Friday First District Roundup

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!

In re: K. Children
Case #C190207

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.

Appellant maternal great aunt (“aunt”) received legal custody of D.D.K., T.D.K. and their older sibling D.K.K. (not involved in this appeal) on February 12, 2012. Appellee the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”) originally sought permanent custody, and the parents’ rights were terminated. The mother of the children supported the subsequent effort of HCJFS to obtain custody, and father did not participate in the proceedings.

D.K.K. had significant special needs, and as a result was the focus of the majority of the testimony. According to the social worker, aunt only participated in four of D.K.K.’s 52 therapy sessions; though aunt said that she went monthly. D.D.K. and T.D.K. were also delayed and had special needs, but not to the same degree as D.K.K. Though aunt was not seeking custody of D.K.K., the trial court considered the testimony about that child relevant because, since the other two children had similar issues, “[aunt’s] treatment of [D.K.K.] is very telling about her capability as a caregiver for [D.D.K.] and [T.D.K.] as well.”

State of Ohio v. Christopher Smith
Case # C180081

Quote from Judge Zayas' Opinion:

Defendant-appellant Christopher Smith appeals the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgment overruling his Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his no-contest pleas. We reverse that judgment upon our determination that the court abused its discretion in overruling the motion without first conducting an evidentiary hearing.

State of Ohio v. Saidou Sow
Case #C160835

Quote from Judge Mock's Opinion:

In this reopened appeal, defendant-appellant Saidou Sow raises three assignments of error challenging the voluntariness of his no-contest pleas to aggravated vehicular assault and vehicular assault, the trial court’s imposition of multiple punishments for those offenses, and the imposition of an unauthorized lifetime driver’s license suspension. Because we conclude that the trial court erred in imposing sentences for both aggravate vehicular assault and vehicular assault, and in imposing a lifetime driver’s license suspension, we vacate the sentences imposed for those offenses, and remand the matter for resentencing.