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: Tuesday, December 23, 2025
CAPTION: STATE V. BAXTER
APPEAL NO.: C-240555
TRIAL NO.: B-2305281-B
KEY WORDS: SECOND AMENDMENT — CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS —IMPROPER HANDLING
SUMMARY: The trial court erred when it granted 18-year-old defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge of unlawfully carrying concealed weapons: in State v. Reed, 2025-Ohio-4708 (1st Dist.), this court held that the State may prosecute unqualified adults for carrying concealed weapons.
The trial court erred when it dismissed the charge for improper handling of firearms in a motor vehicle: in State v. Hall, 2025-Ohio-1644 (1st Dist.), this court held that the State has a lawful interest in regulating concealed weapons, and in State v. Stonewall, 2025-Ohio-4974 (1st Dist.), this court held that the statute prohibiting defendant from carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle until he reaches the age of 21 is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of restricting the rights of those deemed unable to responsibly carry firearms. [See CONCURRENCE: Pursuant to our Nation’s history and tradition, the state may regulate the manner in which individuals may carry firearms, but any age-based restrictions must be tied to the age of majority.] [But see DISSENT: Dismissal of the charges was appropriate because the 18-year-old defendant’s conduct would not have been criminal if he had been 21. See State v. Reed, 2025-Ohio-4708, ¶ 48 (1st Dist.) (Bock, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part), and State v. Barber, 2025-Ohio-1193, ¶ 64-79 (1st Dist.).
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED.
JUDGES: OPINION by MOORE, J.; CROUSE, P.J., CONCURS SEPARATELY, and BOCK, J. DISSENTS.
CAPTION: STATE V. HARDY
APPEAL NO.: C-250011
TRIAL NO.: B-2400481
KEY WORDS: MURDER — SUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE — COUNSEL
SUMMARY: Defendant’s conviction for murder was supported by sufficient evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence presented at trial established that an individual wearing camouflage clothing was walking near the scene of the shooting at the time that the shooting occurred, a pair of camouflage pants and a camouflage jacket were found in defendant’s apartment, the camouflage jacket tested positive for gunshot residue, the murder weapon was found in defendant’s safe, and defendant’s DNA was recovered from the weapon and the camouflage jacket.
Defense counsel were not ineffective for failing to move for a mistrial after a juror may have seen defendant in handcuffs where the record failed to definitively establish which juror was implicated and whether that juror, in fact, saw defendant in handcuffs, and where counsel weighed all potential options before electing not to question the jurors or move for a mistrial.
Where the testimony that any expert may have offered was purely speculative, defense counsel were not ineffective for failing to engage an expert witness in crime scene reconstruction.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and ZAYAS, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. DURBIN
APPEAL NO.: C-250063
TRIAL NO.: B-2400490-B
KEY WORDS: EVID.R. 404(B) — OTHER-BAD-ACT EVIDENCE — PLAIN ERROR — EVID.R. 801 — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY AND WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE — R.C. 2903.11 — FELONIOUS ASSAULT
SUMMARY: No plain error resulted from the trial court’s admission of evidence about defendant’s drug use where the evidence was relevant for the nonpropensity purpose of establishing defendant’s motive and where defendant suffered no prejudice from admission of the evidence.
Where a statement is an admission of a party opponent and is not hearsay, a separate analysis must be conducted to determine whether the statement is admissible under Evid.R. 404(B).
Where defendant checked into a hotel to avoid arrest, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a video of defendant’s subsequent arrest because the video was relevant and admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt.
Defendant’s conviction for felonious assault was supported by sufficient evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the record shows that the victim was dragged and run over by a vehicle driven by defendant and suffered serious physical harm.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and MOORE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. ROBERTS
APPEAL NO.: C-250107
TRIAL NOS.: 21/CRB/10374/A, 21/CRB/10374/B, 21/CRB/10374/C
KEY WORDS: EXPUNGEMENT — R.C. 2353.32 — R.C. 2353.33 — OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD — FULL AND FAIR HEARING
SUMMARY: Defendant received a full and fair hearing because although the judge denied the expungement before defendant had the opportunity to be heard, defendant spoke before the hearing ended, which allowed the trial court to consider all defendant said before journalizing its judgment.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR, J.; CROUSE, P.J., and BOCK, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. UNDERWOOD
APPEAL NOS.: C-250223, C-250224
TRIAL NOS.: B-2304519, B-2400283
KEY WORDS: ANDERS — PLEA — APPELLATE COUNSEL
SUMMARY: Where appellant’s counsel filed a no-error brief, and where the record contains a legal issue arguable on the merits as to whether the trial court’s involvement in the plea-bargaining process rendered appellant’s pleas involuntary, counsel’s motion to withdraw must be granted and new counsel appointed to brief the identified issue.
JUDGES: OPINION by CROUSE, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and ZAYAS, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. BRIERS
APPEAL NO.: C-250267
TRIAL NO.: 25/CRB/1923
KEY WORDS: PUBLIC INDECENCY — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — MANIFEST WEIGHT
SUMMARY: Defendant’s conviction for public indecency was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where the evidence established defendant exposed his penis and urinated while standing on a public sidewalk on a public roadway next to a bus stop in broad daylight.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, P.J.; BOCK and NESTOR, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. CANNON
APPEAL NO.: C-250313
TRIAL NO.: B-2403430
KEY WORDS: COMMUNITY-CONTROL SENTENCING — PLAIN ERROR — MERGER — DOUBLE JEOPARDY
SUMMARY: The trial court did not err by imposing a jail term of 180 days as part of defendant’s community-control sentence, where the jail term was authorized under R.C. 2929.16(A)(2) and the jail term was not imposed as a result of actual vindictiveness.
The trial court committed plain error, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, by imposing multiple sentences on two drug-trafficking convictions where the factual basis of the convictions was one sale of a single mixture of drugs, and the offenses should have been merged.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, P.J.; BOCK and NESTOR, JJ., CONCUR.