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: Wednesday, April 23, 2025
CAPTION: STATE V. MARSHALL
APPEAL NOS.: C-230594, C-230595
TRIAL NOS.: B-0310326, B-2201497
KEY WORDS: JUDICIAL RELEASE — COMMUNITY CONTROL
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err under R.C. 2929.20(K) in revoking defendant’s community control sanctions and reimposing the remainder of defendant’s original prison term following judicial release when, at the time of judicial release, the trial court expressly reserved the right to reimpose a prison term upon defendant if he violated community control.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN C-230594; APPEAL DISMISSED IN C-230595
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, P.J.; ZAYAS and MOORE, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: HO V. CO
APPEAL NO.: C-240338
TRIAL NO.: DR-2001507
KEY WORDS: CONTEMPT — POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST — SERVICE — VEXATIOUS LITIGATOR
SUMMARY: In a divorce case, any deficiency in service of the trial court’s entry clarifying appellee-father’s interest award did not render that order void, and the deficiency was harmless where the order failed to set a deadline for payment of an interest award.
In a divorce case, the trial court did not err when its interest award included interest that accrued while matters were stayed during the pendency of an appeal.
In a divorce case, appellant-mother’s vexatious-litigator status did not make the proceedings on appellee-father’s motions for postjudgment interest and contempt fundamentally unfair because that status did not impede her ability to oppose those motions in responsive filings.
In a divorce case, appellant-mother’s failure to file transcripts of hearings on appellee-father’s motions to clarify his interest award and for contempt prevented the appeals court from reaching the merits of appellant-mother’s substantive arguments.
[But see DISSENT: The appeal is moot based on appellant-mother’s voluntary satisfaction of the purge condition during the pendency of the appeal.]
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., CONCURS and ZAYAS, J., DISSENTS.
CAPTION: ZHANG V. ZHENG
APPEAL NO: C-240430
TRIAL NO: A-2104403
KEY WORDS: CONTRACTS – FRAUD – SUMMARY JUDGMENT
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err in granting defendants’ summary judgment motion on plaintiff’s claim for fraud in the execution of a document, which transferred plaintiff’s interest in defendant limited liability company to defendant member of the limited liability company, where plaintiff, by his own deposition testimony, could not prove any fraud with respect to the execution of the document or the transfer of his interest.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: A.B.
APPEAL NOS.: C-240478, C-240479, C-240480, C-240481, C-240482, C-240483, C-240484, C-240485, C-240486, C-240487, C-240488, C-240489
TRIAL NOS.: 24/271-13 X, 24/271-12 X, 24/271-11 X, 24/271-10 X, 24/271-09 X, 24/271-08 X, 24/271-07 X, 24/271-06 X, 24/271-05 X, 24/271-04 X, 24/271-03 X, 24/271-02 X
KEY WORDS: ALLIED OFFENSES — INDUCING PANIC
SUMMARY: The juvenile court did not err by imposing separate sentences for the juvenile’s 12 adjudications for inducing panic where the offenses were not allied offenses of similar import because each offense targeted a different victim: although the juvenile intended to carry out his murderous plan at one public place, his admitted intent was to kill, rape, or kidnap only the 12 named individuals on his “hit list,” and those individuals were treated as victims by the parties and the court throughout the proceedings.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by MOORE, J.; ZAYAS P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: J. CHILDREN
APPEAL NOS.: C-250027, C-250053
TRIAL NO.: F/21/1204 X
KEY WORDS: PERMANENT CUSTODY — BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD
SUMMARY: The juvenile court’s award of permanent custody of three children to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where mother and father had not been consistent in their progress with case-plan services, nor did parents demonstrate an ability to provide a legally-secure permanent placement that would enable the children to safely return to their care, particularly with regard to substance abuse, domestic violence, stable income, and housing.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, P.J.; ZAYAS and MOORE, JJ., CONCUR.