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, May 3, 2024
CAPTION: STATE V. JOHNSON
APPEAL NOS.: C-230439, C-230440, C-230441, C-230442
TRIAL NO.: C-23TRC-4447-A, C-23TRC-4447-B, C-23TRC-4447-C, C-23TRC-4447-D
KEY WORDS: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – SPEEDY TRIAL – R.C. 2945.71
SUMMARY: The trial court erred in dismissing the traffic charges against defendant on constitutional speedy-trial grounds, because the state’s delay in serving defendant was not the result of a deliberate act, but was merely negligent—the state made initial efforts to serve defendant, including an attempt to serve defendant at an unrelated court proceeding, but thereafter, the state failed to act with reasonable diligence—and defendant failed to show particularized trial prejudice.
Where the trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss on constitutional speedy-trial grounds, and the trial court did not make any findings or legal conclusions with regard to defendant’s statutory speedy-trial argument, the cause must be remanded for the trial court to decide in the first instance whether defendant’s statutory speedy-trial rights were violated.
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by WINKLER, J.; BOCK, P.J., and ZAYAS, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. GRIFFIN
APPEAL NOS.: C-230524, C-230525
TRIAL NOS.: B-2000867, B-2205804
KEY WORDS: SEARCH AND SEIZURE – SEARCH WARRANT STALENESS
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found during the search of his home in accord with a warrant where the warrant listed having weapons under disability rather than felonious assault, which was the offense that the police were investigating, because the failure to specify the offense to which the evidence is related by name or code section in the affidavit is not constitutionally significant and does not require the suppression of evidence seized pursuant to that warrant.
The information in the affidavit supporting the search warrant was not stale where the warrant was sought a week after a shooting as part of an ongoing investigation and where the perpetrator was originally unidentified.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN C-230525; APPEAL DISMISSED IN C-230524
JUDGES: OPINION by WINKLER, J.; BOCK, P.J., and ZAYAS, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: Z.F., M.F., AND R.M.
APPEAL NO.: C-240050
TRIAL NO.: F17-921Z
KEY WORDS: CUSTODY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – JUVENILE – PARENTAL TERMINATION – BEST INTEREST – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENY
SUMMARY: The juvenile court’s granting of permanent custody of the 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 because under R.C. 2151.414(E), the children cannot and should not be placed with father and father failed to show that he was able to provide stable housing and an adequate permanent home for the children pursuant to R.C. 2151(D)(1)(d).
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, J.; BERGERON, P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.