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 16, 2025
CAPTION: STATE V. JEWELL
APPEAL NO.: C-240406
TRIAL NO.: B-2204946-A
KEY WORDS: MOTION TO SUPPRESS – CUSTODY – WAIVER – INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL – COMPLICITY INSTRUCTION – JURY ADMONISHMENTS – R.C. 2945.34 – MURDER – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress on the grounds that defendant should have been Mirandized; although in prison, defendant was not subject to custodial interrogation, given that the interview was conducted in an office at defendant’s initiation, defendant was not handcuffed, the interview was short in duration, and defendant could leave at any time.
The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress because defendant’s voluntary participation in police questioning after expressly indicating that he understood his Miranda rights implied that he waived his right against self-incrimination.
Defendant did not receive the ineffective assistance of counsel where he could not demonstrate prejudice from his counsel’s failure to cite the Ohio Constitution as a basis for his motion to suppress.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a complicity instruction where the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to conclude that defendant was either the principal offender or an accomplice.
The trial court failed to strictly deliver the jury admonishments required by R.C. 2945.34, but no plain error occurred since the outcome of the trial would not have been different had the trial court more rigidly followed the statute.
Defendant’s conviction for murder was supported by sufficient evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the record shows that defendant used his codefendant’s gun to pick up the victim with his codefendants and to shoot him on the side of the road.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, P.J.; BOCK and MOORE, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. KIRKENDALL
Appeal No. C-240438
TRIAL No. C/24/CRB/3579/A
KEY WORDS: MISDEMEANOR SENTENCING — COMMUNITY CONTROL — R.C. 2929.25(A)(1) — HOUSE ARREST — R.C. 2929.01(P)
SUMMARY: The trial court exceeded its statutory authority when it imposed house arrest with a limited exception for treatment as a community-control sanction as punishment for a misdemeanor conviction because the statutory definition of house arrest requires an exception for employment.
JUDGMENT: VACATED AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: Love v. hamilton county job & family services
APPEAL No.: C-240468
TRIAL No.: A-2401554
KEY WORDS: capacity – civ.R. 3(A) – personal jursidiction – Civ.R. 12(B)(2) – Civ.R. 12(B)(6) – POLITICAL SUBDIVISION EMPLOYEe IMMUNITY – R.C. 2744.02 – Procedural Due Process
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err in concluding that the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services lacked the capacity to be sued because no statute had given the department that capacity.
Because the trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services based on the department’s lack of capacity, and because a defendant’s lack of capacity deprives a trial court of personal jurisdiction over that defendant, the trial court erred by dismissing those claims with prejudice pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), rather than without prejudice pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(2).
The trial court did not err in dismissing claims against individual defendants where plaintiff did not assert any cause of action recognized under Ohio law.
The trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claim for gross negligence against an individual defendant based on political-subdivision-employee immunity, R.C. 2744.03, where plaintiff’s complaint alleged that defendant was, at most, negligent.
Plaintiff failed to state a claim to recover damages for deprivation of procedural due process because no allegation in his complaint suggested that the named defendant either deprived him of a constitutionally-protected interest or prevented him from availing himself of the relevant protective procedures.
Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which injunctive relief could be granted where nothing in the complaint suggested that the named defendant had the power to remedy plaintiff’s allegedly ongoing injury.
JUDGMENT: Affirmed as modified
JUDGES: OPINION by Crouse, P.J.; BOCK and MOORE, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. NEAL
APPEAL NO.: C-240674
TRIAL NOS.: C/24/TRC/5091/B
KEY WORDS: MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA
SUMMARY: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea where: (1) defendant was represented by competent counsel when he entered the plea; (2) defendant was afforded a complete Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy; (3) defendant failed to include specific reasons for withdrawing his plea; and (4) the record does not demonstrate that defendant did not understand the charges and possible penalties he was facing or had a complete defense to the charge.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by MOORE, J.; BOCK, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.