The Ninth District upheld an Alford plea but remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to make any findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) before imposing consecutive sentences.
The Ninth District affirmed a murder conviction, holding that the defendant forfeited jury instruction challenges by failing to object and that Ohio’s self-defense presumption under R.C. 2901.05(B)(2) was unavailable because the victim had a right to be in the residence.
The Ninth District dismissed the State’s appeal of a trial court’s refusal to compel witness testimony, holding that R.C. 2945.44 requires full transactional immunity and that the State’s offer excluding murder was insufficient to compel testimony over a Fifth Amendment invocation.
The First District affirmed a juvenile delinquency adjudication for felonious assault, holding that FaceTime-based identification combined with social media confirmation was sufficient and that DYS commitment was appropriate for a first-time offender who fired a gun at a victim.
The Fifth District vacated a guilty plea to criminal mischief, holding that the trial court completely failed to inform the defendant that a guilty plea is a complete admission of guilt as required by Crim.R. 11(E), making a prejudice showing unnecessary.
The Fifth District affirmed sexual battery and strangulation convictions, finding that the victim’s testimony, corroborated by SANE nurse examination, supported the trial court’s credibility determination in a bench trial.
The Third District reversed eight of nine rape convictions involving a minor victim, holding that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to distinguish each count as a separate act, while affirming convictions on one rape count and two gross sexual imposition counts.
The Third District affirmed a conviction under R.C. 4511.204, Ohio’s distracted driving statute, rejecting constitutional challenges based on equal protection, due process, and vagueness, and holding that holding a phone for GPS navigation while driving violates the statute.
The Eleventh District reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that the trial court violated the defendant’s right of allocution by repeatedly interrupting her personal statement and preventing her from reading it herself, particularly where the court then penalized her perceived lack of remorse.
The Twelfth District reversed a murder sentence that included ‘lifetime parole supervision,’ holding that no Ohio statute authorizes a trial court to impose such a condition and clarifying the distinction between imposing parole terms and notifying defendants of parole eligibility.