Summaries of Cases Released December 28, 2012 - Montgomery ...

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
CASE SUMMARIES
RELEASED DURING THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 24, 2012
These case summaries are issued for the convenience of the public, the bench and
the bar. They are a brief statement of the holding of the court in the matter noted.
They are not to be considered headnotes or syllabi. Readers may obtain copies of
an opinion from the particular county's clerk of courts. The full text of each opinion is
also available at the Ohio Supreme Court Website at www.sc.ohio.gov
Case Name: Enquip Technologies Group, Inc., et al. v. Tycon Technoglass S.r.I.,
et al.
Case No: Greene County App. No. 2011-CA-39
Panel: Grady, Fain, Hall
Author: Michael T. Hall
Summary: The trial court erred by not dismissing Appellant’s contract claims
against Appellee/Cross-Appellant. The forum-selection clause in the
parties’ contract provides that the Court of Venice, Italy, is competent
to settle any disputes. The choice-of-law provision in the contract
provides that the contract is to be interpreted in accordance with
Italian law. In Italian law, the forum-selection clause is exclusive.
The trial court did not err by dismissing Appellant’s R.C. 1335.11
statutory manufacturer’s representative exemplary-damages claim.
Although the statute voids the choice-of-law provision, Ohio’s choiceof-law
rules determine which law applies. Ohio law does not apply to
the issue of exemplary damages because Ohio does not have the
most significant relationship to the occurrence and parties in this
case.
Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part; remanded.
Case Name: State of Ohio v. Gary D. Lauharn
Case No: Miami App. No. 2012-CA-9
Panel: Grady, Froelich, Hall
Author: Michael T. Hall
Summary: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the appellant’s
post-sentence motion to withdraw his no-contest plea and motion for
reconsideration. The appellant failed to demonstrate any manifest
injustice requiring withdrawal of the plea. Judgment affirmed.

Case Name: In the Matter of the Minor Name Change of: J.C.H.S..
Case No: Champaign App. No. 2012-CA-23
Panel: Fain, Donovan, Hall
Author: Michael T. Hall
Summary: The appellant has failed to demonstrate error in the trial court’s
dismissal of his R.C. 2717.01 application for a name change on the
grounds that the same issue was pending in another court. Judgment
affirmed.
Case Name: Aaron D. Taylor v. Catherine Taylor
Case No: Miami App. No. 2012-CA-14
Panel: Fain, Froelich, Hall
Author: Mike Fain
Summary: Evidence in the record is sufficient to permit the trial court to find, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant engaged in a
pattern of conduct that she knew, or that a reasonable person would
know, was likely to cause the plaintiff, his wife, and his children,
mental distress. Therefore, evidence in the record supported the
issuance of a civil stalking protection order.
Based on the evidence in the record, trial court did not abuse its
discretion by making the order of five years’ duration, or by including
the plaintiff’s wife and children within its scope.
Affirmed.
Case Name: State of Ohio v. Kevin D. Shipp
Case No: Montgomery App. No. 24933
Panel: Grady, Fain, Hall
Author: Mike Fain
Summary: Trial court did not err in overruling motion to suppress. Fact that
defendant, who was properly stopped for a traffic violation, had a
state-issued identification card established probable cause to arrest
defendant for operating vehicle without a valid driver’s license, since
identification cards are only issued to persons without valid driver’s
licenses. Dayton Police Tow Policy authorized tow of vehicle being
driven by defendant who was being arrested. Defendant’s
volunteered statement that a gun was in the glove compartment
established probable cause to search the glove compartment, in
which gun was found. Affirmed.
Case Name: Mark Crain v. Rebecca Crain, nka Protsman
Case No: Clark App. No. 2011-CA-92
Panel: Fain, Froelich, Hall
Author: Mike Fain
Summary: Trial court erred in forcing alleged contemnor to proceed in contempt
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court of Appeals Case Summary, Week of December 24, 2012 Page 2

hearing without counsel, without having determined that the
contemnor either had waived counsel or had failed to make good-faith
efforts to obtain assigned counsel. Because the error resulted in
contemnor going unrepresented at her contempt hearing, the error
was structural, and the contemnor was not required to preserve it by
objecting to the decision of the magistrate. Reversed and Remanded.
Case Name: State of Ohio v. Gregory Leet
Case No.: Montgomery App. No. 24692
Panel: Grady, Donovan, Froelich
Author: Mary E. Donovan
Summary: Trial court erred when it overruled appellant’s motion to suppress.
The State failed in its burden to affirmatively establish that appellant’s
waiver of his Miranda rights was knowingly and intelligently made.
Totality of circumstances surrounding appellant’s interrogation
establish that appellant did not make a knowing, intelligent, and
voluntary waiver of his right to counsel. Judgment reversed and
cause remanded. (Froelich, J., concurring in part and dissenting in
part).
Case Name: State of Ohio v. Darrell S. Hatfield
Case No.: Montgomery App. No. 25130
Panel: Grady, Fain, Donovan
Author: Mary E. Donovan
Summary: Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), the issues
involving potentially reversible error raised by appellate counsel are
wholly frivolous, and an independent analysis reveals no meritorious
issues for review. Judgment affirmed.
Case Name: State of Ohio v. Danny L. Roush
Case No.: Montgomery App. No. 24759
Panel: Grady, Donovan, Froelich
Author: Jeffrey E. Froelich
Summary: Anders appeal. By pleading guilty to a felony involving prior
convictions, defendant waived any complaint that one of the prior
convictions had not complied with Crim.R. 32(C). Moreover, the
alleged shortcoming in the prior judgment of conviction was corrected
by means of a nunc pro tunc entry. Judgment affirmed.
Case Name: Robert J. Baron v. Civil Service Board of the City of Dayton, et al.
Case No.: Montgomery App. No. 25273
Panel: Grady, Froelich, Hall
Author: Jeffrey E. Froelich
Summary: Appellant-firefighter had two avenues of appeal to the common pleas
court from civil service board’s decision regarding his termination: a
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court of Appeals Case Summary, Week of December 24, 2012 Page 3

de novo review under R.C. 124.34, or a deferential review under R.C.
Chapter 2506. Where appellant did not expressly elect between
these options, but repeatedly requested a de novo review, the
common pleas court erred in deferring to the civil service board’s
findings in its consideration of the administrative appeal. Common
pleas court did not err in failing to grant appellant’s motion for new
trial or to vacate judgment, where his notice of appeal to this court
divested the common pleas court of jurisdiction to do so. Judgment
reversed and remanded for the common pleas court to conduct a de
novo review of the civil service board’s decision. (Hall, J., concurring.)
Case Name: Jack Turturici Family Trust, etc. v. Eric M. Carey, et al.
Case No.: Miami App. No. 2012 CA 8
Panel: Grady, Froelich, Hall
Author: Jeffrey E. Froelich
Summary: The trial court did not err in concluding that a purchaser of real
property failed to demonstrate justifiable reliance on the sellers’
misrepresentations. The trial court took the qualities and
characteristics of the particular purchaser into consideration, and did
not fail to address relevant factors. Under the circumstances, there
was reason to doubt the veracity of the sellers’ representations. The
trial court’s judgment was also not against the manifest weight of the
evidence. Affirmed.
Case Name: State of Ohio v. Robert O. Hayden
Case No.: Montgomery App. No. 24992
Panel: Grady, Froelich, Hall
Author: Jeffrey E. Froelich
Summary: The trial court erred in denying motion for post-conviction DNA testing
based on res judicata. However, the court correctly held that the
applicant did not properly request testing using the form required by
R.C. 2953.72(A) and R.C. 2953.74, and the court did not err in
denying defendant’s motion on that basis. Trial court correctly held
that request for a comparison with CODIS under R.C. 2953.74(E) was
moot. Defendant waived his claims regarding the court’s denial of his
motion to confirm sentence. Judgment affirmed. (Hall, J., concurring
in judgment.)
Case Name: Vikki Adams v. Village of Enon
Case No.: Clark Co. App. No. 2012-CA-42
Panel: Grady, Froelich, Hall
Author: Thomas J. Grady
Summary: The complaint served on the employer in an action brought on an
R.C. 4123.90 claim for relief alleging employer retaliation in
connection with an employee’s workers’ compensation claim is not the
required prior notice of the employee’s intent to commence the action
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court of Appeals Case Summary, Week of December 24, 2012 Page 4

which must be served on the employer; trial court erred in dismissing
plaintiff employee’s Civ.R. 15(A) motion for leave to amend her
complaint to add other claims for relief on a finding that her failure to
satisfy the prior notice requirement of R.C. 4123.90 rendered moot
the relief her motion for leave requested. Affirmed, in part, and
reversed, in part, and remanded. (Froelich, J., concurring in part and
dissenting in judgment).
Case Name: State of Ohio v. Keith Ramey
Case No.: Clark App. No. 2010 CA 19
Panel: Grady, Fain, Donovan
Author: Mary E. Donovan
Summary: Pursuant to R.C. 2945.72(H), the record demonstrates that the trial
court’s decision to set the appellant’s trial date beyond the statutory
time period was not reasonable. Accordingly, appellant’s right to a
speedy trial was violated, and his convictions for two counts of
aggravated robbery and one count of felonious assault are hereby
reversed and vacated.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Court of Appeals Case Summary, Week of December 24, 2012 Page 5