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, October 15, 2025
CAPTION: State v. Chambers
PPEAL No.: C-240578
TRIAL Nos.: 24/CRB/9650/B/C
KEY WORDS: Mootness — Obstructing official business — R.C. 2921.31 — Resisting arrest — R.C. 2921.33 — Mens Rea — Specific Intent — First Amendment — Sufficiency of the Evidence — Substantial Stoppage
SUMMARY: Because defendant was sentenced only to the time he had involuntarily served prior to trial, defendant did not serve his sentence voluntarily, and his misdemeanor appeal was not moot.
Evidence that defendant shouted and cursed at officers and his alleged victim in a manner that derailed the officers’ investigation, together with evidence suggesting an obstructive intent, including defendant’s refusal to sit on the curb and attempts to step away from the approaching officer, was sufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction for obstructing official business.
Evidence that officers witnessed defendant obstruct official business, that defendant protested he did not wish to be arrested, and that the officers sought to physically seize and restrain him before he resisted, was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for resisting arrest.
JUDGMENT: affirmed
JUDGES: OPINION by Crouse, P.J.; BOCK and MOORE, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. SAUNDERS
APPEAL NO.: C-240664
TRIAL NOS.: C/24/CRB/9444/A, C/24/CRB/9444/B
KEY WORDS: DOUBLE JEOPARDY — SUA SPONTE MISTRIAL — CONSENT —NECESSITY
SUMMARY: The trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges based on double jeopardy where the trial court presiding over defendant’s first trial had abused its discretion in sua sponte declaring a mistrial: defendant did not consent to the mistrial and the original judge’s act of affirming the prosecutor’s recollection of an in-chambers discussion between the parties did not prevent a fair trial.
JUDGMENTS: REVERSED AND APPELLANT DISCHARGED
JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: QUEHL V. ROBERTS
APPEAL NO.: C-250031
TRIAL NO.: DR-2301002
KEY WORDS: CUSTODY – MAGISTRATE – CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES – BEST INTEREST
SUMMARY: The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it overturned the magistrate’s decision and denied a nonresidential parent’s motion to modify the custody decree allocating parental rights and responsibilities because the trial court had a duty to conduct an independent review of the facts and law, and competent and credible evidence supports the trial court’s finding that modification was not necessary to serve the best interests of the two children.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, J.; CROUSE, P.J., and MOORE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. BISHOP
APPEAL NO.: C-250050
TRIAL NOS.: C/24/CRB/7910/A/B
KEY WORDS: MOTION TO SUPPRESS — WAIVER — ALLIED OFFENSES — FAILING TO DISCLOSE A CONCEALED HANDGUN
SUMMARY: Defendant waived his Fifth-Amendment challenge regarding the officer’s questioning where he failed to raise the issue in his motion to suppress.
The trial court committed plain error by failing to merge the carrying-a-concealed-weapon and improper-handling convictions where the offenses were similar in import, committed at the same time, and committed with a single animus, where both offenses were based on defendant’s failure to disclose a concealed handgun to the officer.
JUDGMENTS: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and MOORE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE M. CHILDREN
APPEAL NO.: C-250379
TRIAL NO.: F/20/1196 Z
KEY WORDS: PERMANENT CUSTODY – REASONABLE EFFORTS – BEST INTERESTS – MANIFEST WEIGHT
SUMMARY: The juvenile court did not have to determine whether the child-services agency made reasonable efforts to reunify the family when deciding a motion for permanent custody filed under R.C. 2151.413 where a reasonable-efforts finding was made at earlier stages of the proceedings.
The juvenile court’s decision to grant the child-services agency permanent custody of the children based on mother’s inability to provide a legally secure permanent placement to the children was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence showed that mother continued to test positive for methamphetamine months before the custody hearing and had not distanced herself from her abusive relationship with father. [See CONCURRENCE: Given that permanent custody is the family law equivalent of the death penalty, and given that “behavioral change” is a vague term with no legal meaning, greater precision is required in distinguishing cannot-or-should-not-place cases, in which the juvenile court can consider whether a parent remedied the conditions that led a child to be removed from the home, from 12-in-22 cases, in which the juvenile court considers the broader question of whether a parent can provide a legally secure placement for the child.]
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, J.; CROUSE, J., CONCURS and KINSLEY, P.J., CONCURS SEPARATELY.