Cheryl L. Waite

In 2023, McConnell Columbiana Property, LLC filed a declaratory judgment action in Columbiana County Common Pleas Court against multiple defendants, including the Chestnut Family Trust trustees, to determine the exact location and boundaries of an unmaintained but still-public portion of Crosser Road in Center Township that the company needed to access its landlocked property. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, incorporating the metes-and-bounds descriptions from two registered surveyors’ maps and affidavits, and the Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed. The appeals court found no genuine issues of material fact remained because the plaintiff’s surveys and supporting documents established the road’s location, while the defendants’ sole rebuttal—a self-serving affidavit from Frank Chestnut plus a 1998 plat page and 2002 deed—contained unsupported conclusions or hearsay and actually confirmed rather than contradicted the plaintiff’s evidence.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Brink, Christopher M. Brink pleaded guilty in four consolidated cases to charges of aggravated possession of drugs and appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to adequately advise him about postrelease control before accepting his pleas and in the sentencing entries, which he claimed made his pleas invalid. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgments. The court held that the trial court had complied with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2) and 2967.28 by notifying Brink at the change-of-plea hearing and in the sentencing entries that he faced up to two years of discretionary postrelease control supervised by the Adult Parole Authority, with violations potentially leading to up to half his original prison term; the additional details he sought were not required, any error would make the judgment voidable rather than void, and no plain error occurred.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Dean Dominique Gore's convictions for engaging in prostitution and possession of criminal tools after he responded to a police undercover advertisement on the "Skip the Games" website offering sexual services, arranged a paid meeting via text messages, and was arrested during the resulting sting operation in Columbiana County, Ohio. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the municipal court's judgment. The court rejected Gore's constitutional challenges to the prostitution statute as vague, overbroad, or violative of free speech; upheld the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from the stop, arrest, and seizure of his phone; and found the convictions supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence, including the text exchanges and officer observations confirming his intent to engage in the prohibited conduct.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure

The case involved homeowners Dean and Andrea Cicoretti suing A&M Total Restoration over allegedly defective roof work performed in 2018, which they claimed caused insured damage in 2020. Their complaints were captioned as breach of contract but contained only allegations of negligent, defective, and unworkmanlike conduct, without attaching any contract or stating its terms or breach. The trial court dismissed the refiled action under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the claims were time-barred negligence actions (with the four-year statute of limitations having expired before the May 2025 filing and the saving statute inapplicable), that no valid breach-of-contract claim was pled, and that dismissal was not based solely on the failure to attach a contract under Civ.R. 10(D) or on any external documents.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Lewis, the defendant pleaded guilty to five fourth-degree felony counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor after investigators found he had uploaded, downloaded, and traded child pornography over at least two years. The trial court sentenced him to five consecutive one-year prison terms (totaling five years) plus sex-offender registration. Lewis appealed, arguing that the record did not support consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and that the court improperly considered the wider societal harm of child pornography. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record justified the consecutive-sentence findings and that R.C. 2929.11 expressly allows sentencing courts to consider the need to protect the public from future crimes by others, including through general deterrence.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Morgan, defendant John Eugene Morgan appealed the trial court’s denial of his postconviction petition after his 2024 convictions for voluntary manslaughter, murder, and felonious assault arising from a fatal shooting during a confrontation with his estranged wife’s partner. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. The court held that Morgan’s claims—based on affidavits purporting to show improper admission of dash-camera footage, an invalid search warrant, and flawed jury instructions—were barred by res judicata because the issues had already been raised and rejected on direct appeal or in his application for reopening, or could have been raised in those prior proceedings. The court therefore concluded that the petition presented no basis for relief.

criminal lawprocedure

In Adams v. Flinn, neighboring property owners Gerald and Sharon Adams sued Rickey Flinn in Jefferson County Common Pleas Court, claiming they had acquired title to three small disputed parcels (totaling about 0.19 acres) through adverse possession based on their continuous use and maintenance of the land since 1998, including installing utilities, building retaining walls, landscaping, and mowing; they alternatively sought an easement or boundary acquiescence. The trial court granted partial summary judgment quieting title to two areas and, after a bench trial on the remaining small section, ruled for the Adamses on all claims. On appeal, the Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record fully supported the adverse possession findings, that the trial court properly handled the property view and boundary descriptions, and that Flinn’s assignments of error lacked merit or supporting argument.

property

In State v. Adams, defendant Shane Thomas Adams appealed his sentence after pleading guilty in Mahoning County to two counts of second-degree felony robbery arising from a January 2025 crime spree that also included an aggravated robbery in Trumbull County. The trial court imposed concurrent terms of 3 to 4½ years on the Mahoning County counts but ordered them to run consecutively to his Trumbull County sentence, making the statutory findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the trial court properly made those findings and that the record supported them because the offenses involved a course of conduct across multiple locations and counties over several hours, with distinct acts separated by time and travel. The court emphasized that an appellate court may not independently reweigh the evidence supporting a felony sentence and can reverse only if the required findings were not made or lack record support.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved John Gavarkavich's appeal of his misdemeanor theft conviction after he pled guilty to one count under a negotiated agreement in which three other theft charges were dismissed. The key dispute concerned whether the trial court properly conducted the plea colloquy under Crim.R. 11(E) for petty offenses or should have used the stricter Crim.R. 11(D) procedures for serious offenses, and whether it adequately explained the plea's effect. The appellate court held that Crim.R. 11(E) applied because the plea was to a single first-degree misdemeanor carrying a maximum of six months' confinement, but sustained the claim that the court failed to advise Gavarkavich of the plea's effect as required by that rule, a point the state conceded. It rejected the remaining assignments of error as either meritless or moot. The court therefore affirmed in part, reversed the conviction and sentence, and remanded the case to vacate the plea for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over ownership of a one-half royalty interest in oil and gas minerals that had been reserved in a 1964 severance deed for property in Monroe County, Ohio. Appellant Jennifer Whitney, as successor trustee, sued the Baker defendants and others seeking a declaratory judgment that she owned the interest under both the Ohio Marketable Title Act and the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act, along with unpaid royalties. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the interest had been extinguished under the MTA. The Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the root of title and every subsequent deed in the chain contained a specific reference to the reserved interest through near-verbatim language plus a citation to the severance deed's volume and page, preventing extinguishment under the MTA; the defendants also conceded the DMA claim. The court remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for the appellant on both statutory claims and to resolve the amount and source of any royalties owed.

property

This case involved a dispute under Ohio’s Marketable Title Act over whether a one-half mineral interest in oil and gas rights beneath 28.5 acres in Jefferson County had been extinguished. Chestnut Ridge 156 LLC, the surface owner, sought to quiet title against several defendants who claimed the interest through inheritance or devise from prior owners; the trial court granted the defendants judgment on the pleadings after examining only the most recent qualifying root-of-title deed and finding it contained a preservation notice. The Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that precedent requires courts to review every potential root-of-title deed in the chain from the 1962 severance deed forward to determine whether any earlier deed extinguished the interest before a later preservation could revive it. Because the trial court stopped after the latest deed and did not conduct that full chain analysis, its dismissal was improper.

propertyprocedure

In H.A. v. J.A., the wife filed a petition for a domestic violence civil protection order after an incident in which her distraught husband took a gun and bullets from their home, concealed the gun behind his back when she approached, and told her to take it from him while saying he was thinking of doing “something stupid.” A magistrate recommended denying the order, but the trial court sustained the wife’s objections, conducted its own review of the evidence, and granted the DVCPO. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the record showed the husband placed the wife in fear of imminent serious physical harm by threat of force and that the trial court acted within its authority under Civ.R. 65.1 when it independently weighed the evidence and sustained the objections.

family lawgunsprocedure

The case involved the City of Salem’s appeal of a trial court decision upholding the Columbiana County Board of Commissioners’ denial of a petition to annex property owned by Laurie and Sean Butcher (including a northern portion of Beechwood Road) into the city. The Board had rejected the petition on grounds that the property was not contiguous to Salem and that annexation would not serve the general good of the territory. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the northern half of Beechwood Road—owned by Perry Township and not previously annexed—created a barrier that prevented contiguity under Ohio annexation law. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board’s determination that annexation would not benefit the territory, as the road ownership issue independently barred the petition.

property

In U.S. Bank v. Petrarca, a mortgage foreclosure case, U.S. Bank National Association sued Thomas and Angela Petrarca after they defaulted on a 2006 promissory note for $960,000 secured by their Ohio property, seeking to enforce the note and mortgage through summary judgment. The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s rulings that the bank had standing to foreclose—based on its possession of the note indorsed in blank and assignment of the mortgage—and that the loan servicer was not required to review a fourth loss mitigation application after three prior denials. However, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case, holding that the bank failed to provide sufficient evidence in the record, including a missing affidavit, to establish the required elements of a foreclosure action and that genuine issues of material fact remained.

propertyprocedure

In State v. Mort, Jessica Ann Mort appealed the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence from a traffic stop for expired registration tags on her boyfriend's truck. Police obtained consent to search the vehicle, found drugs in Mort's purse inside it, then searched her person and questioned her, leading to additional drugs and statements. The Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the case, holding that the boyfriend's consent did not extend to Mort's purse because officers lacked probable cause for further detention or searches beyond the initial stop. As a result, the evidence from the purse, the later search of her person, and the statements were inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.

criminal lawprocedure

Alicia Craig was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated arson after starting a fire in an apartment building in Salem, Ohio, during a dispute with her boyfriend; the blaze injured two firefighters and caused significant damage. She appealed, arguing that surveillance video and audio files were improperly admitted in violation of the best evidence rule and that the trial court committed plain error by not striking the fire marshal’s expert testimony on its own. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and twelve-to-fifteen-year sentence, holding that the digital clips were exact copies of the original DVR files and had been properly authenticated, and that witness credibility is a jury question with the expert’s opinions amply supported by the record and other evidence of intent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Richard L. Jennings, Jr., who was convicted after a bench trial of one count of misdemeanor domestic violence under R.C. 2919.25(C) against his adult son. The incident arose when Jennings, after a dispute with his wife, ignored police instructions and drove to his son’s home in Harrison County, where he approached with clenched fists, attempted to force his way inside multiple times, and made threatening statements about returning with others. On appeal, Jennings argued that the evidence failed to support the conviction because it did not establish that his son reasonably believed he faced imminent physical harm. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the record—including the son’s testimony about his fear, the son’s defensive actions, the wife’s 911 call, and Jennings’s hostile conduct and threats—amply demonstrated the required elements of the offense.

criminal lawfamily law

In State v. Cassi, John Cassi appealed after the trial court denied his motion to return firearms seized during his March 2025 arrest on misdemeanor charges of aggravated menacing, using a weapon while intoxicated, and domestic violence; the charges were later dismissed at the victim's request, with no forfeiture proceedings initiated by the state. The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh Appellate District, reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case, directing the lower court to issue an order returning the firearms. The court reasoned that Ohio Revised Code §2981.04 permits forfeiture only upon conviction or with proper notice and proof in a forfeiture hearing, neither of which occurred here, and that the trial court lacked any legal basis—such as a prohibition on possession—to retain or destroy the property after the charges were dismissed and the temporary protection order rescinded.

gunscriminal lawproperty

The case involved Leonard L. Sykes, who was convicted in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas of three counts of rape, one count of importuning, and one count of disseminating matter harmful to a juvenile arising from sexual conduct with a twelve-year-old girl, M.P. Sykes appealed, arguing that two cellphones seized from his mother’s apartment should have been suppressed because officers lacked a warrant at the time of seizure and that the later search warrant was invalid for lack of particularity; he also claimed his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence because M.P. recanted her accusations at trial. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. It held that the phones were lawfully seized during a welfare check for a runaway minor under exigent circumstances and plain-view observations, that the subsequent warrant was supported by probable cause from the victim’s statements and met constitutional requirements, and that abundant testimony from officers, social workers, and a nurse independently supported the verdicts even without the phone evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Bishop, defendant James K. Bishop appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial in his 2018 Jefferson County convictions for theft, receiving stolen property, burglary, and safecracking, which stemmed from a 2016 incident in which he allegedly stole money and jewelry while working at a victim's home. Bishop claimed the motion was justified by newly discovered evidence he allegedly learned during a separate 2025 Richland County prosecution against him for extortion and intimidation. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, ruling that Bishop had not provided clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering any such evidence in time to file a timely motion under Crim.R. 33, had not even specified what the evidence was, and that his claims were either unrelated to the original case or barred by res judicata from his prior unsuccessful post-conviction filings.

criminal lawprocedure