Robin N. Piper

This case involves Dustin L. Mills's appeal of his convictions in the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas for one count of attempted murder and two counts of felonious assault arising from the September 2024 stabbing of his acquaintance Tommy Aldridge outside Mills's home. A jury found Mills guilty after a four-day trial featuring testimony from Aldridge and other witnesses, and the trial court sentenced him to an indefinite prison term of nine to thirteen and one-half years after merging the offenses. Mills raised four assignments of error on appeal, beginning with a claim that the trial judge improperly interjected during voir dire by commenting on the missing knife and the existence of stab wounds as evidence. Applying the standard from State v. McAlpin and State v. Wade for evaluating judicial remarks, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Robinson, the defendant appealed his jury convictions in Butler County for aggravated murder (with a death penalty specification), two counts of aggravated arson, and two counts of felonious assault, along with his sentence of life imprisonment without parole plus an additional eight-to-twelve-year term. The charges arose from allegations that Robinson attacked his father’s girlfriend in her bedroom by striking her with brass knuckles and setting her on fire with accelerants, causing fatal burns. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, overruling Robinson’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and improper sentencing notifications. The court held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek dismissal on speedy-trial grounds because Robinson had executed two unlimited written waivers that he never rescinded, rendering any such motion futile, and that decisions about cross-examination fell within trial strategy. It also found that the trial court had properly delivered all required Reagan Tokes notifications at sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Jones, Clarence Jones was convicted by a jury in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas on two counts of gross sexual imposition involving his eight-year-old daughter, based on allegations of sexual contact that occurred in the family home in fall 2024; he was acquitted on separate rape charges. The Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio affirmed the GSI convictions, ruling they were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court reasoned that the child's detailed forensic interview statements describing the incidents were sufficient to support the verdicts, even without direct DNA linkage or physical evidence of abuse, and that those statements were bolstered by corroborating details such as the defendant's phone history of viewing related pornography and seminal fluid found on the child's comforter. The court added that any inconsistencies in the child's statements about unrelated topics, such as her pet hamsters, did not undermine the credibility of her account of the abuse for purposes of manifest-weight review.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a Butler County juvenile court adjudication of M.S.M.B. ("Mary"), born in 2012, as a dependent child under R.C. 2151.04(C) after her non-relative temporary custodian could no longer provide care due to a failed home study, leaving her without any approved placement. The Butler County Department of Job and Family Services had filed a dependency complaint in June 2025, citing the lack of suitable caregivers, Mother's unstable housing and substance abuse history, and reports of prior trauma from contact with Mother; the court suspended Mother's visitation and, following an adjudicatory hearing with testimony from a caseworker, found Mary dependent. Mother objected and appealed, arguing insufficient clear and convincing evidence of unmet needs or adverse conditions. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record showed overwhelming evidence Mary faced immediate homelessness and lacked any adult able to meet her basic needs at the time of intervention, satisfying the statutory standard focused on the child's condition or environment.

family law

Mia Gabel sued RMH Franchise Corporation, doing business as Applebee's, for premises liability after slipping and falling on a floor at its Batavia, Ohio restaurant in 2021, and she also sought declaratory relief against the Ohio Department of Medicaid regarding any subrogation interest. In the first action, the trial court granted RMH summary judgment on the premises liability claim, finding no evidence of a hazardous condition or notice; Gabel then filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, but later refiled identical claims against the same parties. The trial court dismissed the refiled case on res judicata grounds, and the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the first summary judgment was a final, appealable order because it resolved the main claim and rendered the subrogation claim moot, making the later dismissal a nullity that did not erase the judgment. Because the second suit involved the same parties and arose from the same occurrence, claim preclusion barred relitigation.

torts & liabilityprocedure

William D. Petrey sued his former attorney, Michael J. Davis, in small claims court for breach of contract and legal malpractice, alleging Davis failed to file briefs, abandoned an appeal, and otherwise mishandled representation in a civil stalking protection order case. The Mason Municipal Court dismissed the entire complaint after a magistrate found both claims barred by the one-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice under R.C. 2305.11(A), which began running no later than July 5, 2023, when Petrey retained new counsel. On appeal, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the breach-of-contract claim was inseparable from the malpractice allegations and that Petrey knew or should have known of the alleged failures by the time he hired replacement counsel. The court rejected Petrey’s arguments that the claims should be analyzed separately or that the limitations period had not expired.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved an appeal by S.F.'s paternal grandmother challenging the Warren County Juvenile Court's grant of permanent custody of the child to Warren County Children Services (WCCS), rather than awarding legal custody to the grandmother. S.F., born in 2014, had been removed in 2023 after leaving her grandmother's home unsupervised at age nine and wandering for hours; the grandmother, who had been the child's legal custodian, was 74 and suffered from multiple serious health conditions including stage III kidney disease, congestive heart failure, and emphysema, while S.F. had significant mental health and behavioral diagnoses requiring specialized care. The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's decision, holding that granting permanent custody to WCCS was in S.F.'s best interests based on the grandmother's limited capacity to supervise and meet the child's needs, the father's abandonment and drug issues, and the overall evidence presented.

family law

In this case, a mother appealed the Warren County Juvenile Court's denial of her Civ.R. 60(B) motion seeking relief from the court's 2023 judgments that adjudicated one child as abused and dependent and three others as dependent, resulting in their temporary placement with the maternal grandmother under agency supervision. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. The court held that the mother failed to meet the requirements for 60(B) relief because she did not demonstrate a meritorious claim or defense showing the children would be adjudicated differently, her arguments fell under time-barred subsections of the rule rather than the catch-all provision she invoked, and the motion was not filed within a reasonable time. Additionally, several claims were barred by res judicata as they could have been raised through direct appeal or earlier proceedings.

family lawprocedure

In In re A.M.D., the mother appealed the juvenile court's denial of her petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking the return of her four children, who had been removed by Warren County Children Services and placed in temporary custody with their maternal grandmother following adjudications of abuse and dependency. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that habeas corpus relief was unavailable because the mother had adequate remedies at law that she failed to pursue, including filing objections to the magistrate's decisions or timely appealing the adjudications and dispositions. The court reasoned that the juvenile court possessed proper jurisdiction, as the mother had been served, received notice of hearings, and was represented by counsel, and that her lack of subsequent counsel did not prevent her from exercising her appellate rights, as shown by her numerous pro se filings.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Davis, Brandon Davis was convicted by a jury in Butler County on multiple felony counts, including aggravated murder, kidnapping, and murder with firearm specifications, arising from the June 2024 shooting death of Asiah Slone at a residence in Middletown, Ohio. Witnesses including Perry Hart (who admitted firing a second shot under duress pursuant to a plea deal) and jail informants testified that Davis shot Slone, held others at gunpoint, ordered the second shot, and later disposed of the body; the defense challenged the credibility of that testimony and certain procedural aspects of the trial. On appeal, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, finding no due-process violation from uncorrected testimony, sufficient evidence to support the repeat-violent-offender specification based on a 1998 conviction, and that the verdicts were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court reversed only the sentence, however, because the trial judge had made findings under R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a)(iv) and (v) that the Ohio Supreme Court had previously declared unconstitutional, and it remanded solely for resentencing without those findings.

criminal lawprocedure

Joshua Flippin appealed the Warren County domestic relations court's adoption of a magistrate's order denying his petition for a domestic violence civil protection order against Ashleigh Gray, which sought to protect both Flippin and the couple's non-verbal autistic son from alleged acts that would constitute domestic violence. The magistrate had held a full hearing on the petition, found insufficient evidence that Gray had committed domestic violence, and vacated a temporary ex parte order; the trial court adopted that decision. On appeal, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Flippin failed to file a transcript of the hearing with his objections in the trial court, so the appellate record contained no evidence of what occurred at the hearing, requiring the court to presume the magistrate's findings were supported by the evidence and that the proceedings were regular.

family lawprocedure

In State v. McCollum, Tyreese McCollum was convicted by a jury in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas of felonious assault, discharging a firearm on a public roadway, and improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle. The charges arose from a February 2025 road-rage incident on I-71 in which the victim testified that McCollum fired five shots at his pickup truck from a passing SUV after a dispute over lane position and passing. On appeal, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, concluding that the jury's verdicts were not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the jury was entitled to credit the victim's account of the shooting, and the lack of physical evidence such as bullet strikes on the truck or gunshot residue on both of McCollum's hands did not undermine that determination.

criminal lawguns

In Reynolds v. Reynolds, Chad Reynolds appealed the Butler County Domestic Relations Court's final divorce decree, which denied his request for spousal support and rejected his proposed shared parenting plan for the couple's two unemancipated children. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's rulings in full. On spousal support, the court found an award neither appropriate nor reasonable after weighing the parties' mid-40s ages, nearly 19-year marriage, similar education and skills, respective incomes of roughly $70,000–$80,000 for Husband and $123,000–$131,000 for Wife, property division, and expert testimony on earning capacity. On parenting, the court determined that the parents' inability to cooperate or communicate effectively made shared parenting contrary to the children's best interests, so it designated Wife as residential parent and legal custodian while granting Husband liberal parenting time by agreement or, alternatively, the court's five-week rotating schedule under R.C. 3109.051(D).

family law

In State v. Brooks, Frank R. Brooks appealed his sentence after pleading guilty in the Madison County Court of Common Pleas to one count of first-degree felony possession of a fentanyl-related compound (20–50 grams). The trial court imposed a mandatory minimum prison term of 10 years (maximum 15 years), along with a fine and postrelease control, after considering factors such as the nature of the offense and Brooks’s lack of prior criminal history. On appeal, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence. The court held that the sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), and that appellate review does not permit reweighing the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 or substituting judgment for that of the trial court when the term falls within the statutory range.

criminal lawprocedure

In this divorce case, Seth Meranda sought to end his ten-year marriage to Maura Meranda and divide their assets, centering on the Ripley property—a winery, vineyards, buildings, and house that Seth had owned outright since 1992—and the associated winery business. The trial court awarded Seth the full Ripley property and winery business after finding the property remained his separate asset and that Maura had committed financial misconduct by locking him out, causing damage to vines and equipment, and misappropriating funds. On appeal, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Maura failed to prove any marital increase in the property's value and that her misconduct negated any interest she might have acquired through contributions to sales and marketing. The court further determined that Maura was entitled only to half the reduction in mortgage principal during the marriage, with no broader division of the separate asset.

family lawproperty

In this case, a father appealed a juvenile court decision granting permanent custody of his two young sons to Butler County Children Services after the children were removed from the home due to severe abuse of their older sister, resulting in the father's criminal convictions for felonious assault and child endangering and his subsequent imprisonment. The father had not completed any case plan services, had requested removal from the plan, and later sought legal custody through a relative, while the mother surrendered her parental rights. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the permanent custody order, holding that the children had been abandoned and in agency custody for more than 12 of the prior 22 months, that permanent custody was in their best interest given their strong bond with their sister and maternal grandparents (who wished to adopt them), and that placing them with the father's out-of-state cousin would be inappropriate due to lack of relationship and sibling separation. The court also rejected the father's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, finding no prejudice from counsel's decisions not to raise certain objections.

family law

The case involved paternal grandparents appealing a juvenile court order that granted permanent custody of their eight-year-old orphaned grandson, G.B., to Warren County Children Services after the agency removed him from their legal custody. The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's decision. The court found that the record established it was in G.B.'s best interest to award permanent custody to the agency, as the grandparents—both in their sixties with health and financial limitations—had failed to address the child's developmental needs, such as potty training and school attendance, and the child had since thrived in agency custody. It rejected arguments for extending temporary custody or returning the child to the grandparents, noting that G.B. had become an orphan after his parents' drug-related deaths and that the uncle's related drug incidents further supported the custody transfer.

family law

The case involved T.H., a 15-year-old juvenile charged as delinquent for 17 offenses, including six first- and second-degree felonies for stealing firearms from licensed dealers by ramming stolen cars into stores, as well as engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. The state sought, and the juvenile court imposed, a discretionary serious youthful offender (SYO) designation under R.C. 2152.11 and 2152.13, resulting in a blended sentence with a minimum one-year commitment to the Department of Youth Services, stayed adult penalties, and other juvenile dispositions. T.H. appealed, arguing the SYO finding and sentence were improper and based on bias related to his age, race, and gender. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statutes expressly authorize discretionary SYO sentences for the adjudicated felonies and that the record showed the disposition rested on the seriousness of the offenses and T.H.’s role as primary instigator, not on any improper considerations.

criminal lawgunscivil rightsprocedure

David Boehm appealed an April 30, 2025, adjudication order from the Ohio Department of Public Safety that revoked his private investigator and security guard provider registration. To appeal under R.C. 119.12(D), he was required to file a notice of appeal with both ODPS and the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas within 15 days after service of the order, which occurred on May 1, 2025, making the deadline May 16. Boehm filed with ODPS on May 13 but submitted his notice to the common pleas court clerk without the required filing fee, causing rejection until he paid on May 21. The common pleas court granted ODPS's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the untimely filing after the statutory deadline deprived the trial court of authority to hear the administrative appeal.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In re K.P. involved a Warren County juvenile court case in which a 16-year-old mother appealed the grant of permanent custody of her infant son to Warren County Children Services. K.P. was born in May 2024; both tested positive for THC, and weeks later the child was found to have suffered multiple broken ribs and bruising while in the mother’s care at the maternal grandparents’ home. After adjudicating K.P. abused and dependent, the juvenile court awarded temporary custody to the agency, denied the grandparents’ later motions for legal custody following an unfavorable home study that cited another child’s mental-health issues and the grandfather’s history of violence, and ultimately terminated the mother’s parental rights. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record supported the finding that K.P. could not be placed with the mother within a reasonable time and that permanent custody was in the child’s best interest. The court noted the mother’s complete lack of contact with K.P. after September 2024, the agency’s valid concerns about the safety of the grandparents’ household, and the principle that a relative’s willingness to care for the child does not override those statutory factors.

family law