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 7, 2025
CAPTION: STATE V. YODER
APPEAL NO.: C-240152
TRIAL NO.: B-2201028
KEY WORDS: RAPE — FELONIOUS ASSAULT — KIDNAPPING — ALLIED OFFENSES — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT —CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL — DUE PROCESS — PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY — CRIM.R. 33
SUMMARY: The State’s delay in indicting the defendant was constitutionally reasonable and did not violate his due process rights.
The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial where there was no evidence that defendant was incompetent at the time of trial.
The trial court did not err in failing to merge rape and felonious assault convictions where the harms to the victim were separate.
Defendant’s convictions for rape were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the jury believed the victim’s testimony.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR; CROUSE, P.J., and MOORE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STEWART V. STEWART
APPEAL NO.: C-240350
TRIAL NO.: DR-2200237
KEY WORDS: DIVORCE — PROPERTY — VALUATION — APP.R. 12(A)(2) — DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD — APP.R. 23
SUMMARY: The trial court’s valuation of real property was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the trial court had before it two competing expert appraisals and the trial court’s determinations regarding the valuation were supported by the record.
The trial court did not err in utilizing the evidence presented at trial to value the vehicles at issue where no evidence of value was offered as of the marriage termination date and the evidence admitted at trial offered a value closer in time to the marriage termination date than the date of the initial property statements.
Husband failed to meet his burden to show error on appeal where he challenges the trial court’s inequitable distribution award, that was based on extensive financial records admitted at trial, without pointing to or challenging any specific transaction from the financial records relied upon by the trial court when making this award.
The trial court was not required to make a finding under R.C. 3105.171(E)(2) that distributing the parties’ traveler points in kind was impractical or burdensome where the trial court never made a distributive award as defined in R.C. 3105.171(A)(1).
The appeal was not frivolous under App.R. 23, despite husband’s failure to cite any relevant authority, where husband provided citations to the record and the appeal was ultimately a fact-intensive appeal.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, P.J.; BOCK and MOORE, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. HOLLOWAY
APPEAL NO.: C-240453
TRIAL NOS.: C/24/TRC/13840/A/B/C/D
KEY WORDS: OVI — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT — VENUE
SUMMARY: Defendant’s conviction for operating a vehicle while impaired was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where the evidence established that defendant was excessively speeding, had a strong odor of alcohol on her person, stumbled while exiting from her vehicle, had glossy eyes, and was slurring her speech, and the officer testified that he believed she was “appreciably impaired,” and the factfinder found the officer’s testimony to be credible.
The State presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish venue where the officer testified that he worked for the Village of St. Bernard, he witnessed an initial traffic infraction in Cincinnati, which was outside of his jurisdiction, he stopped defendant in his jurisdiction, and he testified to specific streets in St. Bernard.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART AND APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, P.J.; NESTOR and MOORE, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. TATE
APPEAL NO.: C-240473
TRIAL NO.: B-2001014
KEY WORDS: POSTCONVICTION — RES JUDICATA
SUMMARY: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing defendant’s petition for postconviction relief on the basis of res judicata where defendant’s two postconviction claims relied on evidence contained within the trial record and therefore could have been raised and litigated on direct appeal.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and BOCK, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: C/S CHILDREN
APPEAL NOS.: C-250018, C-250026, C-250041
TRIAL NO.: F/19/1267 X
KEY WORDS: PERMANENT CUSTODY – BEST INTEREST – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – R.C. 2151.414(B)(1)(d) – 12-OF-22 MONTHS – R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(d) – LEGALLY SECURE PLACEMENT – R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e) – PRESUMPTION OF ABANDONMENT
SUMMARY: The juvenile court did not err when it awarded permanent custody of the minor children to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”), given that Mother, an out-of-state resident, lacked approval under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (“ICPC”).
Even if Mother had ICPC approval, the juvenile court did not err in concluding that Mother was not a legally secure placement for the children, as evidenced by Mother’s ongoing relationship with a partner who in the past had allegedly abused her.
The juvenile court did not err by refusing to order HCJFS to make a fourth ICPC referral for Mother when such a referral is not mandated by law and is left to the discretion of HCJFS.
[But see DISSENT: Ohio’s ICPC statute, as applied to Mother, failed to provide constitutionally-sufficient due process where it (1) did not afford Mother a meaningful opportunity to present evidence that supported the return of her children; (2) failed to secure the right to judicial review of an adverse ICPC determination in Kentucky; (3) failed to protect the right to counsel in Kentucky; and (4) vested the judicial determination of the children’s disposition in the unchecked discretion of an out-of-state executive agency, thereby violating the separation of powers principle.]
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by MOORE, J.; ZAYAS, J., CONCURS and KINSLEY, P.J., DISSENTS.