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: Friday, April 4, 2025
CAPTION: STATE V. BLANTON
APPEAL NOS.: C-240004, C-240070
TRIAL NO.: B-2301819
KEY WORDS: RAPE — GROSS SEXUAL IMPOSITION — ADMISSIBILITY — INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL — SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE — PLAIN ERROR — SENTENCING — NEW TRIAL
SUMMARY: The trial court did not commit plain error by admitting certain statements from defendant’s recorded police interview where defendant failed to object to the admission of the statements and failed to show how the statements prejudiced him in a way that would have changed the outcome of the trial.
Defendant’s convictions for two counts of rape of a child and one count of gross sexual imposition were supported by sufficient evidence where the child testified to acts that demonstrated that defendant anally penetrated her and forcefully touched her buttocks and thighs with a toy, and where the child was diagnosed with the same sexually-transmitted disease as defendant.
Defendant could not prevail on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim where he failed to demonstrate how defense counsel’s failure to object to the admission of his recorded statements to police prejudiced him.
Defendant’s sentence of life without parole for each rape count was not unconstitutionally disproportionate for the rape of a child under ten.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion for a new trial because the alleged newly-discovered evidence did not create a strong probability that the result of a new trial would be different.
JUDGMENTS: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, P.J.; ZAYAS and CROUSE, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. BARBER
APPEAL NOS.: C-240239, C-240240
TRIAL NO.: B-2304389, B-2400076
KEY WORDS: CRIMINAL — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL — SECOND AMENDMENT — CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS — IMPROPER HANDLING OF FIREARMS IN A MOTOR VEHICLE — JUVENILE ADJUDICATION —WAIVER
SUMMARY: The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss his charges for carrying concealed weapons in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2) and improper handling of firearms in a motor vehicle under R.C. 2923.16(B) where the State failed to carry its burden under the Second Amendment to show that the charges were consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulations, where the State does not impose restrictions on defendant’s ability to possess a concealed weapon for comparable reasons as historical analogues, and defendant’s juvenile adjudication for a nonviolent weapons charge failed to support a presumption that defendant was dangerous and subject to disarmament, and the juvenile adjudication was the sole reason the State argued to justify limiting defendant’s ability to carry a concealed weapon and to have a weapon accessible to him while in a motor vehicle.
The trial court did not commit plain error in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss a carrying-concealed weapons charge, for which the State charged defendant while under indictment for defendant’s first weapons-related charges, as defendant failed to assert at the trial level that Ohio’s limiting his ability to carry a concealed weapon based on his being under indictment for a felony violated the Second Amendment.
[But see DISSENT: Rather than addressing the cause on the merits for the first time, the cause should be remanded for the trial court to analyze whether the challenged statutes are constitutional by applying the test set forth in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024).]
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND APPELLANT DISCHARGED IN PART, AND APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART IN C-240239; AFFIRMED IN C-240240
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, P.J.; KINSLEY, J., CONCURS and ZAYAS, J., DISSENTS.
CAPTION: IN RE: M.S.
APPEAL NO.: C-240334
TRIAL NO.: F/20/1249 Z
KEY WORDS: LEGAL CUSTODY – BEST INTEREST – COMPETENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE – R.C. 2152.414(D)(1) – R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) – ABUSE OF DISCRETION
SUMMARY: The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded legal custody of appellant’s minor son to appellant’s adult daughter, given the presence of competent and credible evidence that the court considered the best-interest factors when it reached its determination.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by MOORE, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. TERRY
APPEAL NO.: C-240381
TRIAL NO.: C/24/CRB/4878
KEY WORDS: OBSTRUCTING OFFICIAL BUSINESS — AFFIRMATIVE ACT — PURPOSE — TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES — DUE PROCESS — JUDICIAL BIAS — SENTENCING — ALLOCUTION
SUMMARY: Defendant’s conviction for obstructing official business was supported by sufficient evidence where defendant provided false identifying information to the officer who pulled her over and, despite the officer’s repeated orders to step out of the vehicle, defendant persisted in conditioning her compliance upon an explanation from the officer, argued with him, and pulled away when the officer grabbed her arm to remove her from the vehicle.
While trial judge questioned the merits of the case with counsel in chambers, the record did not support that the judge harbored a high degree of antagonism or favoritism toward either party or their counsel where the judge permitted the parties to present evidence and arguments and, thereafter, the judge assessed the evidence, applied the legal precedent he deemed fit, and rendered his verdict accordingly.
The trial court failed to afford the defendant her right of allocution at sentencing, requiring a new sentencing hearing.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, P.J.; CROUSE and NESTOR, JJ., CONCUR.