Friday First District Roundup 10-18-19

Each Friday, we highlight decisions of the First District Court of Appeals in the past week. For question about these cases, contact Vanessa Seeger.

Interested in getting these weekly updates sent right to your inbox? Sign up here!

State of Ohio v. Carlos Mitchell
Case #C180655

Quote from Judgment Entry:

We consider this appeal on the accelerated calendar, and this judgment entry is not an opinion of the court. See Rep.Op.R. 3.1; App.R. 11.1(E); 1st Dist. Loc.R. 11.1.1.

Defendant-appellant Carlos Mitchell appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to seal the record of his 1994 aggravated-assault conviction, a fourth-degree felony offense.

In one assignment of error, Mitchell contends the trial court erred by denying his motion. Mitchell acknowledges that the trial court lacked the statutory authority to seal the record of his conviction because of the limitation found in R.C. 2953.36(A)(3), which precludes relief to offenders, such as him, convicted of a felony “offense of violence.” He argues, however, that the trial court erred as matter of law because the court failed to recognize its “inherent discretion” to seal a record of conviction.

State of Ohio v. Christopher Geis
Case # C180597

Quote from Judge Bergeron's Opinion:

The roots of this case stretch back over a decade, to defendant-appellant Christopher Gies’s 2007 misdemeanor conviction that resulted in a community control sentence. Had he reported, we probably wouldn’t be considering this question today, but he instead absconded, resulting in an open arrest warrant. That set the stage for his 2018 arrest, and when officers finally apprehended him, they discovered a house full of contraband. Armed with that evidence, the state convicted him of much more serious drug and weapons charges. Mr. Gies now appeals, seeking to unravel the conviction based on the alleged improper seizure of the evidence (the officers had no search warrant). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm, finding the search and seizures appropriate under the plain view exception and the good faith exception.

State of Ohio v. Christopher Kinsey
Case #C180431

Quote from Judge Crouse's Decision:

During a shootout involving over 20 people, with over 100 rounds fired from an unknown number of firearms, an innocent bystander was shot and injured. The state suspected that defendant-appellee Christopher Kinsey fired the shot that injured the victim, but waited to charge him with felonious assault until it received the ballistics report tying his rifle to the bullet that struck the victim. The trial court granted Kinsey’s motion to dismiss the felonious-assault charge, holding that his statutory speedy-trial rights had been violated.

The state has appealed from the trial court’s dismissal of the felonious assault charge. In one assignment of error, the state argues that the trial court erred in dismissing the indictment when it found that the ballistics report linking Kinsey to the shooting was not new and additional evidence because not only had the state possessed the bullet that hit the victim since the day of the shooting, it also had probable cause prior to receiving the ballistics report to believe that Kinsey was the one who had fired that bullet. Because we find the ballistics report to be new and additional evidence, we reverse the trial court’s judgment granting the motion to dismiss and remand the cause for further proceedings.

Cheryl Tyner, Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of Jan Tyler, deceased v. Raymond Noschang, M.D., Walgreen Company, d.b.a. Walgreens Pharmacy
Case # C180423

Quote from Judgment Entry:

We consider this appeal on the accelerated calendar, and this judgment entry is not an opinion of the court. See Rep.Op.R. 3.1; App.R. 11.1(E); 1st Dist. Loc.R. 11.1.1.

Cheryl Tyner, individually and as the administrator of the estate of her late husband, Jan, appeals the trial court’s granting of Walgreens Pharmacy’s motion for summary judgment.

The operative order being appealed was initially entered in A1202248, a case subsequently dismissed, but the order was reentered in this case on March 15, 2017.

In one assignment of error, Tyner contends summary judgment was granted erroneously, and she seeks a reversal and a remand to the trial court for consideration upon the merits of her wrongful-death claim. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the standards set forth in Civ.R. 56.

State of Ohio v. Joseph Morgeson
Case #C180399

Quote from Judgment Entry:

We consider this appeal on the accelerated calendar, and this judgment entry is not an opinion of the court. See Rep.Op.R. 3.1; App.R. 11.1(E); 1st Dist. Loc.R. 11.1.1.

After a jury trial, defendant-appellant Joseph Morgeson was convicted on one count of aggravated possession of drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A). In two assignments of error, Morgeson argues his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The record shows that Morgeson was apprehended by the police due to outstanding warrants. The arresting officer testified that he recovered off of Morgeson’s person a cellphone that contained a small quantity of methamphetamine concealed in the phone’s case. Morgeson testified in his defense and claimed that he did not own a cellphone on the date of his arrest, including the one containing the drugs, and that the officer had not found the phone on him. Morgeson implied that the officer had actually recovered the phone from inside Morgeson’s car, which had contained several passengers.