Friday First District Roundup 8-9-19

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!

Case #C180573
Quote from Judge Crouse's Opinion:
Plaintiff-appellant Allen Ward appeals his eight-year prison sentence for felonious assault and his concurrent 36-month prison sentence for endangering children. In one assignment of error, Ward argues that the record does not support the lengthy prison sentence imposed by the court. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Case # C180340
Quote from Judge Bergeron's Opinion:
Moving residences is never an enjoyable endeavor, but adding a bottle of Hennessy to the mix often causes more harm than good. Here, three now-erstwhile friends gathered to assist with a move and, at the end of the day, one was convicted of assaulting another and trespassing in her apartment. The defendant now appeals, raising sufficiency and manifest-weight grounds, but focuses his appeal on a challenge to the authenticity of photographs of the victim’s injuries. But his argument rests on an unduly restrictive theory of authentication that cannot be squared with Ohio law. We accordingly hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs, and in light of those pictures and the concomitant testimony, we reject the weight and sufficiency arguments as well and affirm the trial court’s decision.
Case #C180300
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.
Jones was convicted, after a plea of guilty, to violating Ohio’s notice of residence address change for certain sex offenders, a third-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2950.05. Jones was subject to the residence-change-notification law because of a 2013 gross-sexual-imposition conviction involving his four-year-old niece. He was on postrelease control for that offense when he failed to register his address as required by law. The trial court accepted his plea and imposed a sentence of 12 months in prison. On appeal, Jones challenges only his sentence and claims it is contrary to law, in one assignment of error.
Case # C170705
Quote from Judge Winkler's Opinion:
Appellant Triton Services, Inc., (“Triton”) appeals several orders entered against it in favor of appellee city of Cincinnati (“the city”) in two consolidated cases. We find merit in four of Triton’s eight assignments of error. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment in part and reverse it in part.
Case #C180556
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 Jeffrey Wogenstahl appeals the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas’s judgment denying his “motion for leave to file motion for new mitigation trial.” In his two assignments of error, he challenges the denial as improper and the constitutionality of Ohio’s death-penalty scheme.1 We address together, and overrule, the assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the common pleas court.
Case #C180400
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’s appointed counsel has advised this court that, after a thorough review of the record, she 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 her representation of appellant, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
We hold that this appeal is frivolous under App.R. 23 and without “reasonable cause” under R.C. 2505.35. But we refrain from taxing costs and expenses against appellant because he is indigent.
Case #C180331
Quote from Per Curiam Opinion:
Defendant-appellant James P. Ellis appeals the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgment overruling his “Motion for: ‘Sentencing,’ (to correct a fundamental miscarriage of justice)” and “Motion for: ‘Issuance of a Final Appealable Order.’ ” We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Case # C170247
Quote from Judge Myers' Opinion:
Randolph Talbert appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for the murder of Raj-Paul Doughty. Because we find that the conviction was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence, no prosecutorial misconduct occurred, Talbert was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and the trial court committed no plain error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.