Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Danison v. Blinco

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Crawford

July 8, 2019

CARL J. DANISON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
MATTHEW BLINCO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

          Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. 18CV0226

          Robert C. Aldridge for Appellant

          G. Scott McBride for Appellee

          OPINION

          PRESTON, J.

         {¶1} Respondent-appellant, Matthew Blinco ("Blinco"), appeals the November 14, 2018 judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas granting a civil stalking protection order ("CSPO") to petitioner-appellee, Carl J. Danison ("Danison") on behalf of his minor child, R.D. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

         {¶2} On September 25, 2018, Danison filed a petition for an ex parte CSPO under R.C. 2903.214. (Doc. No. 1). The trial court granted Danison's ex parte petition on September 26, 2018. (Doc. No. 3). Both parties appeared with counsel at the full hearing on November 6, 2018. (Doc. No. 10). On November 14, 2018, the magistrate granted a three-year CSPO against Blinco. (Id.). The order was adopted by the trial court on the same day. (Id.). Blinco did not file objections to the trial court's adoption of the magistrate's decision granting the CSPO.

         {¶3} On December 6, 2018, Blinco filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. No. 11). He raises three assignments of error.

         Assignment of Error No. I

         The trial court erred in considering hearsay evidence in granting Petitioner's Petition for a Civil Stalking Protection Order.

         Assignment of Error No. II

         The trial court erred in granting Petitioner's Petition for a Civil Stalking Order because the evidence offered did not meet the requirements of Ohio Revised Code Section 2903.214.

         Assignment of Error No. III

         The trial court erred in failing to make any findings of fact to support its decision to issue the Civil Stalking Protection Order.

         {¶4} In his assignments of error, Blinco argues that the trial court erred by granting Danison's petition for a CSPO. Specifically, Blinco argues that the trial court considered inadmissible hearsay statements when granting Danison's petition for a CSPO. (Appellant's Brief at 6-7). Blinco also asserts that Danison failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Blinco engaged in a "pattern of conduct" which "knowingly" caused R.D. to believe he would cause "physical harm" or "mental distress" to her. (Id. at 7-10). (See R.C. 2903.211(A)(1); R.C. 2903.214). Blinco also contends that the trial court did ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.