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, May 15, 2024
CAPTION: STATE V. JACKSON
APPEAL NO.: C-230446
TRIAL NO.: B-2000335
KEY WORDS: POSTCONVICTION — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
SUMMARY: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant’s petition for postconviction relief where there was competent, credible evidence supporting the court’s finding that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to argue in defendant’s motion to suppress that his cognitive deficits prevented defendant from knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waiving his Miranda rights and voluntarily confessing: the trial court properly relied on the expert psychologist’s opinion set forth in his report to determine that trial counsel’s performance was deficient where the expert, after completing his report, reviewed the video recordings of defendant’s police interviews and opined that the recordings further supported his opinion that defendant’s intellectual capacity prevented him from competently waiving his rights. [But See DISSENT: The trial court abused its discretion by granting postconviction relief when it failed to apply the proper analysis to determine whether defendant had been prejudiced by trial counsel’s deficient performance.]
JUDGMENTS: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, P.J.; KINSLEY, J., CONCURS and WINKLER, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART.
CAPTION: STATE V. J.B.
APPEAL NOS.: C-230499, C-230500, C-230501, C-230502, C-230503, C-230504, C-230505
TRIAL NOS.: 12CRB-21204, C-12CRB-29845, 14CRB-14457, C-14CRB-14902, C-14CRB-25518, C-15CRB-27045-A and B, C-16CRB-16349
KEY WORDS: R.C. 2953.32 – RECORD SEALING – ABUSE OF DISCRETION
SUMMARY: The trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant’s applications for record sealing where the trial court based its decision on the number of and nature of defendant’s misdemeanor convictions, and therefore, the cause must be remanded with instructions to the trial court to grant the applications.
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by BERGERON, P.J.; CROUSE and KINSLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF ARIANA HYDE
APPEAL NO.: C-230576
TRIAL NO.: 2018003726
KEY WORDS: GUARDIANSHIP – ABUSE OF DISCRETION – REMOVAL – R.C. 2109.24 – BEST INTERESTS – SUP.R. 66.09 – DUE DILIGENCE – LEAST RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVE
SUMMARY: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying mother’s applications to remove the guardian of her adult daughter and appoint her as guardian where the trial court based its decision on the best interests of the ward and the record supports the trial court’s decision.
The trial court did not err in concluding that the guardian had fulfilled its duties where the guardian supported the effort to move the ward to a less restrictive environment, acted in the ward’s best interests, and meaningfully visited with the ward at least five times in one year.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BERGERON, J.; BOCK, P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.