This week was a busy week in the First District Court of Appeals. Each Friday, we highlight decisions of the First District Court of Appeals in the past week. For question about these cases, contact Vanessa Seeger.
In re: A.S.
Case # C180056
2019 WL 2484742
SUMMARY FROM THE COURT
The juvenile court’s decision adjudicating A.S. delinquent in connection with the robbery of a pizza-delivery driver was not against the manifest weight of the evidence: the victim testified that a group of young males lured her to a home, attacked her, and stole her wallet; the police traced the phone number used to place the delivery order to a youth who admitted to being involved in the incident, and that youth testified that he had been with A.S. that night, and that he had seen A.S. punch the victim.
The juvenile court did not violate Juv.R. 40 in relying on a witness’s testimony implicating A.S. in connection with the robbery of a pizza-delivery driver: the juvenile court could assess the evidence, including credibility of the witnesses, as part of its duty to undertake an independent review of the magistrate’s decision, and the magistrate never explicitly commented on the credibility of the witness’s statement that he had seen A.S. punch the victim. [But see DISSENT: The magistrate did not rely on the testimony of a witness in finding A.S. delinquent because the magistrate found the witness not credible with respect to A.S.’s involvement; therefore, the juvenile court’s decision finding the witness credible was in error, and the juvenile court’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.]
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
State of Ohio v. Deionandrea Sweeting
Case # C180161
2019 WL 2491283
SUMMARY FROM THE COURT
Where the record does not contain a written jury waiver signed by defendant, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to try defendant without a jury, because R.C. 2945.05 requires that a waiver of the right to a trial by jury must be in writing, signed by defendant, filed, made a part of the record and made in open court. [But see DISSENT: Where defendant insisted that his case not be tried to a jury, demanded a bench trial, and then refused to sign a jury waiver, defendant rendered the requirement that he sign the waiver an impossibility and, under these limited circumstances, the signing of the jury waiver by the trial judge on defendant’s behalf constituted strict compliance with R.C. 2945.05.]
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED
State of Ohio v. James Edward Harmon
Case # C180172
2019 WL 2484282
SUMMARY FROM THE COURT
Where defendant filed his notice of appeal outside of App.R. 4(A)’s 30-day time limit and did not request leave to file out of time pursuant to App.R. 5(A), the appellate court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and it must be dismissed.
JUDGMENT: APPEAL DISMISSED
Amanda Forbes v. Showmann, Inc., d.b.a. The Woodhouse Day Spa
Case # C180325
2019 WL 2484542
SUMMARY FROM THE COURT
The trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of defendant employer on plaintiff former employee’s breach-of-contract claim, because no contract was created due to a lack of consideration where the employer had gifted a raffle ticket to the former employee while she was still in its employ to enter an employer-sponsored raffle for a cruise package, which she won.
The trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of defendant employer on plaintiff former employee’s claim alleging a violation of Ohio’s Prompt Pay Act where the prize associated with the former employee’s winning raffle ticket did not meet the definition of a “fringe benefit” as set forth in R.C. 4113.15(D).
The trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of defendant employer on plaintiff former employee’s conversion claim on the basis that the former employee did not have a right to possess the prize attached to the winning raffle ticket because she had not fulfilled the condition that she still be employed by the employer when she took the cruise, which the employer alleged was attached to the gift of the raffle ticket for the cruise package, because there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to what conditions, if any, were attached to the gift of the raffle ticket.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED
State of Ohio v. Tina Wisler
Case #C180326
2019 WL 2484744
SUMMERY FROM THE COURT
Where defendant pleaded no contest to violating a protection order by visiting her ex-husband’s home the explanation-of-circumstances was sufficient, although the protection order was not in the record, where the state recited on the record when the incident had occurred, the existence of a valid protection order, and that the defendant was found on her ex-husband’s lawn in violation of that order.
Defendant did not proffer sufficient evidence of incompetency to warrant a competency evaluation where the record shows that defendant understood that her actions, which she claimed were taken pursuant to her religious beliefs, violated Ohio law: perceived inconsistency between defendant’s religious beliefs and Ohio law was not equivalent to a subjective failure to understand her plea where the record shows that defendant understood that she had violated the law and the consequences thereof.
Defendant’s no-contest plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary where the record shows that the trial court did not find her guilty until defendant acknowledged that she understood the plea.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Chad P. Wick v. Roger W. Ach, II, Chicago West Pullman, LTD, Socialpoint, Inc., Our Town Media, Inc
Case # C180243
2019 WL 2522006
SUMMARY FROM THE COURT
The trial court did not err in dismissing under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) plaintiff’s claims against defendants corporations for “reverse piercing of the corporate veil,” because Ohio does not recognize such a cause of action.
The trial court did not err in dismissing under Civ.R. (9)(B) plaintiff’s fraud claim against defendants corporations where the claim was not pleaded with sufficient particularity and where plaintiff failed to plead any facts to show that he had relied on defendants’ alleged misrepresentations to his detriment.
The trial court did not err in dismissing under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) plaintiff’s claim against defendants corporations for unjust enrichment where plaintiff did not allege that he had conferred a benefit on defendants.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
There were several cases considered on the accelerated calendar and judgments were entered but no opinions issued. They are:
State v. Miller
In re: E.M. & M.M.
State of Ohio v. Santinos Underwood