services, and domestic violence, raising two claims of error from his trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding first that the trial court properly denied the defendant's request to subpoena the assistant prosecutor as a witness, because the State had already disclosed that no cell-phone video of the assault existed and the defendant could cross-examine the victim on the issue, resulting in no Brady violation. The court further held that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request that the defendant appear in street clothes rather than jail attire, as the record showed no compulsion by the state and overwhelming evidence supported the convictions, precluding any showing of prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. White, the defendant appealed his convictions in Vinton County for felonious assault, disrupting public services, and domestic violence, raising two claims of error from his trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding first that the trial court properly denied the defendant's request to subpoena the assistant prosecutor as a witness, because the State had already disclosed that no cell-phone video of the assault existed and the defendant could cross-examine the victim on the issue, resulting in no Brady violation. The court further held that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to request that the defendant appear in street clothes rather than jail attire, as the record showed no compulsion by the state and overwhelming evidence supported the convictions, precluding any showing of prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal by Andrew M. Smigelski from his conviction in Hocking County Municipal Court for menacing, a fourth-degree misdemeanor, stemming from a dispute with his neighbors in which he was accused of making threatening statements that caused them fear. After a bench trial, the municipal court found him guilty and imposed a fine and two years of probation. On appeal, Smigelski raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct through false statements, and that the conviction was unsupported by sufficient evidence and against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Fourth District Court of Appeals overruled all assignments of error and affirmed the judgment, concluding that the neighbor’s testimony about the threats and her resulting fear, corroborated by other witnesses, provided sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the trial court did not lose its way in weighing the evidence.

criminal law

The case involved a dispute over whether a surviving spouse, Michael Lodwick, could challenge a 2016 marital separation agreement (which waived rights to take against each other's wills) after his wife Lisa's death in 2018, in connection with his attempt to elect against her will in probate court. The Lawrence County Probate Court granted the estate's motion to enforce the separation agreement, finding the challenge untimely. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that under R.C. 2106.22 a surviving spouse must file any challenge to the validity of such an agreement within four months of the executor's appointment (here, May 14, 2018), after which the agreement is conclusively presumed valid. Appellant did not contest the agreement until a February 2019 hearing, well past the deadline, so it remained enforceable and barred his election against the will.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved Wesley Lincoln's appeal of his guilty plea and sentence in a Washington County court for trafficking in heroin (a second-degree felony) while on post-release control from a prior offense. Lincoln received a five-year prison term for the trafficking plus two years and four days for the post-release control violation, to be served consecutively for a total of seven years and four days. On appeal, he argued that the trial court wrongly treated the post-release control portion as a mandatory sentence in violation of R.C. 2929.141(A) and related constitutional provisions, that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object, and that his plea was therefore not knowing and voluntary. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the sentencing entry's use of the word "definite" merely described the fixed length of the calculated term under the statute rather than imposing a mandatory prison term, so the sentence complied with the law and the remaining claims were moot.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Clagg, the defendant appealed a Gallipolis Municipal Court order that forfeited her $1,000 bail in a misdemeanor theft case after she was charged with a second theft offense while released on bond. The Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed the forfeiture portion of the judgment. The court held that Crim.R. 46(I) authorizes bail forfeiture only when a defendant fails to appear in court, not for other violations of bail conditions such as committing new offenses. It noted that trial courts retain other remedies for condition violations, including amending or revoking bail, but forfeiture requires a nonappearance. The record contained no evidence or allegation that Clagg had missed any court dates.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, the estate of Elizabeth Herceg sued Dr. Barry Lifson for medical malpractice after the doctor allegedly used the wrong antibiotic during surgery, causing sepsis and death; a jury found negligence and awarded about $56,000 in damages for medical and funeral expenses plus loss of services, but zero for the decedent’s pain and suffering, loss of society, or beneficiaries’ mental anguish. The estate appealed the trial court’s denial of a new trial on damages, its refusal to clarify the wrongful-death jury instruction, and its denial of a request to suggest a specific verdict amount to the jury. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the jury’s zero awards did not demonstrate passion or prejudice, the instructions adequately stated the law, and counsel had no right to propose a damages figure to the jury.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Reginald Ware's appeal of his conviction for tampering with evidence, a third-degree felony, after police stopped him for an alleged traffic ordinance violation in Chillicothe, Ohio, and he was accused of trying to swallow a baggie containing white powder suspected to be drugs. Ware moved to suppress the baggie, urine test results, and related evidence, arguing the stop lacked probable cause, the detention was improperly extended, and he did not consent to the urine test. The trial court denied the motion, allowed the evidence, and convicted him following a suppression hearing. The Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed, vacated the conviction, and remanded, holding that the trial court erred in denying suppression because the traffic stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause under the circumstances, including the absence of a specific, contemporaneous tip about Ware's conduct that day.

criminal lawprocedure

The City of Marietta sued the Washington County Board of Commissioners for allegedly breaching a 2011 agreement to build a sanitary sewer collection system and connect it to the city’s treatment plant, and also sought a writ of mandamus against the county Board of Health to compel it to address failing septic systems polluting the city’s water sources. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the case on the ground that the city’s law director lacked authority to retain special outside counsel to file the suit. The Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the law director was authorized under R.C. 733.53 and the city’s codified ordinances (as confirmed by a 2016 city resolution) to engage special counsel and initiate the action on the city’s behalf. The court therefore remanded the case for further proceedings.

environmentprocedure

In re G.M.B. involved a maternal grandmother’s appeal from the dismissal of her petitions to adopt two grandchildren whose biological mother had died. After the children were placed in the legal custody of their maternal grandfather in 2017, both parties filed competing adoption petitions in probate court; the grandfather moved to dismiss the grandmother’s petitions on grounds including lack of standing because the children did not live with her and she had not obtained pre-adoptive placement approval or his consent. The trial court granted the motion, ruling that a petitioner must secure either the legal custodian’s permission, a change in custody, or a probate-court placement order before filing, and that more than six months had passed without such steps. The Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that R.C. 5103.16(E) expressly exempts grandparents from the pre-adoptive placement approval requirement, so the absence of placement did not deprive the grandmother of standing to proceed with her petitions. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

family law

In Wilson v. Britton, the Wilsons sued Julie Britton for civil trespass after a survey showed her mobile homes and other structures encroached on their adjacent property, which they had acquired in 2016; Britton counterclaimed that she had acquired the disputed land through adverse possession, tracing back to her 1996 purchase and prior occupants. The trial court ruled for the Wilsons, finding the encroachment constituted trespass and that Britton failed to prove adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence, then ordered her to remove the property within six months. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court's findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court reasoned that the survey and exhibits established the property line and trespass, while Britton's adverse possession claim failed due to a substantial gap in continuous hostile possession caused by the property's abandonment for several years before 1996, which prevented tacking of prior periods.

propertytorts & liability

In State v. Fisher, the defendant appealed the Jackson County Common Pleas Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief after pleading guilty to first-degree heroin possession and receiving a nine-year prison sentence. Fisher argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to withdraw the guilty plea before sentencing and for not insisting on a hearing or ruling on a pending motion to suppress evidence. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial, holding that both claims were barred by res judicata because Fisher had the opportunity to raise them on direct appeal—where he already litigated a different ineffective-assistance claim—and presented no new evidence that would excuse the omission. The court therefore overruled the assignments of error without reaching the merits of the ineffectiveness allegations.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Osei, the defendant appealed his rape conviction and 11-year sentence from the Athens County Court of Common Pleas, arguing that the trial court wrongly excluded evidence of prior sexual activity with the victim under R.C. 2907.02(D), that his counsel was ineffective for not objecting to multiple victim advocates at trial, and that the maximum sentence was unsupported by the record. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in full. It held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence because three incidents did not involve sexual activity and the fourth was non-consensual (making it irrelevant to consent and more prejudicial than probative), that counsel was not ineffective regarding the advocates, and that the sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law because the defendant had not preserved any consistency challenge below.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute among siblings over their sister Alice Malott’s handling of their late father Ray Isaac’s financial affairs under a power of attorney before his 2015 death and her administration of his estate as executor afterward. After a bench trial, the Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas entered judgment for Malott on all claims brought by her brothers Steven, Jerry, and Charles Isaac. On appeal, the brothers challenged the trial court’s findings that their father had validly signed the POA, that certain evidence of damages was unreliable, and that they were not entitled to relief under R.C. 1337.37, while Malott cross-appealed the denial of sanctions against the brothers and an award of sanctions against her. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in full, holding that the trial court’s factual findings were supported by the manifest weight of the evidence, that it committed no legal error in evaluating damages evidence, and that it did not abuse its discretion in resolving the sanctions motions without a hearing.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In State v. Dawson, the defendant appealed the Pickaway County Common Pleas Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel after pleading guilty to heroin trafficking and involuntary manslaughter. The trial court had rejected the petition without a hearing, applying the doctrine of res judicata because the ineffectiveness claim could have been raised on direct appeal. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The appellate court reasoned that Dawson failed to challenge his trial counsel’s performance on direct appeal and that his subsequent unsuccessful App.R. 26(B) application to reopen the appeal did not remove the res judicata bar, even though he asserted some evidence existed outside the record.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved William Elkins, Sr.’s appeal of his Lawrence County conviction for aggravated murder with a firearm specification, arising from the 2015 shooting death of Rick Crager at Elkins’s home after an earlier sexual encounter involving Elkins’s wife. Elkins challenged the admission of evidence that he had shot his son thirteen years earlier, claimed ineffective assistance based on counsel’s failure to object to other prior-acts references, asserted cumulative error, and argued that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the State failed to prove prior calculation and design. The Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and life-without-parole sentence. It held that although the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the prior-shooting evidence, the error was harmless; that counsel’s performance was not constitutionally deficient regarding the remaining prior-acts references; that no cumulative error occurred; and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of prior calculation and design.

criminal law

In State v. Keefer, the State appealed a Hocking County trial court’s order granting defendant Christopher Keefer’s motion to suppress evidence seized under a March 2017 search warrant at a Nelsonville residence, which had led to seven drug-trafficking and weapons charges. The trial court ruled that the supporting affidavit—containing an anonymous tip, a confidential informant’s reports of drug purchases and outstanding warrants, and earlier observations of cash and guns—failed to establish probable cause and that the good-faith exception did not apply. The Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that even if the affidavit was deficient, the executing officers reasonably relied on the warrant signed by a municipal judge, so the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule barred suppression of the evidence. The court therefore remanded the case for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedureguns