Medina County Courthouse

Tuesday, September 03, 2013

Ninth District Decision for August 28, 2013

State v. Eader, 2013-Ohio-3709 was a decision reversing in part and affirming in part Mr. Eader's conviction various drug offenses and one count of having weapons under a disability. The indictment also sought the forfeiture of $5400.00 in cash.  The case was an appeal from the Summit County Common Pleas Court. 

Eader argued that the trial court erred in imposing the burden of proof on him during a suppression hearing. He also argued that his attorney was ineffective in that he did not object to the trial court's ruling that he had the burden of proof. Since the search was conducted pursuant to a warrant, and since such searches are presumed reasonable, these two assignments of error were overruled. 

Eader also argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals also overruled this assignment of error, finding that the trial court acted correctly in not granting the motion to suppress. 

The last two assignments of error dealt with the trial court ordering him to pay court costs without complying with R.C. 2947.23. Those assignments were sustained and the case was remanded back to the trial court for new imposition of court costs. 

State v. Jones, 2013-Ohio-3710 affirmed a decision of the Summit County Common Pleas Court denying a motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence. Jones was arguing that the offenses for which he was sent to prison were allied offenses of similar import and should have been merged. The Court of Appeals found that Jones could have and should have raised this issue on direct appeal and therefore he could not now raise the issue eight years after his conviction. 

Kasper v. Kasper, 2013-Ohio-3711 was a decision affirming an order from the Summit County Domestic Relations Court denying Mr. Kasper's motion to modify spousal support. Kasper set forth two assignments of error. 

Kasper argued that since his ex-wife was living with her fiance the trial court should have treated her as if she was remarried. The problem with Kasper's argument was that the divorce decree contained the following language: “spousal support shall terminate upon Husband’s or Wife’s death, Wife’s remarriage or seventy-four (74) months whichever first occurs.” Since the divorce decree did not mention co-habitation as a terminating event, the trial court acted properly in denying the motion. 

The other assignment of error was that the co-habitation of Mrs. Kasper constituted a change of circumstances. The Court of Appeals noted that Ohio State Supreme Court cases require a "substantial change of circumstances". It affirmed the trial court's finding that such a change of circumstances had not taken place. 

No comments: