Stephen W. Powell

The case concerned Amatha Farrens's appeal from a Fayette County domestic relations court order that terminated her ex-husband Corey's obligation to pay her $20,000 monthly spousal support after finding she was cohabiting with her boyfriend. The Court of Appeals reversed that termination. It held that the trial court's cohabitation finding was not supported by competent, credible evidence because the court improperly relied on the couple's pre-August 2024 conduct and because the post-order record showed only occasional weekend overnight visits while the parties maintained wholly separate residences and finances. The court explained that cohabitation requires both sustained living together and financial interdependence amounting to the functional equivalent of marriage, neither of which was established here.

family law

In State v. Ramirez, David Sanchez Ramirez appealed from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas after pleading guilty to five counts of sexual battery for abusing his teenage stepdaughter over three years; the trial court had imposed consecutive sentences totaling 108 months in prison. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence. The court held that the trial court properly made the three required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and in its entry—namely, that consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public and punish the offender, were not disproportionate to the conduct and danger posed, and that the offenses were part of a course of conduct causing harm so great or unusual that a single term would not reflect its seriousness. The appellate court rejected Ramirez’s arguments that leniency requests, his lack of criminal history, and low recidivism risk undermined those findings, explaining that such factors relate to individual offense sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 rather than the separate consecutive-sentence analysis.

criminal law

In Higle v. Engle, Ralph Curtis Engle II appealed the Brown County Court of Common Pleas' denial of his Civ.R. 60(B) motion, which sought relief from an August 5, 2024 ex parte domestic violence civil protection order (DVCPO) issued against him on behalf of Abigail Higle and their child following Higle's petition. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that the ex parte order was not final or appealable under R.C. 3113.31(G)(1) and had been superseded by the parties' October 17, 2024 consent agreement, which was a final appealable order that Engle never directly appealed. It further held that a Civ.R. 60(B) motion cannot be used as a substitute for a timely appeal or to obtain review of issues that should have been raised in a direct appeal from the consent agreement.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a father's appeal from the denial of his Civ.R. 60(B) motion seeking to vacate a child-support order entered after his adopted daughter was adjudicated dependent and placed in agency temporary custody. The juvenile court had ordered the father to pay support after imputing income to him, and he later argued that the order was improper because the court failed to consider the discretionary factors in R.C. 2151.361(B) applicable to adoptive parents. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that res judicata barred the father from raising the argument for the first time in a 60(B) motion rather than in his earlier objections or on direct appeal from the support order. The court further reasoned that any error in applying the statute rendered the order voidable rather than void, so it could not be collaterally attacked months later, and that the father's related ineffective-assistance claims were likewise procedurally foreclosed in this civil proceeding.

family lawprocedure

In Leyes v. Leyes, Gary Leyes appealed a Clinton County divorce decree requiring him to pay his former wife spousal support after a nearly 18-year marriage with no children. The trial court awarded Sheila Leyes (now Elkins) an $18,000 lump-sum payment plus $2,400 monthly for 120 months, terminable on cohabitation, remarriage, or death, after the magistrate had recommended indefinite support. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion under R.C. 3105.18(C)(1) by balancing the parties' incomes (including Husband's regular overtime), earning abilities, ages, health conditions, marital lifestyle, and assets, while noting that Wife's multiple serious medical issues left her unable to work or support herself. The court rejected challenges to the lump-sum award (waived for lack of specific objection), inclusion of overtime in income calculations, assumed tax rate, and lack of medical expert testimony, finding the trial court's determinations supported by the evidence and not an abuse of discretion.

family law

In State v. Lane, the defendant appealed her convictions for grand theft of a motor vehicle and attempted grand theft of a firearm, arguing that the offenses should have merged as allied offenses of similar import under R.C. 2941.25 because both arose from the same February 2025 incident in which she and an accomplice stole a car containing a gun in the glove box. The trial court had rejected merger at sentencing and imposed consecutive prison terms, and the Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the offenses were of dissimilar import under the Ruff test because Lane’s conduct caused separate and identifiable harms: she not only took the vehicle but also separately removed the firearm, transported it to her own bedroom, and retained it there apart from the car, as shown by the gun’s location four days later alongside other stolen items. This course of conduct, the court explained, went beyond cases where multiple items are taken together in a single theft episode and remain together without further separate possession. The court therefore concluded that the trial court properly refused to merge the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Noble, Desmond Noble appealed his conviction for improperly discharging a firearm into a habitation, arguing that the trial court committed structural error by denying his request to represent himself after he expressed a conditional interest in self-representation during a pretrial colloquy. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Noble had not unequivocally invoked his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation. The court reasoned that his statement was conditional and appeared to stem from frustration with prior proceedings rather than a clear, explicit request, and that he later waived any such right by acquiescing to counsel’s continued representation through a competency evaluation, substitution of counsel, and entry of a no contest plea.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case involved biological mother Kendi Jordan's appeal from a probate court order denying her leave to object to stepmother Rachel Bean's petition to adopt Jordan's child, K.M.B. The Court of Appeals reversed the probate court's ruling and remanded for further proceedings. It held that service of the adoption petition by certified mail to an address in Bainbridge, Ohio, was invalid because that location was not Jordan's "usual place of residence" under Civ.R. 73(E)(3) at the time of service. The court reasoned that Jordan's brief, temporary stay there with a relative in 2022—followed by hospitalization, other temporary locations, and her return to her long-term home in Peebles—did not meet the legal standard of a settled, fixed abode of indefinite duration, as established in Ohio Supreme Court precedent. Actual receipt of the documents months later did not cure the defect in service.

family lawprocedure

The case involved parents suing HomeWAV, a company providing video-calling services to the Warren County Jail, after recordings of their calls with their deceased daughter were deleted under the company's retention policy. The sole remaining claim was promissory estoppel, based on alleged statements by HomeWAV representatives that the recordings would be kept "indefinitely" or "forever" for potential access. The trial court granted summary judgment to HomeWAV, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the parents' own deposition accounts described only vague references to HomeWAV's general policy of archiving recordings for court access rather than any clear, specific promise to preserve them for the parents' personal use. Because no clear and unambiguous promise existed that could reasonably induce reliance, there was no genuine issue of material fact, and the claim failed as a matter of law.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Barnett, Brian Barnett appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree involuntary manslaughter and one count of trafficking in fentanyl, stemming from the drug-overdose deaths of Vickie Compton and Darrell Nease after Compton arranged to buy drugs from him. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in full. Regarding the verdict-form issue, the court held that the form for the count involving Compton's death was adequate to support a first-degree conviction under R.C. 2903.04(A), because the jury was correctly instructed on the substantive elements, the form referenced the indictment charging those elements, and R.C. 2945.75(A)(2) did not require reduction to the lowest degree. On sentencing, the court ruled that the manslaughter and trafficking offenses did not merge, because they involved separate victims and therefore were of dissimilar import under the allied-offenses test in State v. Ruff.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Minera, Benjamin Minera appealed his conviction in Butler County Area II Court for sexual imposition, a third-degree misdemeanor under R.C. 2907.06(A)(1), based on allegations that he massaged a client's breast and vaginal area for sexual gratification on June 16, 2023, knowing the contact was offensive. After a bench trial, the trial court found him guilty, imposed a suspended jail sentence and community control, and classified him as a Tier I sex offender. On appeal, Minera argued that the indictment and bill of particulars were defective for omitting the statute's corroboration requirement under R.C. 2907.06(B), that corroboration had become an element of the offense following State v. Bevly, and that cumulative errors and ineffective assistance warranted reversal. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that corroboration is a statutory condition for conviction rather than an essential element that must be charged in the indictment or proven beyond a reasonable doubt like other offense elements, and that no errors occurred in the proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Barnett, Brian Barnett appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree involuntary manslaughter and one count of trafficking in fentanyl, stemming from the drug-overdose deaths of Vickie Compton and Darrell Nease after Compton arranged to buy drugs from him. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in full. Regarding the verdict-form issue, the court held that the form for the count involving Compton's death was adequate to support a first-degree conviction under R.C. 2903.04(A), because the jury was correctly instructed on the substantive elements, the form referenced the indictment charging those elements, and R.C. 2945.75(A)(2) did not require reduction to the lowest degree. On sentencing, the court ruled that the manslaughter and trafficking offenses did not merge, because they involved separate victims and therefore were of dissimilar import under the allied-offenses test in State v. Ruff.

criminal lawprocedure

In Noziljon v. Hasan, plaintiff Mirkomil Rakhimjonov Noziljon sued dentist Doktor Hasan in Mason Municipal Court small claims for a $5,000 refund on dental services, claiming it had not been issued. After a magistrate trial where Hasan’s assistant testified that she processed the refund to a credit card Noziljon provided, and documentary evidence confirmed the transaction, the magistrate dismissed the complaint, finding Noziljon failed to meet his burden of proof; the trial court overruled his objections. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider Noziljon’s post-hearing written submissions and that the judgment was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, as the magistrate reasonably credited the defense testimony and records despite a cardholder name discrepancy.

procedure

The case involved appeals by Rondell Evans and Devontrae Williams from their convictions in Warren County Common Pleas Court for robbery, kidnapping, grand theft, and possession of criminal tools arising from an armed robbery of a Verizon store in Middletown, Ohio, during which the defendants and an accomplice forced the manager to open the inventory room and stole approximately $31,000 in phones. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but reversed the sentences in part. It held that the kidnapping and robbery counts were allied offenses of similar import that should have merged for sentencing, that the trial court failed to provide the required oral notification of postrelease control at the sentencing hearing, and that the court did not make the third required statutory finding under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences. The matter was remanded for resentencing consistent with those rulings.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Allen, Jeremy Allen appealed the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas' denial of his motion to dismiss an Ohio indictment charging him with making false alarms, attempted grand theft, resisting arrest, and tampering with evidence. He argued that the state violated the speedy-trial time limits under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers after he submitted a request for disposition while serving a sentence in West Virginia. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling. The court held that Allen's later guilty plea to three of the charges waived any IAD speedy-trial claim, because Ohio law treats such pre-plea issues as forfeited upon a voluntary guilty plea and has no provision for conditional pleas that preserve them for appeal. The court therefore declined to reach the merits of whether an IAD violation had occurred.

criminal lawprocedure

Michael Conley was convicted in Middletown Municipal Court of a fourth-degree misdemeanor for failing to disclose his name, address, and date of birth to police after a resident reported his parked vehicle as suspicious. Following an initial appeal that affirmed the conviction on sufficiency grounds, the Twelfth District granted Conley’s App.R. 26(B) application to reopen the case, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to challenge subject-matter jurisdiction. The majority held that the charging document—a “Statement of Facts” signed by the officer and notarized without any jurat, oath, or attestation—failed to satisfy Crim.R. 3’s requirements for a valid complaint, rendering it insufficient to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction. Because this defect was apparent from the record and would have been dispositive, the court concluded prior appellate counsel was constitutionally deficient and reversed the conviction, vacating the prior judgment and discharging Conley.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Flecha, defendant Luis Leonardo Flecha appealed his sentence after pleading guilty in Warren County Common Pleas Court to one count of assault on a peace officer, a fourth-degree felony, under a negotiated agreement for a six-month prison term to run consecutively to his existing sentence. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals reversed the sentence in part and remanded for resentencing, while affirming the plea and other aspects of the judgment. The court held that the trial court failed to comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(f) by not orally advising Flecha at the consolidated plea and sentencing hearing of the consequences of violating postrelease control, even though the judgment entry later included those advisements and the defendant had prior experience with postrelease control. The majority concluded this statutory omission required reversal regardless of the jointly recommended sentence, while a dissent argued the court lacked jurisdiction under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) to review the agreed sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

Quintin Koger Kidd appealed the Ohio Court of Claims' dismissal of seven consolidated public-records complaints he filed against the City of Wilmington under R.C. 2743.75, after making roughly 390 records requests between April and August 2025 that the City responded to with some redactions for attorney-client privilege. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of the complaints and the striking of Kidd's objections to the special master's recommendation. The court held that the excessive volume, frequency, and duplicative nature of the requests and enforcement actions amounted to an abuse of the public-records process under the standards applied in Schaffer v. Sheets, warranting dismissal pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(D)(2). It further upheld the restriction of public access to four complaints containing unredacted privileged billing invoices that Kidd had obtained and filed, finding the action necessary to protect the privilege under Sup.R. 45(E) while using the least restrictive means available.

procedure

Michael Conley was convicted in Middletown Municipal Court of a fourth-degree misdemeanor for failing to disclose his personal information after a jury trial based on a citizen’s 911 report of a suspicious person. He initially appealed on evidentiary grounds and lost, but successfully moved to reopen the appeal under App.R. 26(B), arguing that prior appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals held that the charging document—a “Statement of Facts” signed by the officer and notarized but lacking any jurat, oath, or attestation that it was sworn—was fatally defective under Crim.R. 3 and therefore failed to invoke the municipal court’s jurisdiction. Because a valid complaint is a prerequisite to subject-matter jurisdiction in misdemeanor cases, the court reversed the conviction and discharged Conley. A dissenting judge argued that the defect was not jurisdictional and did not demonstrate ineffective assistance.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Bingle, Ryan T. Bingle was convicted in Butler County Common Pleas Court of theft and attempted extortion after he threatened a victim with exposure of alleged sexual misconduct and death unless the victim surrendered property, then took an electric bicycle, speaker, air pump, and cash. Bingle pleaded guilty under a negotiated agreement and argued on appeal that the offenses should merge as allied offenses of similar import under R.C. 2941.25 because the theft could not have occurred without the extortionate threat. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's refusal to merge the convictions, holding that the offenses were committed separately, with separate animus, and inflicted distinct harms—the terror from the ongoing death threats versus the loss of property. The court reasoned that extortion is complete upon making the threat, even if property is not obtained, and that the victim's psychological injury from the threats is separate from the economic loss caused by the theft.

criminal law