Thomas J. Osowik

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case involved claims by Verna Yontz, Sabrena Hackathorn, and related plaintiffs against State Farm for underinsured motorist coverage, loss of consortium, and property damage following a 2019 car accident in which they were injured by an underinsured driver. After settling with the at-fault driver’s insurer for policy limits without State Farm’s written consent, the plaintiffs sued State Farm under the Hackathorns’ policy. The trial court granted summary judgment to State Farm, and the Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the policy’s consent-to-settle clause was breached when the injured plaintiffs accepted the settlement without State Farm’s approval, and under Ohio precedent this breach presumptively prejudiced State Farm’s subrogation rights. It further ruled that the property-damage claim failed because the plaintiffs had allowed the statute of limitations against the tortfeasor to expire without preserving State Farm’s subrogation interests.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Hendricks, the defendant appealed the denial of her motion to suppress BAC test results in an OVI prosecution, claiming the officer’s verbatim reading of BMV Form 55 misled her into believing her license was already suspended, rendering her consent involuntary rather than a true choice. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion. The court held that R.C. 4511.191 implied-consent rules are inapplicable where the defendant consented to testing in a criminal case rather than refusing, and video evidence showed the officer repeatedly explained the consent-or-refusal options and consequences without misrepresentation or coercion before the defendant voluntarily agreed to the test.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Hendricks, the defendant appealed the denial of her motion to suppress BAC test results in an OVI prosecution, claiming the officer’s verbatim reading of BMV Form 55 misled her into believing her license was already suspended, rendering her consent involuntary rather than a true choice. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion. The court held that R.C. 4511.191 implied-consent rules are inapplicable where the defendant consented to testing in a criminal case rather than refusing, and video evidence showed the officer repeatedly explained the consent-or-refusal options and consequences without misrepresentation or coercion before the defendant voluntarily agreed to the test.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Davis, the State appealed the trial court's dismissal of felony charges for marijuana trafficking and possession filed against Maverick Davis II in March 2025. The charges stemmed from a December 2023 traffic stop on I-75, where an officer smelled marijuana, Davis admitted purchasing it in Michigan and handed over 8.8 grams, and a search recovered about four pounds total; however, Davis was only cited at the time for driving under suspension and following too closely, and he was convicted of those misdemeanors in February 2024. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that under R.C. 2945.71(C)(2) and precedents like State v. Sanford, the 270-day speedy-trial period for the drug charges began on the date of the original stop because the State already knew all necessary facts from the officer's observations, Davis's statements, and the recovered marijuana. The court rejected the State's argument that lab testing was required to trigger the clock, noting that the additional charges arose directly from the same known facts and were therefore time-barred when indicted over 15 months later.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Davis, the State appealed the trial court's dismissal of felony charges for marijuana trafficking and possession filed against Maverick Davis II in March 2025. The charges stemmed from a December 2023 traffic stop on I-75, where an officer smelled marijuana, Davis admitted purchasing it in Michigan and handed over 8.8 grams, and a search recovered about four pounds total; however, Davis was only cited at the time for driving under suspension and following too closely, and he was convicted of those misdemeanors in February 2024. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that under R.C. 2945.71(C)(2) and precedents like State v. Sanford, the 270-day speedy-trial period for the drug charges began on the date of the original stop because the State already knew all necessary facts from the officer's observations, Davis's statements, and the recovered marijuana. The court rejected the State's argument that lab testing was required to trigger the clock, noting that the additional charges arose directly from the same known facts and were therefore time-barred when indicted over 15 months later.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Eliyas, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of aggravated possession of drugs, a second-degree felony, based on methamphetamine found under his passenger seat during a traffic stop of a vehicle driven by his co-defendant. He received an indefinite prison term of five to seven and a half years, to run concurrent with a sentence from another case, and appealed on three grounds: failure to provide mandatory sentencing notifications, improper admission of the co-defendant’s testimony about his own plea deal and sentence, and ineffective assistance of counsel for not seeking a mistrial over that testimony. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and rejected the second and third assignments of error, holding that the co-defendant’s testimony was permissible under precedent to explain the plea agreement and that counsel’s performance caused no prejudice. It reversed only as to sentencing and remanded for resentencing because the trial court had failed to give the required advisements under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) regarding the rebuttable presumption of release at the minimum term and the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s authority to extend incarceration.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Parks, Tito Parks appealed his conviction for having weapons while under disability following a no-contest plea, arguing that evidence of a firearm found during a September 2024 traffic stop should have been suppressed because police unreasonably prolonged the stop and lacked probable cause for the search. The Lucas County Court of Common Pleas denied the motion to suppress after a hearing that included bodycam video, and Parks was convicted. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the stop was not extended beyond its mission because the officer requested a K-9 unit while simultaneously running license and record checks, the dog sniff occurred before those checks were complete, and any pause was caused by delays in receiving dispatch information rather than the canine activity. The court further found the arrest for refusing to exit the vehicle lawful and the subsequent vehicle search valid as incident to arrest.

criminal lawguns

In State v. Baker, the defendant appealed his jury convictions and sentence from the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas on eight charges, including aggravated vehicular homicide, multiple counts of aggravated vehicular assault, OVI, and improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle. The charges arose from a September 2022 crash in which Baker, while impaired by alcohol and in possession of a firearm, drove into oncoming traffic and collided with three vehicles, killing one person and injuring several others. The trial court had denied his pretrial motions to suppress evidence and to recuse the judge before imposing a reduced indefinite prison term of nine to twelve years. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the suppression and recusal motions lacked merit, that trial counsel’s performance was not shown to be deficient or prejudicial under the Strickland test, and that the remaining assignments of error were not well-taken.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

In State v. Schooner, Damien Schooner pleaded guilty to attempted receiving stolen property, a fifth-degree felony, and was sentenced by the Wood County Court of Common Pleas to 12 months in prison after the court rejected his request for community control. Schooner appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to properly weigh statutory sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, including his need for substance abuse treatment and less restrictive alternatives. While the appeal was pending, the state notified the Sixth District Court of Appeals that Schooner had completed his sentence and been released in February 2026. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot, holding that because Schooner did not challenge his underlying conviction and had fully served his prison term, there was no remaining collateral disability or live controversy for the court to address.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Heath, Andrew Heath appealed his conviction and sentence in the Wood County Court of Common Pleas after pleading guilty to felonious assault, a second-degree felony, for sucker-punching a bar patron and breaking the victim's jaw; the state had dismissed a related bribery charge. The trial court imposed an indefinite prison term of four to six years following a plea colloquy in which Heath acknowledged the potential penalties of two to eight years minimum and up to twelve years maximum. On appeal, Heath argued that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and that the court improperly relied on the state's sentencing recommendation. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the record showed a valid plea, that the trial court considered Heath's criminal history and the facts of the case rather than any recommendation, and that no plain error occurred.

criminal law

In State v. Brewer, Michael Brewer was charged with violating a protection order (a first-degree misdemeanor) along with other offenses after his March 2024 arrest in Toledo; he pleaded no contest to the protection-order violation, resulting in a guilty finding, dismissal of the remaining charges, and a maximum sentence of 180 days in jail. Brewer appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly considered the presentence investigation report (which included his criminal history and victim input) and should have imposed community control instead. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, finding no abuse of discretion because the record showed Brewer's extensive multi-state criminal history—including nine felony convictions, prior prison terms, probation violations, and outstanding warrants—which satisfied the statutory criteria under R.C. 2929.22(C) for imposing the maximum term based on the need for deterrence.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Thompson, Holly Thompson pled guilty to fifth-degree felony theft for stealing Nike merchandise valued between $1,000 and $7,500 from a Kohl’s store. She was placed on five years of community control, later violated its terms, and was sentenced to 12 months in the Wood County Jail; she appealed, claiming the trial court failed to provide required post-release control notifications at sentencing and did not give the victim an opportunity to speak before imposing the jail term for the violation. The Sixth District Court of Appeals dismissed the consolidated appeals as moot. Because Thompson had already completed her jail sentence and did not challenge her underlying conviction, the court held that no live controversy remained and no collateral consequences could be addressed on appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

In TT419, Inc. v. JOGA Holdings Corp., a tenant and its owner sued a commercial landlord for breach of a 2021 lease and related claims after disputes over property improvements and rent payments, while the landlord counterclaimed for unpaid rent and other damages under the lease and a personal guaranty. The trial court dismissed most of the tenant’s claims, granted summary judgment to the landlord on its breach-of-contract counterclaim, and after a damages hearing awarded the landlord $68,314.68, including 21 months of lost rent. On appeal, the Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the landlord’s efforts to re-lease the premises—through its existing real-estate agent, signage, word-of-mouth inquiries, and outreach to prior prospects—were reasonable and satisfied its duty to mitigate damages. The court noted that Ohio law requires only reasonable mitigation efforts, not any particular methods, and that the tenant had not demonstrated the landlord’s approach was inadequate.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In State v. Wright, the defendant appealed the Lucas County trial court’s denial of his motions for jail-time credit in two consolidated drug cases. Wright had pleaded no contest or guilty to reduced charges of cocaine trafficking and possession, received prison sentences totaling 18 months, and sought credit for time spent in custody on an out-of-state fugitive warrant while the Ohio cases were pending. The state argued the appeal was moot after Wright’s release from prison on January 13, 2026. The Sixth District Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that challenges limited to jail-time credit become moot once the underlying sentence has been fully served, because no collateral disability or loss of rights remains to be addressed.

criminal lawprocedure