Mark L. Pietrykowski

The case involved a dispute between competing providers of health benefit services to Ohio municipalities, in which Medical Mutual alleged that FrontPath improperly recruited local public officials onto its board and used their influence to steer public contracts to itself, asserting claims including civil liability for criminal acts under Ohio law and violations of the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act. The Lucas County Court of Common Pleas dismissed four of the five counts in the amended complaint with prejudice under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and later denied Medical Mutual leave to file a second amended complaint adding new defendants and claims. After a jury trial on the remaining tortious interference count resulted in a verdict for Medical Mutual, the company appealed the dismissals and denial of amendment. The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the civil liability and Corrupt Practices Act claims and abused its discretion in denying leave to amend to add the new defendants, and it remanded the case for further proceedings.

criminal lawtorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

In Kinzel v. Ebner, property owner Douglass Ebner challenged two Sandusky municipal ordinances that restricted short-term rentals of his beachfront homes, claiming they were invalidly enacted and unconstitutional after a neighbor sued him and the city brought enforcement actions. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's summary judgment ruling. It upheld Ordinance 12-107 as validly enacted and constitutional but found Ordinance 17-088 invalidly enacted, without addressing its constitutionality. The court also granted summary judgment to the city on Ebner's equal protection claim, reasoning that he was not similarly situated to other owners who ceased short-term rentals after receiving notices, since he continued the practice.

propertybusiness & regulatorycivil rights

The case involved Lawrence Morris, Jr.'s appeal of his jury conviction for possession of cocaine, which stemmed from evidence seized during a 2019 search of a Toledo residence pursuant to a warrant. Morris challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the supporting affidavit lacked probable cause, along with claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and improper ex parte communication between the trial judge and jury. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. It held that the affidavit established probable cause through detailed information from three credible confidential sources—who had provided reliable tips leading to prior arrests—combined with police surveillance linking Morris to the address and ongoing drug activity. The court further found that any other alleged errors caused no prejudice to Morris and did not affect the outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Grace, appellant Nickolas Grace filed a motion in Toledo Municipal Court to recover $21,456 in cash and two iPhones seized during a 2020 traffic stop after the city charged him with marijuana trafficking but later dismissed the case via nolle prosequi. The trial court denied the motion under R.C. 2981.11, concluding the funds had been transferred to federal authorities via a task force officer and that Grace's remedy lay in federal court. The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the city violated R.C. 2981.14(B) by transferring property valued under $100,000 to federal agents without federal forfeiture proceedings, retained provisional title and a duty to safely keep the funds, and therefore must return them to Grace at the earliest possible time since no forfeiture action occurred.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

In State v. Horn, defendant Michael Horn appealed his resentencing in the Wood County Court of Common Pleas to three consecutive sentences of 10 years to life for rape convictions with sexually violent predator specifications involving his stepdaughter and niece. Following a Supreme Court of Ohio reversal of one conviction (on grounds that a familial relationship does not qualify as a mental or physical condition under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c)), the trial court resentenced Horn on the remaining counts, including one that had previously merged. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the undisturbed guilty verdicts permitted resentencing on all three counts without error and that the trial court properly exercised its authority on remand. A dissent argued that the trial court should have first conducted a double jeopardy analysis regarding the allied offenses before imposing sentence on the previously merged count.

criminal law

In Smith v. Anderson, plaintiff Ryan Smith appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for sanctions against defendant David Andersen and his counsel in an auto-accident personal-injury case. Smith alleged frivolous conduct and violations of Civ.R. 11 through repeated false service certifications on eight filings, a "sham" answer that contested liability without adequate investigation, and improper assertions of attorney-client and work-product privilege to withhold an insurance file. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because the record showed no intentional misconduct or prejudice from any service errors, the answer was appropriate at the early stage of proceedings, and the discovery objections were reasonable. The court further noted that the trial judge was already familiar with the issues and was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.

proceduretorts & liability

In Bernholtz v. Bernholtz, Lois Bernholtz sued her son Brian and his wife Heidi in Fulton County Common Pleas Court for conversion, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging they used undue influence to obtain transfers of real property and tens of thousands of dollars in cash and personal property from Lois and her late husband Calvin. Following a bench trial, the trial court ruled for Lois on all claims. On appeal, the Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. It upheld the award of $111,742.32 in damages for conversion of funds, finding the trial court’s conclusion that appellants exerted undue influence over Lois’s finances was supported by evidence of large unexplained expenditures, electronic transfers she could not have made, and lack of credible proof of legitimate spending. However, it reversed the ruling voiding the property transfers as against the manifest weight of the evidence and remanded that claim for a new trial.

family lawpropertytorts & liability

In State v. Harvey, Quincy Harvey was convicted by a jury in Lucas County Common Pleas Court of two counts of rape, plus kidnapping, felonious assault, resisting arrest, and obstructing official business, based on allegations that he beat and sexually assaulted his girlfriend A.D. over several hours in her apartment, then prevented her from seeking help; he received a minimum 41-year sentence. On appeal, Harvey challenged the admission of A.D.’s out-of-court statements to police and medical personnel, arguing that the trial court improperly found her unavailable due to his jail contacts with her and wrongly applied the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine, violating his confrontation rights. The Sixth District Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in admitting those hearsay statements under the forfeiture doctrine. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the remaining admissible evidence—including the 911 call, officers’ observations, body-cam footage, EMT testimony, and DNA results—was sufficient to prove the rape and kidnapping charges and that the jury’s verdicts on those counts were not against the manifest weight of the evidence, so it affirmed the convictions and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Smith, Robert Witcher Smith appealed his 30-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to attempted felonious assault and aggravated riot. The charges arose from his participation in a group assault on a victim, during which he attempted to kick the victim in the head; a separate individual later shot and killed the victim while Smith remained at the scene. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas judgment. The court reasoned that under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) and State v. Jones, appellate review does not extend to claims that a trial court improperly weighed or considered factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 when imposing sentence, as those determinations are not subject to reversal for being contrary to law.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Wilson, Antonio Wilson was charged with two counts of rape and, after extensive pretrial delays, entered an Alford guilty plea to the lesser offense of gross sexual imposition in exchange for dismissal of one rape count and a recommended 30-month sentence. The trial court accepted the plea and imposed the agreed sentence. On appeal, Wilson argued that his constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial had been violated due to the length of his pretrial confinement. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the entry of an Alford guilty plea waived any speedy trial claims under established Ohio precedent. The court therefore declined to examine the merits of the speedy trial issue.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Smith, the defendant appealed his convictions and consecutive prison sentence after entering an Alford plea to felonious assault and attempted failure to comply with a police order, arguing that the trial court committed plain error by proceeding with sentencing after the prosecutor briefly spoke despite an agreement to remain silent. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The court reasoned that the prosecutor’s comments—that the defendant’s record “speaks for itself” and mirrored prior out-of-state convictions—did not constitute plain error because the same criminal history information was already contained in the presentence investigation report available to the trial court, the court’s sentencing remarks focused primarily on the facts of the offense and the defendant’s 17 prior felony convictions, and there was no indication that the outcome would have been different absent the brief statement.

criminal lawprocedure

In Grange Ins. Co. v. Farmers Ins. Co., Grange sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured, Jaylah Cleveland, after she drove her grandmother’s vehicle through a Starbucks window while under the influence of marijuana, injuring multiple people whose insurers included Farmers. The trial court granted summary judgment to Grange, and the Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the policy’s controlled-substance exclusion applied because Cleveland admitted the accidents resulted directly from her marijuana use, and a separate criminal-act exclusion also barred coverage due to her convictions for aggravated vehicular assault and related offenses. The court rejected Farmers’ arguments that the exclusion language was ambiguous or that public policy required treating marijuana use the same as alcohol use under auto policies.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

In State v. Maltos, defendant Seferino Maltos appealed the Huron County Court of Common Pleas’ denial of his post-sentence motion to withdraw his 2018 guilty pleas to aggravated drug trafficking, weapons under disability, drug possession, and possession of criminal tools. He argued the state breached the plea agreement by failing to return jewelry from a safe and other non-contraband items from his forfeited vehicle. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial. The court held that Maltos failed to show a manifest injustice, noting that speakers had been released to his designee in 2018, no evidence established that the state refused to return the remaining items, and the motion was filed nearly four years after sentencing without prior documented requests or court orders.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Perrin, Tony Perrin appealed his December 2021 sentence from the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas after pleading guilty to second-degree felony trafficking in cocaine. The charges arose from a 2019 traffic stop where crack cocaine was found on him at booking, and the state dismissed a related charge under a plea deal that initially included a two-year mandatory sentence. Perrin repeatedly failed to appear for sentencing and violated bond conditions, leading the trial court to impose a five-year mandatory minimum term (with a 7.5-year maximum) and a $7,500 fine. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the sentence complied with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 because the court properly considered the factors and was no longer bound by the plea agreement due to Perrin's violations; that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek a fine waiver, as the record showed Perrin had the ability to pay; and that the Reagan Tokes Act was constitutional under separation-of-powers precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved borrowers Joyce and Daniel Dudley appealing the Lucas County Common Pleas Court’s denial of their Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from a January 2020 foreclosure judgment entered in favor of Henry County Bank. The judgment had followed the bank’s unopposed motion for summary judgment on a mortgage securing loans to Toledo Radio, LLC, for which the Dudleys were guarantors; the Dudleys sought relief more than a year later by citing fraud and related claims they had asserted in a separate 2021 lawsuit against the bank and others. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that the motion failed to establish any of the grounds under Civ.R. 60(B)(1)–(5), including excusable neglect or newly discovered evidence, because the referenced allegations were not shown to constitute a meritorious defense within the record of the foreclosure case itself and the separate action had not produced a final, appealable ruling against the bank. The court also upheld the denial of a stay under Civ.R. 62(A) once the 60(B) motion was rejected.

propertyprocedure

In State v. McGowan, the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to three counts of rape and received an indefinite 30-to-35-year sentence under Ohio’s Reagan Tokes law, sought to reopen his direct appeal on the ground that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a due-process challenge to the law. The Sixth District Court of Appeals denied the application. The court held that counsel’s performance was not deficient because the proposed constitutional claim lacked merit: although the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require an impartial decision-maker, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction has no direct, personal, or substantial pecuniary interest in denying release at a Reagan Tokes hearing, unlike the judges who benefited from bail-fee revenue in cases such as Caliste v. Cantrell. The panel therefore concluded there was no reasonable probability the argument would have succeeded on appeal.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In State v. Coley, Lawrence Coley was convicted by a jury in Fremont Municipal Court of aggravated menacing, obstructing official business, and resisting arrest after an August 2021 altercation at a gas station in which he spat at two victims and pointed a loaded firearm at them following a verbal insult. The trial court sentenced him to 180 days in jail. Coley appealed, arguing the sentence was vindictive because the judge referenced his concealed-carry permit and training during sentencing. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the sentence was based on the facts of the offense, Coley’s prior record, the public impact of the crime, and his failure to exercise proper judgment given his firearm training, rather than on the mere possession of the permit.

criminal lawguns

In State v. Irving, David A. Irving appealed his aggregate three-year prison sentence after pleading guilty in the Wood County Court of Common Pleas to intimidation of an attorney, victim, or witness (a third-degree felony), menacing by stalking (a fourth-degree felony), and violating a protection order (a first-degree misdemeanor), with other charges dismissed. The appeal challenged the postrelease control portion of the sentence, arguing it was contrary to law because the written sentencing entry imposed up to three years while the plea agreement referenced up to two years and the offense was a nonviolent third-degree felony. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, holding that the intimidation offense qualified as an offense of violence under R.C. 2901.01(A)(9)(a), making the trial court's imposition of "up to three years, but not less than one year" of postrelease control lawful under R.C. 2967.28(B)(4). The court found no ineffective assistance of counsel because any objection would have been overruled, but it remanded solely for a nunc pro tunc entry to correct a clerical discrepancy between the hearing and the written judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Tilman, Antron Tilman appealed his jury conviction for domestic violence, a fourth-degree felony, stemming from a March 2021 physical altercation with his girlfriend T.C. in her apartment, where the key issue was whether Tilman qualified as a "household member" under Ohio law despite not being on the lease. The Lucas County Court of Common Pleas had sentenced him to 17 months in prison following the verdict. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the state presented sufficient evidence—such as Tilman receiving mail at the address, keeping personal belongings there, sharing meals and living space with T.C. and her child, and their intimate relationship—to establish cohabitation. The court further concluded that the jury’s finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, as it did not lose its way in crediting the victim’s and other witnesses’ testimony over contrary statements made during the incident.

criminal lawfamily law

In State v. Carter, the defendant was convicted by a jury in Ottawa County of two counts of rape of a child under ten and one count of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles, based on allegations that he sexually abused his step-granddaughter A.B. when she was approximately eight years old in 2006–2007. Carter appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by granting the state’s motions in limine to exclude evidence of other sexual activity involving the victim under the rape shield statute and to permit expert testimony from a counselor on the general behavioral characteristics of child sexual abuse victims, among other issues. The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the excluded evidence did not fall within any exception to the rape shield law and that the expert’s general testimony was properly admitted as it did not opine on the specific facts of the case. The court further found no abuse of discretion or other reversible error in the trial proceedings. Carter died while the appeal was pending, and his appointed attorney was substituted as the personal representative.

criminal lawprocedure