Thomas R. Wright

In State v. Pruitt, the defendant was charged with two third-degree felony counts of failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer after she led police on high-speed chases in two separate jurisdictions, driving recklessly and endangering others before abandoning her vehicle and fleeing on foot. Pursuant to a plea agreement she pleaded guilty to one count, and the trial court sentenced her to 36 months in prison after reviewing the presentence investigation report and applying the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Pruitt appealed, arguing that the court improperly treated the conduct as two separate offenses and relied on two prior no-billed failure-to-comply cases. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that any error in considering the no-billed cases was not plain error because the defendant did not object, the sentence was supported by her extensive criminal history and the seriousness of the offense, and appellate courts may not reweigh sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved former high school band directors Gretchen Weaver and Shane Ellsworth suing parents Matthew and Shannon Deevers, Ginger and Jeffrey Maines, the Streetsboro City Schools Board of Education, and several school administrators. The suit alleged defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy arising from the parents' complaints about alleged hazing and harassment at a 2016 band camp, which prompted an investigation that led to the teachers' separation from the school. The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants, and the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the parents' statements were protected by qualified privilege as reports to school officials about potential policy violations, the school defendants' actions in conducting the investigation did not constitute extreme or outrageous conduct, and no underlying unlawful act supported the conspiracy claim.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Barna, the defendant appealed from a municipal court's dismissal of criminal charges against him, which occurred on the state's motion at a preliminary hearing after the grand jury had indicted him on the same charges. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that the municipal court's order was not a final appealable order subject to review. The court reasoned that appellate jurisdiction is limited to final orders under the Ohio Constitution and R.C. 2953.02, and that a dismissal of charges on the state's motion before jeopardy attaches does not qualify as final under R.C. 2505.02(B) or any specific statute. It cited supporting precedent that such dismissals do not produce appealable orders.

criminal lawprocedure

Walter E. Reyes pleaded guilty in 2010 to rapes committed in 2006-2007 and was classified as a Tier III sex offender under Ohio's Adam Walsh Act (S.B. 10). Years later, he moved to vacate the classification as an unconstitutional retroactive law under the state constitution, citing the Williams decision, and sought reclassification under the prior Megan's Law. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, and the court of appeals affirmed, holding that any classification error was voidable (not void) because the court had jurisdiction, that the motion was an untimely postconviction petition, and that res judicata barred the claim since it could have been raised on direct appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Joyce, the defendant pled guilty to multiple felonies including attempted murder and aggravated robbery and was sentenced by the trial court to an aggregate indefinite prison term of 20 to 25.5 years under Ohio's Reagan Tokes Act. On appeal, he argued that the Act's indefinite sentencing provisions violate separation of powers, due process, and vagueness principles under the state and federal constitutions, seeking to have his sentence vacated. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that the constitutional challenges were not ripe for review because it remains uncertain whether the defendant will be held beyond his minimum term. The court reasoned that such claims are premature at sentencing and should instead be raised later, if at all, through a habeas corpus petition once any extended detention occurs, consistent with its prior precedent on similar sentencing schemes.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a dispute among the ten children of decedent Patricia R. White over the administration and final distribution of her inter vivos trust, which had been modified shortly before her 2013 death to alter successor trustees and allocate real property. Plaintiffs sued in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas (after voluntarily dismissing a prior probate-court action), alleging fraudulent conduct by some siblings regarding the modification and finances; the parties reached partial settlements in 2018, and the trial court later approved the final trust report and distribution while denying requests for attorney fees and vexatious-litigator sanctions. Defendant-appellant Patricia Ellen White challenged the trial court's jurisdiction, denial of a formal accounting, and other rulings. The Eleventh District affirmed, reasoning that probate courts have only concurrent jurisdiction over inter vivos trusts under R.C. 2101.24, the jurisdictional-priority rule did not apply because the earlier action had been dismissed under Civ.R. 41(A), and no statutory basis existed for a formal accounting.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In Evon v. Walters, the buyer of farmland sued the sellers for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment after discovering post-purchase issues with drainage and flooding, a concealed second well, and freezing pipes, alleging the sellers failed to disclose known defects on the required residential property disclosure form despite an "as is" sale agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment to the sellers on all claims. The appellate court affirmed in part, holding that summary judgment was proper on claims involving the well and pipes as well as abandoned issues like the CAUV tax credit, but reversed in part on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim tied to flooding and drainage. It found genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the sellers knowingly made false representations on the disclosure form about seasonal flooding that was material to the purchase and whether the buyer could have discovered the issue through reasonable inspection at the time of sale, warranting remand for further proceedings.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved David A. Nixon appealing a trial court order setting his bond at $100,000 cash or surety along with a temporary protection order in an ongoing criminal case. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that under Ohio law, including R.C. 2505.02 and R.C. 2953.02, appellate courts in criminal matters may only review judgments or final orders that dispose of the underlying cause, such as a conviction and sentence. Here, no such disposition had occurred because Nixon had not been convicted. The opinion cited precedents confirming that pretrial bond orders do not qualify as final appealable orders.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Parks, the defendant, convicted of multiple charges stemming from a 2018 bank robbery in Willoughby, Ohio, appealed the trial court's denial without a hearing of his petition for postconviction relief. Parks argued that the state had withheld potentially exculpatory recordings from a Cleveland police vehicle at the scene of his detention and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him of his right to testify at the suppression hearing, challenge the state's evidence of his statements, raise certain suppression arguments, review jury instructions, and discuss elements of the arson charge. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that some claims were barred by res judicata from the direct appeal, that Parks failed to demonstrate prejudice under the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

In Ruple v. Ruple, a former husband appealed the trial court's denial of his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from a 2019 dissolution decree and its finding of contempt for failing to sign joint tax refund checks or pay certain credit card debts as required by the incorporated separation agreement. The agreement assigned personal debts to each party, made the husband responsible for business-related debts including those of Chagrin Valley Steel Erectors, and directed equal division of any 2018 tax refund after accountant consultation. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Civ.R. 60(B) cannot circumvent statutory limits on modifying dissolution decrees absent both parties' consent under R.C. 3105.171(I), that the tax-refund provision was unambiguous and not subject to extrinsic evidence of mistake, and that extrinsic evidence was properly considered to allocate the credit-card debt consistently with the agreement's terms; the contempt finding was upheld because no plain error was shown regarding the lack of a compliance deadline.

family lawproceduretaxes

This case involved a dispute between unmarried parents over allocation of parental rights and child support for their child born in 2018. After evidentiary hearings on competing proposed parenting plans, the trial court adopted a modified shared parenting plan giving the father roughly 44% parenting time while ordering him to pay $245.74 monthly in child support. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the plan served the child's best interest and that the support calculation properly applied statutory gross-income definitions without including the mother's representative-payee social-security funds for her sister. The core reasoning focused on statutory requirements for income calculation and deviation factors tied to parenting time and income disparity.

family law

The case involved Anthony J. Hudson's appeal from the denial of his 2020 motion to vacate his 2014 first-degree felony cocaine possession conviction and sentence as void. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion. The core reasoning was that the alleged constitutional violations, including issues with the grand jury process and changes in law from State v. Gonzales, did not render the judgment void under recent Ohio Supreme Court precedent limiting the void sentence doctrine, and the motion was untimely when treated as a postconviction petition under R.C. 2953.21 without meeting any exceptions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Citizens Bank seeking foreclosure on a residential property in Ohio after the borrowers, now deceased, defaulted on two promissory notes secured by mortgages. The bank filed suit against the estate of one borrower, and the administrator opposed summary judgment, arguing that the bank failed to prove proper notice of acceleration as required by the mortgage terms. The trial court granted summary judgment to the bank, finding that it had met all conditions precedent, including providing evidence of the acceleration notice via affidavit and attachments in its reply. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the bank did not improperly raise new issues in reply, that the appellant had waived objections by not moving to strike or seeking surreply, and that no genuine issue of material fact existed under the summary judgment standard. The decision rested on de novo review of the evidence showing compliance with mortgage notice requirements and procedural rules.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Brent G. Hillen appealing from sentencing entries dated January 20, 2021, and February 16, 2021, in two criminal cases from the Portage County Court of Common Pleas. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals sua sponte because the notice of appeal filed on March 5, 2021, was filed fourteen days after the deadline under App.R. 4(A)(1), which requires filing within 30 days of a final entry. The court reasoned that Hillen neither filed a timely notice nor sought leave to appeal under App.R. 5(A), leaving the court without jurisdiction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by the guardian and mother of an injured driver against a freight broker (ProServ) and others following a rear-end collision by a commercial truck on the Ohio Turnpike. The plaintiffs alleged negligence, vicarious liability, and related claims against ProServ as the broker. The trial court dismissed the claims against ProServ, finding they were preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). The appellate court reversed, holding that the FAAAA's safety regulatory exception preserves the state-law negligence claims because they relate to motor vehicle safety.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

The case involved Joey L. Moran, who was charged with multiple counts of grand theft of motor vehicles, grand theft, burglary, and escape after stealing vehicles and items, burglarizing a residence, escaping from jail, and taking a police cruiser while on post-release control. Pursuant to plea agreements, Moran pleaded guilty to several counts, then challenged the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Act as applied to his indeterminate sentence for burglary on grounds including vagueness, separation of powers, right to jury trial, and due process. The trial court rejected the constitutional challenge, imposed prison terms including an aggregate of seven and one-half to nine and one-half years with consecutive sentences across cases, and the appellate court affirmed, relying on prior precedent upholding the Act and finding the sentencing record supported the consecutive terms under statutory factors.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute between neighboring property owners in Geauga County, Ohio, where Randall Hedrick sued James and Melanie Szep for trespass, alleging that a chain-link fence erected by the Szeps encroaches on his land. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Szeps, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. The court reasoned that the undisputed evidence showed the fence had been in place and the land on the Szeps' side maintained exclusively by them or prior owners since at least 1991, satisfying the elements of adverse possession for over 21 years, which barred Hedrick's trespass claim under the statute of limitations for recovery of real estate. The complaint against Melanie Szep was also properly dismissed as the trespass claim failed as a matter of law.

propertytorts & liability

In State v. Lacy, the defendant appealed the trial court's denial of his motions seeking additional jail-time credit in two separate criminal cases involving failure to comply with a police officer and drug trafficking charges. After pleading guilty and receiving sentences of 12 months and three years respectively, with specified jail credits, Lacy requested 184 additional days of credit per case, but the trial court overruled the motions because he had been serving time on an unrelated matter. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, reasoning that without transcripts of the original sentencing hearings, Lacy could not demonstrate that the jail-time credit issue had not been previously considered, as required by statute to allow a post-sentencing motion for correction.

criminal lawprocedure

Beatrice Oliveri sued OsteoStrong for negligence after suffering a thoracic compression fracture during her second supervised exercise session on the facility's machines, claiming failures to warn, instruct, supervise, and maintain safe equipment. The trial court granted summary judgment to OsteoStrong, ruling that Oliveri had waived her claims and expressly assumed the risk via a signed wellness assessment containing a liability release. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the waiver ambiguous and insufficient to bar negligence claims, that primary assumption of risk did not apply because the injury did not stem from an inherent danger of the exercise, and that factual questions remained on implied assumption of risk under comparative negligence principles.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved an appeal by Odraye G. Jones from a trial court's February 26, 2021 order denying his post-conviction motions for discovery, appointment of counsel, evidentiary hearings, and other relief in his underlying criminal case. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal sua sponte as untimely, noting that the notice of appeal was filed on April 2, 2021, after the 30-day deadline under App.R. 4(A) had expired on March 29, 2021. The court reasoned that post-conviction proceedings are civil matters, the judgment was properly served on the filing date in compliance with Civ.R. 58(B), the appeal period is jurisdictional and cannot be enlarged, and therefore the filing was late.

criminal lawprocedure