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. Dula
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-26
In State v. Dula, Michael Dula appealed his conviction for first-degree cocaine trafficking following a negotiated guilty plea in Lucas County Common Pleas Court, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from search warrants for a rental vehicle (via GPS tracker) and his residence. The warrants were based on an affidavit from a Perrysburg detective describing information from a known reliable confidential informant who reported purchasing drugs from Dula at his home and observing him preparing approximately 500 grams of cocaine for sale, with the details later corroborated by surveillance, a traffic stop recovering cocaine and marijuana, and items found at the residence. Dula also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because a letter from his girlfriend disputing the informant’s account was not submitted as an affidavit. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence of three to four-and-a-half years in prison plus a $10,000 fine, holding that the affidavits established probable cause under the totality of the circumstances and that counsel’s submission of the letter was a reasonable tactical choice that did not prejudice the outcome.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Richter
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-23
In State v. Richter, Arthur Richter was convicted after a jury trial of aggravated arson and felonious assault for approaching two strangers in their car at a red light, then later confronting them at a gas station where he thrust a lit blowtorch into victim D.T.’s face and set his hair on fire; he was acquitted on a second arson count involving the gas station structure itself, the offenses merged, and he received an 8-to-12-year sentence. On appeal, the Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence. The court held that the trial court did not commit plain error by omitting an unrequested jury instruction on the inferior-degree offense of aggravated assault, because the record contained no evidence of serious provocation by the victims. It further concluded that the aggravated-arson conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, given consistent eyewitness testimony, surveillance video, and other proof that Richter knowingly created a substantial risk of serious physical harm by using the 3,600-degree torch against D.T.
criminal lawprocedure
In re M.L.
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-15
The case involved maternal grandmother C.B.’s appeal from the Lucas County Juvenile Court’s denial of her third-party complaint seeking legal custody of her grandson M.L., after the court instead granted permanent custody to Lucas County Children Services in a related proceeding. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that only the grandmother’s separate custody action was properly before it because the cases had never been consolidated and she had never moved to intervene. The court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of custody, as the record showed the grandmother’s home study was rejected after she tested positive for oxycodone, cocaine, and opiates, gave inconsistent statements about her housing, and missed more than half the trial, all of which supported the conclusion that placement with her would not serve M.L.’s best interests given his extensive medical needs. The court also rejected the due-process claim, noting that legal-custody proceedings carry fewer procedural protections than permanent-custody cases and that the grandmother had never attempted to cross-examine witnesses or sought a continuance.
family lawprocedure
State v. Sherburne
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-05
In State v. Sherburne, the defendant was convicted after a bench trial on four first-degree felony drug charges—aggravated possession and trafficking of drugs plus possession and trafficking of a fentanyl-related compound, each with major drug offender specifications—stemming from his arrest while transporting large quantities of methamphetamine and fentanyl as part of a controlled buy-bust operation. Sherburne appealed, claiming the trial court erred by rejecting his affirmative defense of duress. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that Sherburne failed to prove the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The court found no imminent threat, as the alleged past assaults by associates of co-defendant Marvin Parker occurred six months to a year earlier, no weapons or direct coercion were present on the day of the offense, and Sherburne had multiple opportunities to escape or seek help yet voluntarily followed Parker’s instructions. It further determined that Sherburne was at fault in creating the situation through his long-term voluntary drug dealings with Parker.
criminal law
State v. Buck
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-06-05
The case involved Dennis Alan Buck, Jr., who was convicted of misdemeanor assault after a bench trial in Toledo Municipal Court for punching and kicking a 62-year-old woman, causing her serious injuries including a shattered eye lens and permanent vision damage. Buck claimed self-defense under Ohio’s stand-your-ground law, asserting that the victim, whose car had broken down nearby, trespassed, swung keys at him first, and bit his finger. The trial court rejected the claim, found Buck at fault for initiating the confrontation, determined the force used was unreasonable, and sentenced him to 180 days in jail. On appeal, the Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state met its burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt—primarily by showing Buck created the dangerous situation—and that the conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, as the victim’s account was consistent and Buck’s testimony lacked credibility or corroboration.
criminal law
State v. Hall
Ohio Court of Appeals · 2026-05-29
Donald Hall was convicted of speeding after a bench trial in Sylvania Municipal Court, where a sheriff’s deputy testified that he used radar to clock Hall traveling 84 mph in a 55 mph zone on Airport Highway. Hall appealed, arguing that the trial court should have dismissed the case due to the State’s failure to provide radar calibration and officer training records, that the evidence was insufficient, that the court improperly took judicial notice of a training officer’s qualifications, and that the judge showed bias. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling that Hall never submitted a proper written discovery request to the prosecutor as required, that the deputy’s testimony was sufficient to establish both the radar’s reliability and his own qualifications to operate it, and that the evidence supported the verdict with no showing of judicial bias.
criminal lawprocedure