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, July 9, 2025

CAPTION: STATE V. MILLER

APPEAL NO.: C-240378 

TRIAL NO.: B-1204674

KEY WORDS: RES JUDICATA — POSTCONVICTION — SENTENCE

SUMMARY: Defendant’s postconviction challenge to his sentence is barred by res judicata where the trial court had jurisdiction over defendant’s case and person. 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED 

JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, P.J.; BOCK and MOORE, JJ., CONCUR.

 

CAPTION: 2900 INVESTMENTS, LLC V. JEBRIL

APPEAL NO.: C-240514 

TRIAL NO.: A-2300729

KEY WORDS: RECORD ON APPEAL — APP.R. 9 — EASEMENT — PRESCRIPTION — EVIDENCE 

SUMMARY: The exhibits admitted at trial and held by the trial court exhibit clerk are a part of the appellate record under App.R. 9. 

The trial court did not err when it found that the plaintiff proved all the required elements of a prescriptive easement over defendant’s property where the evidence presented at trial definitively established the area over which the easement was claimed and how the area was used by plaintiff openly, consistently and without permission since 1990.

The trial court’s description of the easement in its judgment entry was insufficient where the entry merely described the easement as the “property at issue” rather than providing a sufficient description of the location of the easement, such as by incorporating the survey map exhibit utilized at trial. 

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED

JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.

 

CAPTION: STATE V. DOWELL

APPEAL NO.: C-240712 

TRIAL NOS.: C/24/CRB/7008/A/B

KEY WORDS: MOTION TO DISMISS – RESISTING ARREST – OBSTRUCTION OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

SUMMARY: Where defendant resisted police officers’ attempts to take her into custody pursuant to R.C. 5122.10, Ohio’s civil commitment statute, the trial court erred in dismissing defendant’s charges for resisting arrest and obstructing official business even though R.C. 5122.10 does not contain a criminal penalty for refusing to submit to custody, because obstructing official business does not require an illegal act to have occurred and the complaints, on their faces, fulfilled each legal element of the crimes charged.

JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED

JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR, J.; CROUSE, P.J., and MOORE, J., CONCUR.