FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Wednesday, April 24, 2024
CAPTION: IN RE: G.W.
APPEAL NO.: C-230268
TRIAL NO.: F17-28X
KEY WORDS: CUSTODY — CONTEMPT
SUMMARY: The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying father’s motion to hold mother in contempt where the record supported the juvenile court’s finding that mother substantially complied with the terms of the parties’ shared-parenting plan.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in awarding mother custody of the minor child where the juvenile court properly considered the statutory best-interest factors and the record supported the court’s finding that the child had adjusted to her school in mother’s district.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, P.J.; BERGERON and WINKLER, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. MODRESKI
APPEAL NO.: C-230511
TRIAL NO.: 23CRB-6809
KEY WORDS: SEARCH AND SEIZURE — EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
SUMMARY: Where a report from a social services worker of a malnourished infant lacked the suggestion that the infant needed immediate medical aid, there were no exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search of defendant’s home.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. VANNATTER
APPEAL NO: C-230568
TRIAL NO: B-2202798
KEY WORDS: SENTENCING – POSTRELEASE CONTROL – R.C. 2929.191 – R.C. 2929.11 – R.C. 2929.12
SUMMARY: Where the trial court failed to properly advise defendant of the potential term of postrelease control at the sentencing hearing, the cause must be remanded for a notification-of-postrelease-control hearing pursuant to R.C. 2929.191.
The trial court’s decision imposing the maximum sentence of three years’ imprisonment was not contrary to law where the trial court discussed the purposes of felony sentencing, considered multiple statutory sentencing factors, and the sentence was within the permissible statutory range for a third-degree felony.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by WINKLER, J.; BOCK, P.J., and BERGERON, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: M.H. AND B.H.
APPEAL NO: C-240002
TRIAL NO: F15-2394Z
KEY WORDS: JUVENILE – PLAIN ERROR – EVIDENCE – HEARSAY – EVID.R. 801 – CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE – PERMANENT CUSTODY – CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE – BEST INTEREST
SUMMARY: The juvenile court did not commit plain error by admitting certain testimony by the agency caseworker where the complained-of testimony included admissible nonhearsay statements by mother offered against her, was largely cumulative to mother’s own testimony, and was not so prejudicial to affect the basic fairness, integrity, or reputation of the judicial process required for plain error.
The juvenile court properly granted permanent custody of the children to the agency where clear and convincing evidence supported its findings that the children cannot be placed with either parent in a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent and that a grant of permanent custody to the agency was in the best interest of the children.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by WINKLER, J.; BOCK, P.J., and BERGERON, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. BROWNER
APPEAL NO.: C-240058
TRIAL NO.: 22CRB-13026
KEY WORDS: SENTENCING – MODIFICATION – RIPENESS – R.C.2947.151 – PLAIN ERROR
SUMMARY: The trial court did not commit plain error when it ordered that defendant was not eligible for sentence reduction programs under R.C. 2947.151 after defendant pleaded guilty to a community-control violation and the trial court imposed the remainder of defendant’s suspended sentence.
The trial court’s order that defendant was not eligible for a sentence reduction under R.C. 2947.151 after imposing the remainder of his suspended sentence was not a modification of his sentence, but an instruction to the sheriff on how defendant was to serve out his incarceration.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, J.; BERGERON, P.J., and CROUSE, J., concur.