Friday First District Roundup 4-9-21

In re: H/B Children 
Case #C200427 
Quote from Judge Winkler's Opinion:
Appellant mother appeals from a decision of the Hamilton County Juvenile Court granting custody of her three children to a family friend and denying her motion to remand custody of the children to her. We find no merit in her sole assignment of error, and we affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.
Mother has three children, N.H.1, born on December 24, 2006, N.H.2, born March 26, 2012, and N.B., born on December 20, 2017. Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”) originally became involved with the family in December 2013, when mother left her two oldest children home alone. As a result, mother was convicted of endangering children. The children were adjudicated neglected and dependent, and the juvenile court awarded temporary custody of them to HCJFS. Mother participated in services, and in February 2015, custody of N.H.1 and N.H.2 was remanded to mother, with protective supervision. The juvenile court terminated the order of protective supervision in July 2015

State of Ohio v. Jamal Jewell 
Case #C200046
Quote from Judge Bock's Opinion:
Appellant-defendant Jamal Jewell appeals his 13-year aggregate sentence imposed by the trial court, asserting that his offenses were allied offenses of similar import. For the following reasons, we affirm.
A. The Indictment
In February 2019, Jewell was indicted on 15 counts, including robbing two United Dairy Farmers (“UDF”) stores, having a weapon while under a disability, and carrying a concealed weapon.
Relevant for the purposes of this appeal were counts four and seven, along with their specifications. In count four, the state alleged that on or about January 23, 2019, Jewell entered the UDF located at 1560 Chase Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio and “approached the counter and pointed a firearm at the clerk and demanded U.S. currency” and took approximately $150. In count seven, the state alleged that Jewell, on or about January 24, 2019, entered the UDF located at 4899 Cleves Warsaw, Cincinnati, Ohio and “brandished a firearm toward victims, Anastasia Moore and Jessica Moore *** put a firearm to Jessica’s head * * * threatened to shoot Jessica * * * if Anastasia did not give him U.S. currency.” Jewell fled from the store with approximately $120. 

State of Ohio v. Scott Mead 
Case #C190625
Quote from Judge Crouse's Opinion:
Defendant-appellant Scott Mead appeals from seven municipal court judgments in which he was convicted of domestic violence, telecommunications harassment, violating a protection order, menacing by stalking, and aggravated menacing. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Mead and Tonya Luckett were in an on-again/off-again relationship for over a year and a half. The relationship ended in a physical altercation and relentless phone calls, which serve as the bases for the charges in this case.
On March 4, 2018, Luckett left work and returned to the home that she shared with Mead. Luckett testified that Mead was drunk and angry. According to Luckett, Mead struck her in the face and knocked her onto the floor. Mead got on top of her and continued to strike her. Mead then grabbed her hair and dragged her through the kitchen. As a result, Luckett claims that she lost control of her bodily functions and sustained several injuries. Photographs taken the following day showed swelling and bruising to her face and arms. Luckett called the police immediately following the altercation and Mead was charged with domestic violence.

Banker's Choice, LLC, Stough Development Corporation v. Zoning Board of Appeals of The City of Cincinnati , City of Cincinnati
Case #C200117
Quote from Judge Myers' Opinion:
Defendant-appellant the city of Cincinnati appeals for the third time the trial court’s adoption of a magistrate’s decision ordering the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness to plaintiffs-appellees, Banker’s Choice, LLC, and Stough Development Corporation (“Banker’s Choice”), to demolish the Davis Furniture Building,1 a structure designated as historic in downtown Cincinnati. Because the trial court considered the required factors in Cincinnati Municipal Code 1435-09-2(b), and because its determination that Banker’s Choice had demonstrated an economic hardship was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
In 2013, Banker’s Choice, a Cincinnati developer of urban properties, bought the Davis Furniture Building at a sheriff’s sale for $125,000 “to alleviate the ‘eyesore’ * * * the building had become and to protect the economic well-being of their property across the street.” Banker’s Choice, LLC, v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Cincinnati, 2018-Ohio-3030, 106 N.E.3d 1271, ¶ 2 (1st Dist.) (“Banker’s Choice I”). After acquiring and evaluating the property, Banker’s Choice sought a certificate of appropriateness for demolition from the Historic Conservation Board pursuant to the Cincinnati Zoning Code. See Cincinnati Municipal Code 1435-01-C and 1435-09-01. 

State of Ohio v. Aaron Freeman 
Case #C200116
Quote from Judgment Entry:
Defendant-appellant Aaron Freeman’s appointed counsel has advised this court that, after a thorough review of the record, he can find nothing that would arguably support appellant’s appeal, and that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); see also Freels v. Hills, 843 F.2d 958 (6th Cir.1988). Counsel, as required by Anders, has communicated this conclusion to appellant, and has offered appellant an opportunity to respond and to raise any issues. Counsel has also moved this court for permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders at 744; see also 1st Dist. Loc.R. 16.2(C)(1) and 16.2(D)(2).
Counsel now requests that this court independently examine the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Anders at 744. We have done so, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that the proceedings below were free of error prejudicial to appellant and that no grounds exist to support a meritorious appeal. Therefore, we overrule counsel’s motion to withdraw from his representation of appellant, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.