Friday First District Roundup 9-6-19

In re: J.R. 
Case #C190342

Quote from Judge Myers' Opinion:

Appellant father appeals from the Hamilton County Juvenile Court’s judgment granting permanent custody of his son J.R. to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”). In a single assignment of error, father argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding that a grant of permanent custody was in J.R.’s best interest. Finding father’s argument to be without merit, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In re: A.M.Z., A.L.Z., T.M.Z., E.Z., and E.Z. 

Quote from Judge Bergeron's Opinion:

In this parental termination case, the juvenile court presided over two separate proceedings: one concerning Mother’s three older children and another concerning Mother’s twin girls, who were born during the course of the initial proceedings. These proceedings generated separate orders granting the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services’ (the “agency”) application for permanent custody over all five children. Our review of the record reveals no reason to disturb that conclusion. We therefore affirm the juvenile court’s decisions.

State of Ohio v. Justin Howell 

Case #C180583

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, 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.

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.

State of Ohio v. Keilow Blount 
Case # C180296

Quote from Judge Crouse's Opinion:

This appeal stems from plaintiff-appellant Keilow Blount’s conviction following a bench trial for driving under OVI suspension in violation of R.C. 4510.14(A). He was sentenced to 180 days suspended, a one-year driving suspension, and a $250 fine. In his sole assignment of error, Blount contends that his conviction was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Because we determine that the trial court was correct in its finding of guilt, we affirm.

State of Ohio v. Alvie L. Hudson 
Case #C170681

Quote from Judge Crouse's Opinion:

Defendant-appellant, Alvie L. Hudson appeals from the jury verdicts finding him guilty of two felony counts of assault in the fourth degree against a police officer and the trial court’s judgment sentencing him to 13 days in jail with credit for 13 days.

In two assignments of error, Hudson argues that his convictions were contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and based on insufficient evidence. For the following reasons, we overrule Hudson’s assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Patricia A. Andwan v. Village of Greenhills 
Case #C170673

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.

In October 2017, plaintiff-appellant Patricia Andwan filed a complaint for injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order to prevent defendant-appellee Village of Greenhills from demolishing four buildings that it owned. Andwan alleged, among other things, that the demolition of the four buildings had the potential to negatively affect the value of her property. Andwan was ultimately concerned that Greenhills was destroying historic structures that made up the Greenhills Historic District, an area designated a National Historic Landmark by the United States Secretary of the Interior in 2017. In her prayer for relief she requested the court to require Greenhills to adopt a process by which the public can participate in the decision to demolish buildings within the Greenhills Historic District.

In re: P. & H. Children  
Case #C190310

Quote from Judge Crouse's Opinion:

Mother and children D.H. and Z.P. have appealed from the Hamilton County Juvenile Court’s judgment granting permanent custody of D.H. and Z.P. to the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (“HCJFS”).

Mother argues in one assignment of error that the juvenile court erred and abused its discretion in finding that permanent custody was in the best interests of the children, when that finding was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and when the best-interest analysis was not properly applied. D.H. and Z.P. argue in one assignment of error that the court erred as a matter of law by granting HCJFS’s motion for permanent custody. We consider the assignments of error together, overrule both, and affirm the court’s judgment.

Federal National Mortgage Association v. Gerald Hirschhaut, et al., Victory Community Bank, Michael Kreines, Trustee, Todd McMurtry
Case # C180473

Quote from Judge Myers' Opinion:

Michael Kreines appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court denying his motion for sanctions for frivolous conduct against Victory Community Bank (“VCB”) and Todd McMurtry, a lawyer who represented VCB in the trial court. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In re: N.D.
Case #C180441

Quote from Judge Bergeron's Opinion:

After the Arkansas Court of Appeals invalidated the adoption at issue in this case, the adoptive parents turned to an Ohio juvenile court for relief. This case, like so many in the adoption and family law context, puts this court in the unpleasant position of determining the fate of a child caught, innocently, in a morass of competing custodial interests, a dizzying array of statutes, and jurisdictional turmoil. Here, however, federal law proves to be our guide, as it dictates that we accord full faith and credit to the custodial determinations of the Arkansas courts in this case. We accordingly affirm the decision of the juvenile court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction over the matter and dismiss the complaint for legal custody.

State of Ohio v. Jamie Carver 
Case #C180301

Quote from Judge Zayas' Opinion:

Jamie Carver appeals her convictions upon guilty pleas to two counts of endangering children, both third-degree felonies. Raising two assignments of error, Carver contends that her guilty pleas were not knowing or voluntary, and that the record does not support her sentence of 36 months’ incarceration. For the following reasons, we find no merit to the assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

John P. Blazic DDS Inc. v. Emma Binford 
Case #C180293

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.

On October 13, 2017, plaintiff-appellee John Blazic DDS, Inc., filed a complaint in the Small Claims Division of the Hamilton County Municipal Court for money damages resulting from dental services performed on defendant-appellant Emma Binford. There was no dispute that the dental services were rendered. Binford disputed Blazic’s accounting, which showed that she owed an outstanding balance in the amount of $281.11. In a counterclaim, Binford argued that she had already overpaid Blazic and was entitled to a refund.

State of Ohio v. Jaeron Pope, Sr.
Case #C180587<

Quote from Judge Winkler's Opinion:

After a bench trial, Jaeron Pope, Sr., was convicted of the weapons offense set forth in R.C. 2923.12(B)(4) for his failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer, given during a traffic stop, when Pope was carrying a loaded and concealed handgun for which Pope had been issued a concealed handgun license. During the state’s case, the prosecutor did not present evidence that the loaded handgun had been test-fired to determine if it was operable or could be readily rendered operable, a necessary element of the offense. Pope moved under Crim.R. 29(A) for an acquittal on that basis. The trial court denied the motion. Pope then testified in his own defense, to refute the failure to comply allegation. During crossexamination, he admitted the handgun was “operable” and that he kept it ready to fire in his pocket. After the defense rested, Pope renewed his Crim.R. 29(A) motion. The trial court again denied it and subsequently found Pope guilty of the offense.

The Principle Group, LLC v. Stephanie C. Smith v. Sherry Whitlock <
Case #C180343

Quote from Judge Winkler's Opinion:

In this landlord-tenant dispute, a limited-liability company and its owner appeal the trial court’s judgment entered in favor of a former tenant. For the reasons that follow, we determine that the trial court erred in holding the individual owner liable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) for filing an eviction action, and in holding the company liable for failure to return the tenant’s security deposit, as well as assessing attorney’s fees. We affirm the remainder of the judgment.

State of Ohio v. Troy Adams
Case #C180337

Quote from Judge Bergeron's Opinion:

Presenting a counterfeit check can support a conviction for theft by deception when the defendant acts knowingly, as the trial court here found. We accordingly affirm the underlying conviction in this case. But when we shift the focus to the restitution award, the General Assembly has carefully circumscribed who can qualify as a “victim” capable of recovering an award of restitution. On the facts at hand, the third party bank here fails that test, and we accordingly reverse the award of restitution to it.

In re: Tenika Chambers
Case #C180334

Quote from Judge Winkler's Opinion:

Tenika Chambers appeals the trial court’s judgments finding her in direct criminal contempt of court. In the first order, trial court number M-180625 and appeal number C-180334, the court found Chambers in contempt and imposed a three-day sentence. The contemptuous conduct included Chambers’s belligerence towards courtroom staff, occurring after her cellphone had been taken from her for violating a courtroom rule banning cell phones. In the second order, trial court number M-180624 and appeal number C-180333, the court found after announcing and imposing the three-day sentence in M-180625 that Chambers was once again disruptive while being escorted from the courtroom by deputies. The court imposed a ten-day consecutive term for that conduct. The court used summary contempt procedures in both cases, which is characterized by a lack of written notice of the charges, absence of an adversary hearing upon the issues, and no opportunity to be represented by counsel.

State of Ohio v. John Wynn
Case #C180316

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 John Wynn was convicted of public indecency and sentenced to nine months in prison. Because of the amount of time he had been held in custody prior to his plea, Wynn would only serve two weeks in prison. During the sentencing hearing, however, Wynn was incorrectly informed that he could be subject to three years of postrelease control, instead of being told he faced a mandatory five-year period. Two days before his release, the trial court conducted a hearing and gave Wynn the correct information regarding his postrelease control.

State of Ohio v. Brendan MacDonald 
Case #C180310

Quote from Judge Crouse's Opinion:

Defendant-appellant Brendan MacDonald fired a gun into his neighbor’s yard, and then engaged in a shootout with the responding police officers outside of his home. He now appeals his convictions and sentences for attempted murder and felonious assault.

MacDonald raises three assignments of error: (1) the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to convict him of attempted murder and felonious assault, or the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence, (2) the trial court erred by overruling his motion for new trial, and (3) his sentences were contrary to law.

Since the trial court failed to make one of the findings required for imposing consecutive sentences, MacDonald’s third assignment of error is sustained as to the consecutive nature of his sentences, and his case is remanded for a new sentencing hearing on that issue alone. In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

State of Ohio v. Markeisha Elliot 
Case #C180294

Quote from Judge Bergeron's Opinion:

The gasoline of social media, poured on a simmering feud, sparked a conflagration that left one person dead. A murder prosecution ensued, resulting in a conviction that gives rise to this appeal. But the defendant only presents an ineffective assistance claim in this appeal, insisting that defense counsel should have pursued an “accident” theory at trial rather than “defense of another.” The record, however, undermines the vitality of the accident theory, preventing us from concluding that trial counsel committed a strategic blunder here. For the reasons discussed below, we accordingly affirm the conviction.