State of Ohio v. Kevin Rogers
Case # C200236
Quote from Judge Zayas' Opinion:
Defendant-appellant Kevin Rogers appeals the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgment overruling his 2020 “Motion for Relief from Judgment.” Because we lack jurisdiction to review that judgment, we dismiss the appeal.
Rogers was convicted in 2000 of murder, felonious assault, and aggravated robbery. He unsuccessfully challenged his convictions on direct appeal and in postconviction motions filed with the common pleas court in 2o17, 2018, and 2020. State v. Rogers, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-000299, 2000 WL 1886627 (Dec. 29, 2000); State v. Rogers, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-170599 (Dec. 19, 2018); State v. Rogers, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190051 (Mar. 31, 2020).
In his 2020 “Motion for Relief from Judgment,” Rogers sought relief from his convictions on the ground that he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel in his direct appeal. He asserted that his appellate counsel had failed to meet with him or to challenge on appeal the trial court’s jurisdiction, the legality of his arrest, defects in his indictment, and trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in investigating and presenting his defense at trial and in failing to pursue postconviction relief.
State of Ohio v. Shawn Crump
Quote from Judge Winkler's Opinion:
Following a bench trial, defendant-appellant Shawn Crump was convicted of obstructing official business, in violation of R.C. 2921.31, and failing to disclose personal information, in violation of R.C. 2921.29(A)(1). On appeal, Crump contests the sufficiency and weight of the evidence underlying his convictions. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.
Background Facts and Procedure
On August 6, 2018, Crump was arrested and charged with obstructing official business, disorderly conduct, and failure to disclose personal information. The charges arose out of a confrontation Crump had with the police on that day around 6 p.m. The case proceeded to a bench trial.
The state’s evidence showed Cincinnati police officers observed a teenaged girl standing alongside Hamilton Avenue near the Cincinnati Police Department’s District Five station. The girl was crying and wearing a four-foot long cardboard sign hung around her neck that read, “I’m a th[ie]f.” Police officers observed that she had a swollen thumb and she complained of pain. Their attempts to investigate the girl’s welfare were interrupted by Crump, who identified himself as the girl’s father and pulled her behind him. Crump delayed the investigation by repeatedly telling the police they could not talk to his daughter and instructing her accordingly.
State of Ohio v. Alejandro Fikes
Quote from Judge Crouse's Opinion: Defendant-appellant Alejandro Fikes appeals from the trial court’s judgment accepting his guilty pleas to two counts of trafficking in cocaine and imposing an indefinite ten-to-15 year sentence. Because the trial court did not inform Fikes of the maximum penalty involved under the Reagan Tokes Law, we reverse and remand the cause for further proceedings.
Fikes was charged with two counts of trafficking in cocaine and two counts of possession of cocaine, all first-degree felony offenses. The matter proceeded to trial on all counts. After voir dire and opening statements, Fikes entered pleas of guilty to the two trafficking charges. In exchange for his pleas, the state dismissed the two possession charges.
At the plea colloquy, the trial court informed Fikes that he faced a maximum 11-year sentence on each count. Fikes signed a written plea agreement reflecting the same. The trial court subsequently accepted the pleas and found Fikes guilty on two counts of trafficking in cocaine. At the sentencing hearing, the court imposed a ten-year sentence on each count, to be served concurrently to one another, for an aggregate ten-year sentence. In its judgment entry, however, the court imposed an indefinite ten-to-15-year sentence. Fikes timely appealed, raising one assignment of error for our review.
State of Ohio v. Nicole Spivey
Quote from Judge Myers' Opinion:
Defendant-appellant Nicole Spivey1 (“Ball”) appeals her convictions for theft, obstructing official business, falsification, and two counts of child endangerment. In two assignments of error, she argues that her convictions for child endangerment were not supported by sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the trial court erred in imposing separate sentences for the offenses of obstructing official business and falsification because they are allied offenses of similar import.
Following our review of the record, we find that Ball’s convictions for child endangerment were supported by both the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence. But because the offenses of obstructing official business and falsification were allied offenses of similar import, we hold that the trial court erred in imposing sentences on both offenses, and we remand for resentencing. We dismiss the appeal numbered C-200125, in which Ball has appealed her theft conviction, because she has not assigned any error with respect to that conviction.
State of Ohio v. Abbey Martin
Quote from Judge Bergeron's Opinion:
After discovering that two new residents of his jurisdiction had been previously investigated for drug trafficking in Butler County, a Hamilton County detective assumed that they would resume their illicit activities here. His suspicions deepened when a late-night trash pull revealed indicia of recently-smoked marijuana. But rather than marshal his own, up-to-date evidence of drug trafficking, the detective applied for a search warrant based on years-old stale information from Butler County. The trial court recognized that the affidavit fell below a showing of probable cause, but denied the defendant’s motion to suppress based on the application of the good-faith exception. We disagree with the applicability of the good-faith exception on these facts, reverse the trial court’s judgment overruling the defendant’s motion to suppress, and remand for the granting of the defendant’s suppression motion.
Cincinnati City School District, Board of Education v. City of Cincinnati, Hamilton County Board of Revision, Hamilton County Auditor, Tax Commissioner of the State of Ohio
Quote from Judge Winkler's Opinion:
Cincinnati City School District, Board of Education (the “BOE”), appeals a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (the “BTA”) valuing real property formerly owned by the city of Cincinnati at $10,990,000 for the 2018 tax year. Because we determine that the BTA’s decision is supported by sufficient reliable, probative evidence, and is not otherwise unreasonable or unlawful, we affirm. Background The property at issue in this case is the former home of a multi-story Macy’s department store and parking garage near Fountain Square, located at 505 Vine Street in the central business district in downtown Cincinnati (the “Property”). The city owned the Property for several years until Macy’s and the other retail tenants, including a bookstore and a restaurant, vacated. The city then sold the leasehold interest in the Property in December 2018 to the Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation (“3CDC”) for $7.5 million.
State of Ohio v. Arthur Smith
Quote from Judge Zayas's Opinion:
The state of Ohio appeals from the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas granting defendant-appellee Arthur Smith’s motion to suppress a firearm obtained after a warrantless search of the vehicle he was driving. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Procedural and Factual Background
Arthur Smith was charged with having a weapon while under a disability, carrying a concealed weapon, and improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle. Smith filed a motion to suppress the firearm, challenging the warrantless search of the vehicle he was driving. At the hearing on the motion, the state argued that Smith had no standing to assert a constitutional violation because the registered owner of the vehicle, Shavonda Washington, had filed a criminal complaint the previous day alleging that Smith refused to return the vehicle to her. The state also argued that Washington consented to the search, and that the search was a proper inventory search.
Smith contended that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle based upon his possession and use of the vehicle and an equitable interest in the vehicle. He further argued that Washington was not asked for her consent to search, and that the search was not a lawful inventory search
State of Ohio City of Cincinnati v. Kristin McClanahan
Quote from Judge Bock's Opinion:
Defendant-appellant Kristin McClanahan appeals the trial court’s interpretation of “person” as defined in R.C. Chapter 29. McClanahan further argues that the trial court erred when it exercised personal jurisdiction over her and subjectmatter jurisdiction over this case.
I. Facts and Procedure
In January 2019, a Cincinnati police officer responded to a residence within the city of Cincinnati, Hamilton County, state of Ohio, on a fire “alarm drop,” which had been dispatched by a home security company. Defendant-appellant Kristen McClanahan refused to allow the officer entry into the home, telling the officer that everything was “fine.” When the officer requested identification, McClanahan said she was “Caitlyn Artist.”
The officer ran the name “Caitlyn Artist” and discovered that McClanahan had lied about her identity and that she had an open traffic capias. McClanahan was later arrested.
McClanahan did not testify at her bench trial, but offered a closing argument in which she argued that statutory law did not apply to her, that she was a “woman of the people,” and that the case had been dismissed prior to the trial date.
The trial court convicted McClanahan of falsification and sentenced her to 180 days in the Hamilton County Justice Center. McClanahan has appealed.
Kimberly Hefler v. Remke Markets, Inc, Needler Enterprises, Inc., d.b.a. Remke Markets, Carespring Health Management, LLC
Quote from Judge Bock's Opinion:
After she slipped and fell in a puddle of water in a grocery store owned by defendants-appellees Remke Markets, Inc., and Needler Enterprises, Inc., d.b.a. Remke Markets (collectively, “Remke”), plaintiff-appellant Kimberly Hefler sued Remke for negligence. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Remke.
Hefler now appeals the trial court’s judgment, asserting in a single assignment of error that the court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Remke. Because we hold there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Remke had constructive notice of the puddle of water, we reverse the trial court’s judgment.