FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Friday, March 15, 2024
CAPTION: STATE V. FRAZIER
APPEAL NO.: C-230177
TRIAL NO.: B-2203993
KEY WORDS: JURY WAIVER – R.C. 2945.05
SUMMARY: The trial court violated defendant’s right to a jury trial when the trial court proceeded to a bench trial without first addressing defendant in open court and confirming that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, as required by R.C. 2945.05.
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, P.J.; CROUSE and WINKLER, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. HUGHES
APPEAL NO: C-230239
TRIAL NO: 23CRB-815B
KEY WORDS: WEAPONS – HAVING A WEAPON WHILE INTOXICATED – PLAIN ERROR – INTOXICATION – FIREARM – OPERABILITY
SUMMARY: The trial court did not commit plain error by admitting the writing on an evidence envelope together with its contents as one exhibit because the writing was not probative of any element of the offense and thus defendant could not have been prejudiced by its admission.
Defendant’s conviction for having a weapon while under the influence was based on sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where two witnesses opined that defendant was under the influence of alcohol and observed multiple physical indica of intoxication and where the firearm was loaded when it was seized from defendant, a trained police officer opined the firearm was operable at the time of seizure, the firearm was test-fired, and defendant made statements indicating the firearm was operable.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by WINKLER, J.; BERGERON, P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. STROUD
APPEAL NOS.: C-230453, C-230454
TRIAL NOS.: B-2106248, B-2301133
KEY WORDS: SENTENCING – R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) – COMMUNITY-CONTROL VIOLATION – R.C. 2929.15 – POSTRELEASE CONTROL – CRIM.R. 43
SUMMARY: Where the community-control violations committed by defendant were both technical and nontechnical, the trial court was not limited to imposing the 90-day limit for technical violations for a fifth-degree felony offense set forth in R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i).
The trial court erred by failing to provide the required postrelease-control notifications at the sentencing hearing.
The trial court violated defendant’s Crim.R. 43(A) right to be present during sentencing when it failed to impose a sentence for the offense of aggravated possession of drugs in open court at the sentencing hearing.
JUDGMENTS: AFFIRMED IN PART, SENTENCES REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING
JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., CONCUR.