author: Miller, Judge.

text:
    STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Josh STEELMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    NO. C-170337
    Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County.
    Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 4, 2018
    Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip R. Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
    Arenstein & Gallagher, William R. Gallagher, Cincinnati, and Elizabeth Conkin, for Defendant-Appellant.
    OPINION.
   Miller, Judge.

{¶ 1} A jury found Josh Steelman guilty of burglary and receiving stolen property for breaking into Flora and Davey Hayes's basement, and stealing cash, jewelry, and other items from a safe. The trial court sentenced Steelman to eight years in prison. We affirm.

Facts

Police find Steelman with Stolen Items

{¶ 2} Within hours of the burglary, Deputy Gator Rollins found Steelman unconscious on the side of the road behind a pickup truck driven by Justin Callaway. Steelman had been riding with Callaway when he overdosed, and Callaway had pulled Steelman out of his truck. According to Deputy Rollins, Callaway was "a nervous wreck," and "excited," and said that Steelman had overdosed on heroin. Emergency medical personnel arrived and revived Steelman. Deputy Rollins testified that subsequently, "in Callaway's excited state of mind," Callaway had said, "There's a lot of stuff in * * * [Callaway's pickup truck] that Steelman stole from Ohio."

{¶ 3} Deputy Rollins searched Callaway's truck. He found jewelry, coins, and a bag containing almost $10,000 with Davey Hayes's name and phone number written in it. At trial, Flora Hayes testified that most of these items had been in her basement safe.

The Investigation: Jailhouse Calls, DNA Evidence, and the Wittich Interview

{¶ 4} Steelman made several jailhouse phone calls that were played for the jury. One of the calls was to the Hayeses' son, who Steelman had known for years. Steelman said to him, "Tell your dad I'm so fucking sorry." Steelman also said that documents taken from the Hayeses' safe were in a burn barrel close to the Hayeses' house. Investigating detective Albert Wittich found the documents where Steelman said they would be. In another call, Steelman detailed the dollar bill denominations of the stolen money. In others, he stated that Callaway wasn't involved, that if the Hayeses pressed charges against him, he would "be fucked," and that the people Steelman believed were involved in the burglary would "fucking pay." Steelman named several of the people he thought had been involved in his alleged set-up.

{¶ 5} Items police collected from the Hayeses' basement included a Pepsi can. It was noticeably out of place, as neither of the Hayeses drank Pepsi. Later testing found Steelman's DNA on the can.

{¶ 6} Wittich interviewed Steelman after some of the jailhouse calls, but before Steelman was arrested for burglary and receiving stolen property. The interview began with Steelman stating that he wanted a lawyer, and that he did not talk to police officers. The detective answered that the interview was an opportunity for Steelman "to explain himself," and say who else had been involved. Steelman repeatedly said he did not want to talk, and that he wished to have counsel. Interspersed with these statements, however, Steelman stated that he had been high the night the burglary took place, remembered only bits of the evening, and believed he had been framed. He also told Wittich that Callaway had not been involved, and that around $10,000 had been stolen from the Hayeses. Steelman refused to answer Wittich's question of who, in particular, had been involved in Steelman's alleged set-up and the burglary.

The State Plays the Interview in its Case-in-Chief

{¶ 7} Steelman waived his right to move to suppress the Wittich interview but nevertheless objected on the basis of Miranda to the state playing it in its case-in-chief. The objection was overruled.

{¶ 8} After the interview was played, defense counsel asked Wittich on cross-examination, "When you were talking to Mr. Steelman, you were trying to get him to * * * implicate * * * third parties?" Wittich answered, "If that was the truth, yes." On redirect, the state asked the detective, "You specifically asked the defendant, hey, tell me who else was involved, and he didn't tell you anybody, right?" Wittich answered, "Correct."

Steelman Takes the Stand

{¶ 9} Steelman testified that he had been under the influence of multiple drugs the night the Hayeses, who were his neighbors and family friends, were burglarized. He said he was at a casino until 3 a.m., and then "continued to party" at home until he saw police arrive at the Hayeses' home.

{¶ 10} Steelman said he walked next door to investigate and learned that the Hayeses had been burglarized. Steelman explained that Callaway had told him how much money had been stolen, and its denominations. Steelman also testified that he knew where the stolen documents were because he had inspected the perimeter of the Hayeses' property the morning of the burglary and had seen them before leaving with Callaway. He explained that he didn't immediately come forward with this information because he had a criminal record, and was afraid doing so would falsely implicate himself in the burglary.

Closing Argument

{¶ 11} During closing argument, the prosecutor referenced Steelman's refusal to answer Wittich's questions concerning third parties. The state also argued that Steelman never would have known that $10,000 had been taken from the Hayeses unless he was guilty, and would have told Wittich that someone else had given him the money had someone else been involved. The assistant prosecuting attorney made several comments calling Steelman such names as a "yay-hoo" and a "junkie," and calling into doubt Steelman's truthfulness and the overall strength of his defense.

{¶ 12} The defense's theory of the case was that Steelman had been plied with drugs by the real burglars, taken to the casino while the burglary occurred, and then framed. Defense counsel argued that other people, and not Steelman, knew that the Hayeses had a safe full of valuables in their basement and could have been the culprits. Counsel suggested that the Pepsi can with Steelman's DNA on it had been taken from the garbage close to Steelman's house and planted in the Hayeses' basement.

Jury Question

{¶ 13} During deliberations, the jury sent a note to the judge, stating, "The jury is split on Count 1 [burglary]. * * * [H]ow much longer should we deliberate? We are still evenly split after reviewing all evidence and after multiple votes." The court administered the Howard charge. The jury subsequently returned a guilty verdict on both counts.

Assignments of Error

Prearrest Silence

{¶ 14} In his first assignment of error, Steelman contends that the state used his prearrest silence in the Wittich interview as substantive evidence of his guilt, in violation of the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. Steelman is correct.

{¶ 15} We apply a plain error standard of review. Steelman argues that a plain error analysis is not appropriate because counsel objected to the interview. However, counsel objected on the basis of Miranda and not on self-incrimination grounds. The Miranda objection did not alert the trial court or opposing counsel to Steelman's Fifth Amendment argument at a time when the potential error could have been avoided or corrected, which is the very purpose of an objection. See State v. Davis , 1 Ohio St.2d 28, 203 N.E.2d 357 (1964), paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Childs, 14 Ohio St.2d 56, 236 N.E.2d 545 (1968), paragraph three of the syllabus. He has therefore forfeited all but plain error on appeal. Crim.R. 52(B) ; State v. Rogers , 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 21-22. "Plain error" is (1) an error, (2) that is obvious, and (3) that affected the outcome of the trial. State v. Barnes , 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002).

{¶ 16} Here there was error that was obvious. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Unless used for impeachment, evidence that a defendant asked for an attorney or otherwise indicated an unwillingness to talk to police violates the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. State v. Leach , 102 Ohio St.3d 135, 2004-Ohio-2147, 807 N.E.2d 335, ¶ 31. Here, the state presented evidence in its case-in-chief that Steelman asked for an attorney multiple times, refused to answer Wittich's question concerning who else was involved, and told Wittich he "didn't talk to cops." There was no probative value to the evidence of Steelman's silence other than to allow the jury to infer guilt from it. See id. at ¶ 25. It therefore was admitted in violation of the Fifth Amendment. See id. ; Combs v. Coyle , 205 F.3d 269 (6th Cir.2000) (use of defendant's statement to police, "talk to my lawyer," in the state's case-in-chief violated the Fifth Amendment's shield against self-incrimination); State v. Pence , 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2012-05-045, 2013-Ohio-1388, 2013 WL 1397277 (detective's testimony that defendant's attorney, and not defendant, returned a phone call placed to the defendant, and testimony that the defendant never gave police a statement violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination); State v. Whitaker , 4th Dist. Scioto No. 07CA3168, 2008-Ohio-4149, 2008 WL 3583353 (officer's testimony that defendant told the officer that he "didn't want to incriminate himself" impermissibly used the defendant's right to remain silent against him);

State v. Estepp , 2d Dist. Miami No. 2006 CA 22, 2007-Ohio-2596, 2007 WL 1536908 (detective's testimony that defendant failed to return phone calls and cancelled police interviews violated defendant's right not to incriminate himself).

{¶ 17} The state contends that because Steelman took the stand his silence was properly admitted to impeach him. Once a defendant chooses to testify, the state may use a defendant's prior silence to impeach his credibility. Jenkins v. Anderson , 447 U.S. 231, 238, 100 S.Ct. 2124, 65 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980). A defendant's silence, however, "cannot possibly be used to impeach his credibility when he has yet to testify." State v. Shea , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-840806, 1985 WL 8938, *3 (July 17, 1985). Here, Steelman had not yet testified when the state played the interview. This error was not cured when Steelman took the stand. It is impossible to say if Steelman's choice to testify was based on pressure to explain his silence, and we therefore find that the state's after-the-fact justification is feckless. See Combs at 285. Further, the state used Steelman's silence as evidence of his guilt, not as impeachment evidence, by asking Wittich, "You specifically asked the defendant, hey, tell me who else was involved, and he didn't tell you anybody, right?" And did so again during closing argument when the prosecutor stated, "If someone else had stolen that sack of money he [Steelman] would have told Det. Wittich 'I don't know how much was in there, Larry gave it to me.' " The prosecutor also used Steelman's silence as evidence of guilt during rebuttal when he argued that Steelman had "had a chance" to explain himself to Wittich and to tell him who else had been involved, but did not.

{¶ 18} Next, the state argues that Steelman did not remain silent, despite his statements that he wanted an attorney and would not answer questions, and therefore the Wittich interview was properly played for the jury. Putting aside Miranda , parts of the interview were clearly admissible-i.e. Steelman's admission that he knew $10,000 had been stolen, his statement that he had been high on the night in question, and his contention that Callaway wasn't involved-but other parts of the interview clearly were not, and those portions should have been redacted. See, e.g., Whitaker at ¶ 34 (where a firearm and Hydrocodone pills were found in defendant's car, officer properly testified that defendant admitted that the pills were his, but officer should not have been permitted to testify that, when asked about the firearm, the defendant stated he didn't want to incriminate himself).

{¶ 19} We hold that the failure to redact the offending statements was error.

Callaway's Statement

{¶ 20} In his second assignment of error, Steelman contends that the trial court erred by admitting Callaway's statement, "There's a lot of stuff in there [Callaway's pickup truck] that Steelman stole from Ohio."

{¶ 21} The trial court admitted Callaway's statement under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. We review the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion. State v. Sage , 31 Ohio St.3d 173, 510 N.E.2d 343 (1987), paragraph two of the syllabus. An "excited utterance" is "[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition." Evid.R. 803(2) ; See State v. Wallace , 37 Ohio St.3d 87, 88, 524 N.E.2d 466 (1988). Such statements are admissible because they are the product of reactive, not reflexive, thinking, and therefore carry guarantees of trustworthiness.

State v. Taylor , 66 Ohio St.3d 295, 300, 612 N.E.2d 316 (1993).

{¶ 22} Here, the trial court determined that the startling event was the overdose, stating "We've got a person on the side of the road who is unconscious, a 9-1-1 call has come in, this officer indicates that somebody is overdosed, and we've got an excited person standing there by the side of the road." The contents of Callaway's truck didn't relate to Steelman's overdose. Callaway's declaration inculpating Steelman and exculpating himself was made after medical personnel had arrived and revived Steelman, was clearly self-serving, and was not the type of "reactive" statement contemplated by Evid.R. 803(2). It was therefore admitted in error.

{¶ 23} Steelman next argues that the admission of Callaway's hearsay statement violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. Having already determined that the statement was admitted in error, this argument is moot and we decline to address it. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).

Prosecutorial Misconduct

{¶ 24} In his third assignment of error, Steelman argues that the assistant prosecuting attorney made improper remarks during closing argument that resulted in an unfair trial.

{¶ 25} The test for prosecutorial misconduct is whether remarks were improper and, if so, whether they prejudicially affected the substantial rights of the accused. State v. Lott , 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 165, 555 N.E.2d 293 (1990). Prosecutors are given wide latitude during closing to argue what the evidence has shown, and to draw reasonable inferences from it. Id. at 166, 555 N.E.2d 293. "Wide latitude" does not include "insinuations and assertions calculated to mislead" or "personal beliefs or opinions regarding the guilt of the accused * * *." Id. Further, the state "may not allude to matters not supported by admissible evidence." Id.

Improper Comments on Steelman's Silence

{¶ 26} Here, the prosecutor stated, "If someone else had stolen that sack of money he would have told Det. Wittich 'I don't know how much was in there, Larry gave it to me.' " The prosecutor also argued during rebuttal that Steelman had "had a chance" to explain himself to Wittich and to tell him who else had been involved, but did not. Defense counsel did not object, so we apply a plain error standard of review. Neither of these remarks was supported by admissible evidence. We therefore hold that there was obvious error. See id ; Rogers , 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, at ¶ 21-22 ; State v. Wogenstahl , 75 Ohio St.3d 344, 357, 662 N.E.2d 311 (1996).

"Two-Bit Junkie"

{¶ 27} Steelman next takes issue with the assistant prosecutor referring to him as a "two bit junkie," "two-bit addict," "two-bit heroin addict," and "junkie," as well as "some ya-hoo," and a "vindictive, violent individual." There was no objection to these comments.

{¶ 28} Both parties may be "colorful or creative" during closing argument, provided comments are supported by the evidence. State v. Brown, 38 Ohio St.3d 305, 317, 528 N.E.2d 523 (1988). Steelman admitted that he had been high the night of the burglary, and it is undisputed that he had overdosed just hours after the burglary occurred. In regard to the "violent vindictive" statement, in one of the jailhouse phone calls Steelman threatened several times that others he believed had been involved in the burglary would "fucking pay." Thus, the prosecutor's comments, while colorful, were acceptable inferences drawn from facts in evidence. See State v. Tibbetts, 92 Ohio St.3d 146, 168, 749 N.E.2d 226 (2001) (referring to defendant as a "trained killer" was fair comment on the evidence); State v. Nields, 93 Ohio St.3d 6, 37, 752 N.E.2d 859 (2001) (argument that the defendant was a "mean-spirited derelict" and an "unemployed killer" were not improper where supported by the record).

Comments on Credibility

{¶ 29} Steelman next asserts that the prosecutor expressed his personal belief as to Steelman's credibility and the defense's overall theory of the case.

{¶ 30} A prosecutor's statement on witness credibility is improper if it implies knowledge of facts outside the record or places the prosecutor's personal credibility at issue. State v. Keene , 81 Ohio St.3d 646, 666, 693 N.E.2d 246 (1998). However, a prosecutor may state his or her opinion if supported by the evidence. State v. Jackson , 107 Ohio St.3d 300, 2006-Ohio-1, 839 N.E.2d 362, ¶ 154. For example, a "prosecutor may comment upon the circumstances of witnesses in their testimony" and may argue "that these circumstances make the witnesses more or less believable and deserving of more or less weight." State v. Clay , 181 Ohio App.3d 563, 2009-Ohio-1235, 910 N.E.2d 14, ¶ 47 (8th Dist.). A prosecutor may not state that the defendant is a liar, but "may suggest that the evidence demonstrates the defendant is lying, scheming, or has ulterior motives." State v. Irwin, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 11-CO-6, 2012-Ohio-2704, 2012 WL 2244341, ¶ 116, citing State v. Kroger, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA99-05-050, 2000 WL 342130, *2 (Apr. 3, 2000).

{¶ 31} Steelman argues that the prosecutor personally vouched for the credibility of witnesses and impermissibly injected his personal opinion as to what the evidence showed by saying: (1) "I love" Steelman's explanation concerning statements in the jailhouse calls and that Steelman's explanation "makes no sense to me"; (2) "the other thing I loved" was Steelman's phone call on July 22, 2016; (3) "That's the other thing I love about this case"-that even if others were involved, Steelman could still be guilty of complicity; (4) "But this I know for a fact that he left that Pepsi can there with his DNA on it. And I know for a fact that he is the one that was caught with the property in his possession a mere three or four hours after these offenses occurred"; (5) "It's hard to respond to something like that," referring to Steelman's closing argument, "I'll be honest with you. It is so ridiculous. Seriously."; (6) defense counsel's implication that a March 2017 date on the Pepsi can found in the Hayeses' basement meant that the can was made in March 2017-and therefore post-dated the burglary and was planted-was "misleading"; (7) "I love" defense counsel's argument that the Pepsi can came from the garbage and was used to set Steelman up; and (8) "another beauty" that "makes no sense whatsoever" was the theory that Callaway was trying to dump Steelman's dead body at the side of the road and frame him for the burglary.

{¶ 32} Defense counsel objected only to the prosecutor's argument on whether the Pepsi can was from the garbage, but did not object on the ground currently raised. We therefore review for plain error.

{¶ 33} Most of the prosecutor's comments that he "loved" certain aspects of the case, his "another beauty" statement, and his statement that defense counsel's theory of the evidence "made no sense whatsoever" were not tantamount to an expression of his personal belief regarding Steelman's guilt. Instead, they can be fairly characterized as the prosecutor arguing that the inferences that could be drawn from the evidence made the defense's theory less believable and undeserving of much weight. These statements were therefore not beyond the bounds of a proper closing argument. One of these comments-that the prosecutor "loved" that Steelman could be found guilty of complicity even if he was not the principle offender-carries no suggestion that the prosecutor was arguing that he personally believed Steelman was guilty.

{¶ 34} The prosecutor should not have argued that he knew "for a fact" that Steelman left the Pepsi can in the Hayeses' basement, and that he knew "for a fact" that Steelman was caught with the Hayeses' property shortly after the burglary was reported. These statements placed the prosecutor's personal credibility at issue, and may have suggested to the jury that the prosecutor knew things about the case that the jury did not. They were clearly improper.

{¶ 35} The prosecutor's statements on rebuttal that Steelman's closing argument was "ridiculous" and that defense counsel's Pepsi can date insinuation was "misleading" was a fair response to defense counsel's closing argument. See State v. Pickens , 141 Ohio St.3d 462, 2014-Ohio-5445, 25 N.E.3d 1023, ¶ 135 (prosecutor's statement on rebuttal that defense counsel's argument was "ludicrous" was not improper), citing State v. Martin , 6th Dist. Erie No. E-11-020, 2013-Ohio-973, 2013 WL 1092768, ¶ 42 (prosecutor's references to defendant's story to police as "ridiculous and nonsense" borne out by the evidence). The prosecutor's comments fairly pointed out perceived weaknesses in Steelman's closing argument.

Misstatement of the Law

{¶ 36} Next, Steelman contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct by stating that, once the jury began deliberations, "the presumption of innocence is no longer with him * * * it's up to you to determine if the State has met its burden of proof." This was clearly improper. Defense counsel objected. The trial court sustained the objection and immediately instructed the jury that Steelman "is still presumed innocent unless and until you find that the defendant is guilty because the State has proved it beyond a reasonable doubt." The prosecutor subsequently admitted to the jury that he had misstated the law. The jury was properly instructed regarding the state's burden of proof before they began deliberations. We presume the jury followed the trial court's instructions. See Pang v. Minch , 53 Ohio St.3d 186, 559 N.E.2d 1313 (1990), paragraph four of the syllabus. We therefore hold that Steelman was not prejudiced by this misstatement.

Facts not in Evidence

{¶ 37} Finally, Steelman contends that the prosecutor argued facts not in evidence. The prosecutor stated during rebuttal, "You don't think Shawn [the Hayeses' grandson] at some point told him [Steelman], hey, my grandparents have a safe full of money in the basement." This was a fair response to defense counsel's argument during closing that Steelman didn't know there was a safe in the Hayeses' basement and that others did-a point that defense counsel discussed at length. Hence, the defense opened the door to the state's rebuttal argument. There was no misconduct. See State v. Diar , 120 Ohio St.3d 460, 2008-Ohio-6266, 900 N.E.2d 565, ¶ 217 (prosecutor has wide latitude to respond to arguments made by defense counsel during closing).

Reversible Error Analysis

{¶ 38} Having found error in (1) the admission of those parts of the Wittich interview that violated Steelman's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; (2) the admission of Callaway's hearsay statement; and (3) several of the prosecutor's comments during closing argument, we must determine whether these errors require us to reverse Steelman's convictions.

Plain Error Determination

{¶ 39} We review the Fifth Amendment violation and the improper closing argument comments, except for the prosecutor's misstatement of the law-which we have already determined was not prejudicial-to determine whether these errors affected the outcome of Steelman's trial, resulting in plain error. See Barnes , 94 Ohio St.3d at 27, 759 N.E.2d 1240.

{¶ 40} Steelman argues that the state's case here was weak, and contends that the jury's note stating that they could not come to a verdict on the burglary charge is proof of its weakness. We disagree. Police discovered Steelman with the stolen goods within hours of the burglary, Steelman knew where the Hayeses' missing documents could be found, he knew that $10,000 had been stolen, he discussed the denominations of the stolen dollar bills, he told the Hayeses' son to tell Davey Hayes that Steelman was "sorry," and Steelman's DNA was found on a Pepsi can in the Hayeses' basement close to the safe. Because the evidence of Steelman's guilt is overwhelming absent the evidence of his silence and the improper closing statements, we hold that there was no plain error.

Harmless Error Determination

{¶ 41} We review the admission of Callaway's hearsay for harmless error. The question is whether the hearsay was prejudicial, and if so, whether Steelman's "substantial rights" were affected warranting a new trial. See Crim.R. 52(A) ; State v. Morris , 141 Ohio St.3d 399, 2014-Ohio-5052, 24 N.E.3d 1153, ¶ 27-32.

{¶ 42} Callaway's statement was no doubt prejudicial. Callaway directly implicated Steelman in the crimes for which he was on trial. Our analysis therefore focuses on whether, absent Callaway's statement, there was overwhelming evidence of Steelman's guilt. See Morris at ¶ 29.

{¶ 43} As stated above, there was overwhelming independent evidence of Steelman's guilt. The error in the admission of his statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

{¶ 44} We overrule all assignments of error. The trial court's judgment convicting Steelman of burglary and receiving stolen property is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Zayas, P.J., and Deters, J., concur.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: HALL, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Ashley BLAND, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC., Defendant-Appellee
    No. 27837
    Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery County.
    Rendered on May 4, 2018
    LAURENCE A. LASKY, Atty. Reg. No. 002959, 130 W. Second Street, Suite 830, Dayton, Ohio 45402, Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    G. TODD HOFFPAUIR, Atty. Reg. No. 0064449 and LINDSAY M. UPTON, Atty. Reg. No. 0092309, 36 E. Seventh Street, Suite 2100, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee
   HALL, J.

{¶ 1} Ashley Bland and Laurence Lasky appeal from the trial court's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal of their complaint against appellee Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. ("Toyota Motor Sales").

{¶ 2} In their sole assignment of error, Bland and Lasky contend the trial court erred in concluding that their complaint failed to state a breach-of-contract claim.

{¶ 3} The record reflects that Bland filed a September 2017 complaint against Toyota Motor North America ("Toyota North America") related to excessive consumption of oil by her 2009 Toyota Scion. Bland later dismissed Toyota Motor North America and added Toyota Motor Sales as a defendant. She also amended her complaint to add Lasky, her father, as a plaintiff. (Doc. # 9, 18, 23).

{¶ 4} On November 3, 2017, Toyota Motor Sales moved to dismiss the complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). (Doc. # 24). Toyota Motor Sales construed the complaint as pleading a breach-of-warranty claim, which it alleged was barred on its face by the applicable four-year statute of limitation and by a lack of privity of contract. (Id. ). Bland and Lasky opposed the motion. Without addressing the breach-of-warranty issue, they argued that the complaint pled a claim for breach of implied contract, which had a six-year statute of limitation, based on a "secret unannounced recall." (Doc. # 25). In reply, Toyota Motor Sales argued that the complaint failed to plead the elements of a claim for breach of implied contract. (Doc. # 26).

{¶ 5} In a December 15, 2017, decision, order, and entry, the trial court agreed with Toyota Motor Sales. It found the breach-of-warranty claim time barred on its face and concluded that it also failed for other reasons. (Doc. # 27). With regard to the alleged breach of implied contract, the trial court reasoned:

The Court now addresses the Plaintiffs' argument that they sufficiently pleaded a breach of contract claim in the Amended Complaint. As the Plaintiffs did not attach any exhibit, the Court's review is limited to the four corners of the Amended Complaint. * * *
Generally, a breach of contract action is pleaded by stating: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) the performance by the plaintiff of his or her obligations; (3) the breach by the defendant; and (4) damages. * * *
Here, the Plaintiffs argue that Toyota made a promise to replace the engine by recalling the vehicles, that Plaintiffs accepted this offer, and that Toyota breached the promise. However, in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs only allege the following:
11. After expressing concerns about the excessive oil consumption, Plaintiff was finally told by a dealer representative that Toyota was having problems with that engine and that the Defendant Toyota Motor Company had an unannounced recall for that engine.
12. Under the secret unannounced recall, Toyota is replacing the engine in each vehicle complained of.
Am. Compl. ¶ 11-12.
The Plaintiffs do not allege that there existed between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Toyota a contract to replace the engine, the Plaintiffs' performance under the contract, or damages arising out of the breach. After accepting all factual allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that no set of facts alleged therein warrants relief.
(Id. at 6-7).

{¶ 6} On appeal, Bland and Lasky contend the trial court erred in its analysis of the breach-of-contract issue. They argue:

The Trial court addressed the matter of the breach of contract alleged in Appellants' Complaint only in part. The Trial Court cites to paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Complaint yet finds that no contract is alleged regarding the replacement of the engine by Appellee yet the Trial Court failed to apply paragraph of the Complaint 13 which states: "Plaintiff asks Toyota to install a new engine in her car pursuant to the unannounced recall mentioned previously."
Appellants had addressed the offer by the Appellee via the unannounced recall and the notification given by the dealer representative. (See paragraphs 11 and 12). The Trial Court alluded to the fact that there was no exhibit attached to the Complaint regarding a breach of contract claim. This inference makes it apparent that the Trial Court assumed that a written document was warranted for a breach of contract claim. The Trial Court failed to apply the proper standard relating to an implied contract. An implied contract arises when the circumstances make it reasonably certain that an agreement was intended. Cuyahoga Cty. Hospitals v. Price (1989), 64 Ohio App.3d 410, 581 N.E.2d 1125.
The agreement was certainly intended in this instance by Appellee because of the engine recall that was put in place. Appellants have sought the replacement of the engine in question.

(Appellants' brief at 4-5).

{¶ 7} We begin our analysis by noting that the trial court dismissed the appellants' complaint "without prejudice." (Doc. # 27 at 7). Ordinarily, a dismissal without prejudice is other than on the merits under Civ.R. 41(B) and is not appealable. Ebbets Partners, Ltd. v. Day , 171 Ohio App.3d 20, 2007-Ohio-1667, 869 N.E.2d 110, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.). With regard to a dismissal without prejudice under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), however, such a dismissal may be appealable "if the plaintiff cannot plead the claims any differently to state a claim for relief." Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of Southwest Ohio, Inc. , 2013-Ohio-4147, 998 N.E.2d 517, ¶ 11 (1st Dist). If the rule were otherwise, a plaintiff whose complaint was found deficient under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) would be without a remedy to challenge that determination.

{¶ 8} Here it is unclear whether Bland and Lasky potentially could plead differently to state a breach-of-contract claim against Toyota Motor Sales. Resolution of that issue likely depends, at least in part, on the existence or non-existence of facts that are known to them. For present purposes, however, we will presume that Bland and Lasky are incapable of pleading differently to overcome the deficiencies found by the trial court. If that were not so, they likely would have re-filed their complaint rather than appealing the dismissal. Accordingly, we will proceed to the merits of the appeal.

{¶ 9} A Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of a complaint. For a defendant to prevail, it must appear beyond doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc. , 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 245, 327 N.E.2d 753 (1975). A court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, presume all of the factual allegations to be true, and make all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. , 40 Ohio St.3d 190, 192, 532 N.E.2d 753 (1988). We conduct a de novo review of a dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Grover v. Bartsch , 170 Ohio App.3d 188, 2006-Ohio-6115, 866 N.E.2d 547, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 10} With the foregoing standards in mind, we see no error in the trial court's dismissal of the complaint filed by Bland and Lasky. As set forth above, the complaint alleged a breach of warranty based on the 2009 Toyota Scion's excessive use of oil. The trial court found this claim conclusively time barred on the face of the complaint and also found it subject to dismissal for other reasons. Bland and Lasky do not challenge that determination. Rather, they contend the complaint also pled a cause of action for breach of an implied contract.

{¶ 11} After addressing the vehicle's use of oil and making warranty-related allegations, the complaint continued:

10. Plaintiff states that she continuously brought the matter of the excessive oil consumption to the attention of the servicing dealer representative at Joseph Airport Toyota.
11. After expressing concern about the excessive oil consumption, Plaintiff was finally told by a dealer representative that Toyota was having problems with that engine and that Defendant Toyota Motor Company had an unannounced recall for that engine.
12. Under the secret unannounced recall, Toyota is replacing the engine in each vehicle complained of.
13. Plaintiff asks Toyota to install a new engine in her car pursuant to the unannounced recall mentioned previously.
14. In the alternative, Plaintiff would seek a judgment in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars and No/100 ($10,000.00) to replace the engine in her 2009 Scion.
15. In the alternative, Plaintiff would seek rescission of the contract and a refund of her purchase price.

(Amended complaint at ¶ 11-15).

{¶ 12} Bland and Lasky contend paragraphs eleven, twelve, and thirteen state a claim for breach of implied contract. They argue that the trial court failed to consider paragraph thirteen in finding no contract claim. We disagree. All of the paragraphs quoted above appear to be part of a multi-pronged prayer for relief following the breach-of-warranty claim. Paragraphs ten through twelve address Bland's discovery of a "secret" recall under which Toyota is replacing engines. Paragraph thirteen then prays for Toyota to install a new engine under that "secret" program. Alternatively, paragraphs fourteen and fifteen pray for money damages or rescission of the purchase contract.

{¶ 13} Nowhere in the foregoing paragraphs does the complaint allege that Bland contacted Toyota Motor Company, sought to have an engine installed, that Toyota Motor Company actually or implicitly contracted to replace the engine, and that she was damaged as a result. Rather, paragraph thirteen asks Toyota Motor Company now to install a new engine as a remedy for her breach-of-warranty claim. Thus, the trial court correctly found that "[t]he Plaintiffs do not allege that there existed between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Toyota a contract to replace the engine, the Plaintiffs' performance under the contract, or damages arising out of the breach." (Doc. # 27 at 7). For that reason, we see no error in the trial court's dismissal.

{¶ 14} Bland and Lasky next contend the trial court incorrectly assumed that a written contract was required for a breach-of-contract claim. This argument concerns the trial court's observation that its review was limited to the four corners of the complaint because Bland and Lasky did not attach an exhibit. (Id. at 6-7). We believe Bland and Lasky read more than stated in the trial court's decision, which merely mentioned the lack of an exhibit to identify the scope of its review. The ruling did not indicate that the trial court's dismissal was based on the failure to attach a written contract to the complaint.

{¶ 15} Finally, Bland and Lasky cite case law for the proposition that an implied contract exists when circumstances make it reasonably certain an agreement was intended. They argue that an agreement was intended in this case because a recall was instituted and they sought replacement of the engine. We disagree. The complaint failed to allege that Toyota offered Bland a new engine under the secret recall, that Bland accepted the offer by contacting Toyota and seeking to have a new engine installed, that Toyota refused to perform, and that Bland was damaged as a result. As set forth above, the complaint alleged only that a dealer representative told Bland that Toyota Motor Company had a secret unannounced recall under which it was replacing engines. This allegation fails to state a claim for breach of an implied contract.

{¶ 16} Based on the reasoning set forth above, we overrule the assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court.

WELBAUM, P. J., and FROELICH, J., concur.

      The trial court's ruling also included a notation that it constituted a final, appealable order. But "the trial court's own self-determination that it is issuing a final order does not dispose of the question." George v. State , 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 10AP-4, 2010-Ohio-5262, 2010 WL 4264417, ¶ 11, citing Casey v. Reidy , 180 Ohio App.3d 615, 2009-Ohio-415, 906 N.E.2d 1139 (7th Dist.).


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Petitioner, v. Jansen AIKENS, Respondent.
    No. 121558
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Appeal as a Matter of Right or, in the alternative, Petition for Leave to Appeal Allowed.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Carmen TITO, Petitioner.
    No. 122093
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
    In the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, First District, is directed to vacate its judgment in People v. Tito, case No. 1-14-2603 (03/03/17). The appellate court is directed to consider the effect of this court's opinion in People v. Bingham, 2018 IL 122008, on the issue of whether a defendant may raise the constitutionality of the Sex Offender Registration Act ( 730 ILCS 150/1 to 12) on direct appeal.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Derrick THOMAS, Petitioner.
    No. 122101
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    IN RE PARENTAGE OF J.R.G., a Minor
    (Michelle W., petitioner, v. Michael G., respondent).
    No. 124102
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 13, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Jermaine BRAZILL, Petitioner.
    No 122132
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Petitioner, v. Antonio HOUSE, Respondent.
    No. 122134
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Appeal as a Matter of Right or, in the alternative, Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
    In the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, First District, is directed to vacate its judgment in People v. House, case No. 1-11-0580 (12/24/15). The appellate court is directed to consider the effect of this court's opinion in People v. Harris, 2018 IL 121932, on the issue of whether defendant's sentence violates the Proportionate Penalties Clause of the Illinois Constitution.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Antonio HOUSE, Petitioner.
    No. 122140
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    RVP, LLC, et al., Petitioners, v. ADVANTAGE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., et al., Respondents.
    No. 122313
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Ricardo VASQUEZ, Petitioner.
    No. 122418
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, respondent, v. Bethany L. MCKEE, petitioner.
    No. 122468
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Robin FRAZIER, Petitioner.
    No. 122575
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Anton M. CLARK, Petitioner.
    No. 123958
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Jose Jaime PUENTE, Petitioner, v. Francisco LOPEZ, etc. (Cleary Builders, LLC, Respondent).
    No. 123959
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    People STATE of Illinois, Respondent, v. Steven LUKER, Petitioner.
    No. 123961
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Paul A. SMITH, Petitioner.
    No. 123962
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    IN RE MARRIAGE OF Suzanne A. ANDERS, Respondent, and Brian S. Anders, Petitioner.
    No. 123963
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Joseph RACANELLI, Petitioner, v. Forest ASHBY, Respondent.
    No. 123964
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Alfred G. LEE, Petitioner.
    No. 123965
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


author: Neville, J. took no part.

text:
    IN RE MARRIAGE OF Ellen Jordan REIDY, Respondent, and John P. Reidy, Petitioner.
    No. 123966
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
   Neville, J. took no part.


text:
    CITY OF CRYSTAL LAKE, Petitioner, v. METROPOLITAN ALLIANCE OF POLICE, CHAPTER 177, Respondent.
    No. 123967
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Lourdes GUERRERO et al., Respondents, v. Yvonne LESKO, Petitioner.
    No. 123969
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Darrell MOORE, Petitioner.
    No. 122594
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Emmanuel HOOVER, Petitioner.
    No. 123971
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, respondent, v. Dee E. EASTMAN, petitioner.
    No. 123973
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    CITIMORTGAGE, INC., et al., Respondents, v. Valery VINAROV, etc., Petitioner.
    No. 123976
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    William RAGEL, Petitioner, v. Gregg SCOTT, etc., Respondent.
    No. 123977
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Christopher J. TATARA, Petitioner, v. Gregg SCOTT, etc., et al., Respondents.
    No. 123978
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Vincent CARTER, Petitioner.
    No. 123979
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Christopher J. TATARA, Respondent, v. Gregg SCOTT, etc., et al., Respondents
    (Samuel Rutherford, Petitioner).
    No. 123980
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    DIRECT AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Andrew KOZIOL, Respondent.
    No. 123981
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Fredrick JONES, Petitioner.
    No. 123982
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
   Neville, J. took no part.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Andre HILLIARD, Petitioner.
    No. 122634
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Jared Michael SMITH, Petitioner.
    No. 123983
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Kelley TONEY, petitioner, v. CENTRALIA CORRECTIONAL CENTER WARDEN, respondent.
    No. 123984
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Sylshina LONDON, Petitioner.
    No. 123985
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Burton SIEGAL, respondent, v. Harry BARNETT, petitioner.
    No. 123988
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Marshall ASHLEY, Petitioner.
    No. 123989
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Allowed.


text:
    Alexis NICHOLS, etc., Respondent, v. David FAHRENKAMP et al., etc., Petitioners.
    No. 123990
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Allowed.


text:
    Javier BAILEY, Petitioner, v. Randy PFISTER, etc., Respondent.
    No. 123995
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Levail GIVENS, Petitioner.
    No. 122645
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    ENGINEERED ABRASIVES, INC., etc., Petitioner, v. Edward C. RICHERME et al., etc., Respondents.
    No. 123996
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Dwayne JACKSON, Petitioner.
    No. 123997
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Jose PESANTEZ, Petitioner.
    No. 123999
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Petitioner, v. Robert HIATT, Respondent.
    No. 124001
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


author: Thomas, J. took no part.

text:
    John JONES et al., Respondents, v. PNEUMO ABEX LLC et al. (Owens-Illinois, Inc., Petitioner).
    No. 124002
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Allowed.
    This case is consolidated with Case No. 123895.
   Thomas, J. took no part.

Theis, J. took no part.


text:
    Reginald LOVE, Petitioner, v. Charles BEST et al., Respondents.
    No. 124003
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Julian B. DAILEY, Petitioner.
    No. 124004
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Jamari MCARTHUR, Petitioner.
    No. 124005
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
    In the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, First District, is directed to vacate its judgment in People v. McArthur, case No. 1-15-0626 (06/25/18). The appellate court is directed to consider the effect of this court's opinion in People v. Bingham, 2018 IL 122008, on the issue of whether a defendant may raise the constitutionality of the Sex Offender Registration Act ( 730 ILCS 150/1 to 12) on direct appeal.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Jermaine L. DAVIS, Petitioner.
    No. 124009
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Glenn W. REED, Jr., et al.
    (Lenn D. Reed, Petitioner).
    No. 124043
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Shaquille WRIGHT, Petitioner.
    No. 124010
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Edmond THOMAS, Petitioner.
    No. 122697
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Willie SPATES, Petitioner, v. Walter NICHOLSON, etc., Respondent.
    No. 124012
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Thomas W. BELANGER, Petitioner.
    No. 124013
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Phillip E. LAPOINTE, Petitioner.
    No. 124014
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Gerald W. LONG, Petitioner.
    No. 124018
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    LAKEWOOD NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC, Respondent, v. The DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH et al., etc., Petitioners.
    No. 124019
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Allowed.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Ellean NANCE, Petitioner.
    No. 124021
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, respondent, v. Davett FISHER, petitioner.
    No. 124022
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, respondent, v. Andrew CONDON, petitioner.
    No. 124023
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Robert PEEL, Petitioner.
    No. 124028
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, respondent, v. Ed L. BELL, petitioner.
    No. 124030
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Jamony NUNLEY, Petitioner.
    No. 122724
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Andrew SLABON, Petitioner.
    No. 124031
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Byron E. ADAMS, Petitioner.
    No. 124033
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Isaias BELTRAN, Petitioner.
    No. 124034
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Prince K. UCHE, Petitioner.
    No. 124035
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Wilbert JACKSON, Petitioner.
    No. 124036
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, respondent, v. Glenn CARTER, petitioner.
    No. 124037
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Carl THOMAS, Petitioner.
    No. 124038
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, respondent, v. John Edward ALLEN Jr., petitioner.
    No. 124039
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, respondent, v. DeAndre CRAWFORD, petitioner.
    No. 124040
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Carlos A. JACKSON, Petitioner.
    No. 122780
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, respondent, v. Joseph CRAWFORD, petitioner.
    No. 124041
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Lapoleon COLBERT, Petitioner.
    No. 124044
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Glenn W. REED, Jr., Petitioner.
    No. 124045
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Tita G. TRAJANO, Petitioner.
    No. 124047
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Tracy Eugene JOHNSON, Petitioner.
    No. 124050
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Michael WORDLOW, Petitioner.
    No. 124051
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
   Neville, J. took no part.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Wilson FRANKLIN, Petitioner.
    No. 124052
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Jeffery STARKS, Petitioner.
    No. 124053
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Senayda NORABUENA et al., respondents, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., et al., respondents.
    No. 122800
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petitioner having failed to file a Petition for Leave to Appeal within the time allowed by order, this case is Dismissed.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, respondent, v. Anthony C. WILKERSON, petitioner.
    No. 124054
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Michael L. CLELAND et al., Respondents, v. John E. CLELAND et al., Petitioners.
    No. 124055
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Richard HOLMAN, Petitioner.
    No. 124056
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Lortez THOMAS, Petitioner.
    No. 124058
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Hezekiah HAMILTON, Petitioner.
    No. 124060
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Kenneth L. THOMAS, Petitioner.
    No. 124061
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Joe SHERROD, Petitioner.
    No. 124062
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, respondent, v. Oscar RAMIREZ, petitioner.
    No. 124063
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Joseph THOMAS, Petitioner.
    No. 124064
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Ed FIALA, Respondent, v. WASCO SANITARY DISTRICT et al. (Robert Skidmore et al., Petitioners).
    No. 124067
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, respondent, v. George GRIGOROV, petitioner.
    No. 122897
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Ed FIALA, respondent, v. WASCO SANITARY DISTRICT et al. (Charles V. Muscarello, petitioner).
    No. 124068
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Petitioner, v. Deonte GREEN, Respondent.
    No. 124070
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Tavarius D. RADFORD, Petitioner.
    No. 123975
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Esteban SOTELO, Petitioner.
    No. 124077
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Manuel J. YANEZ, Petitioner.
    No. 124079
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    CATALPA GARDENS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, etc., Petitioner, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., etc., Respondent.
    No. 124084
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Shai Ben MOSHE, etc., Petitioner, v. David ORR, etc., et al., Respondents.
    No. 123031
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petitioner having failed to file a Petition for Leave to Appeal within the time allowed by order, this case is Dismissed.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Byron EDWARDS, Petitioner.
    No. 123101
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Ladell HENDERSON, Petitioner.
    No. 123176
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Cedric SANDERS, Petitioner.
    No. 123192
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Appeal as a Matter of Right or, in the alternative, Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Alan N. BANNING, Petitioner.
    No. 123330
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Aaron ZETTERLUND, Petitioner.
    No. 123491
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
    In the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, Third District, is directed to vacate its judgment in People v. Zetterlund, case No. 3-15-0435 (03/23/18). The appellate court is directed to consider the effect of this court's opinion in People v. Bingham, 2018 IL 122008, on the issue of whether a defendant may raise the constitutionality of the Sex Offender Registration Act ( 730 ILCS 150/1 to 12) on direct appeal.


text:
    DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., Respondent, v. Bruce KAMPERMAN et al., Petitioners.
    No. 123661
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Petitioner, v. Cordell WILLIAMS, Respondent.
    No. 123694
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Appeal as a Matter of Right or, in the alternative, Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
    In the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, First District, is directed to vacate its judgment in People v. Williams, case No. 1-15-1373 (05/11/18). The appellate court is directed to consider the effect of this court's opinion in People v. Harris, 2018 IL 121932, on the issue of whether defendant's sentence violates the Proportionate Penalties Clause of the Illinois Constitution. Neville, J. took no part.


text:
    IN RE the Matter of the ESTATE and Guardianship OF Virginia B. JORITZ, etc. (Cathy Joritz, Petitioner, v. Fred Joritz, Respondent).
    No. 123749
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    WESLEY TERRACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Respondent, v. Christopher STOLLER, Petitioner.
    No. 123750
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
   Neville, J. took no part.


text:
    Margaret CAROLAN, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. The CITY OF CHICAGO, etc., Respondent.
    No. 123824
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Salvador BEGAY, Petitioner.
    No. 123866
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    OPENLANDS, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. The DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, etc., et al., Respondents.
    No. 123879
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Joy Rachel KLAUS, Petitioner.
    No. 123885
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    IN RE MARRIAGE OF Ruth A. BOLT, Respondent, and Cloyd Dean Bolt, Petitioner.
    No. 123886
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Joseph TALACH, Petitioner.
    No. 123892
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Petitioner, v. Stevie SMITH, Respondent.
    No. 123901
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Allowed.
    This case is consolidated with Case No. 123902.
   Neville, J. took no part.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Dion SPEARS, Petitioner.
    No. 123918
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Milagros BRECHEL, Petitioner, v. Tyler LEWKE et al., Respondents.
    No. 123921
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Lauren HUSSAR et al. v. The BREWSTER CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION et al. (The Brewster Condominium Association, Petitioner)
    Thornton Tomasetti, Inc., Respondent.
    No. 123925
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Allen Steve FITZPATRICK, Jr., Petitioner.
    No. 123929
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Sixto MARTINEZ, Petitioner.
    No. 123930
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
    In the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, Fourth District, is directed to vacate its judgment in People v. Martinez, case No. 4-16-0729 (08/03/18). The appellate court is directed to consider the effect of this court's opinion in People v. Bingham, 2018 IL 122008, on the issue of whether a defendant may raise the constitutionality of the Sex Offender Registration Act ( 730 ILCS 150/1 to 12) on direct appeal.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. D'Andre HOWARD, Petitioner.
    No. 123935
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    The ROBERT R. MCCORMICK FOUNDATION et al., Petitioners, v. ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Respondent.
    No. 123936
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Allowed.


text:
    Cordell L. GINES, Petitioner, v. Ryan R. WILSON, et al., Respondents.
    No. 123941
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Vito BASILE, Petitioner, v. COLLEGE OF DUPAGE, Respondent.
    No. 123942
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Ed FIALA, Petitioner, v. WASCO SANITARY DISTRICT et al., Respondents.
    No. 124071
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Epigmenio MELECIO, Petitioner.
    No. 124074
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, respondent, v. George T. LACKEY, petitioner.
    No. 124082
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    MCGINLEY PARTNERS, LLC, etc., Respondent, v. ROYALTY PROPERTIES, LLC, etc., et al., Petitioners.
    No. 124085
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
   Neville, J. took no part.


text:
    Larry JOHNSON et al. (Steven Johnson, Petitioner, v. Jay K. Filler et al., Respondents).
    No. 124086
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Juan RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner.
    No. 122953
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
    In the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, First District, is directed to vacate its judgment in People v. Rodriguez, case No. 1-15-1938 (11/21/17). The appellate court is directed to consider the effect of this court's opinion in People v. Bingham, 2018 IL 122008, on the issue of whether the defendant may raise the constitutionality of the Sex Offender Registration Act ( 730 ILCS 150/1 to 12) on appeal from the circuit court's order that defendant must register as a sex offender.


text:
    CAMBRIDGE GROUP TECHNOLOGIES, LTD. et al. (Kurt Fuqua, Petitioner, v. MOTOROLA, INC., et al., etc., Respondents).
    No. 124089
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Daniel HAMILTON, Petitioner.
    No. 124092
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Brian A. TAPP, Petitioner.
    No. 124093
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Thomas WATSON, Petitioner.
    No. 123345
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
    In the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, Third District, is directed to vacate its judgment in People v. Watson, case No. 3-14-0510 (01/09/18). The appellate court is directed to consider the effect of this court's opinion in People v. Bingham, 2018 IL 122008, on the issue of whether a defendant may raise the constitutionality of the Sex Offender Registration Act ( 730 ILCS 150/1 to 12) on direct appeal.


text:
    Kathleen BURNS et al., etc., Respondents, v. The COUNTY OF DUPAGE, Petitioner.
    No. 123377
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petitioner having failed to file a Petition for Leave to Appeal within the time allowed by order, this case is Dismissed.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, respondent, v. Denzel PITTMAN, petitioner.
    No. 123410
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. AON TRADE CREDIT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., etc., et al., Respondents.
    No. 123541
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Jose HERNANDEZ, Petitioner.
    No. 123613
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
    In the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, First District, is directed to vacate its judgment in People v. Hernandez, case No. 1-15-1886 (02/28/18). The appellate court is directed to consider the effect of this court's opinion in People v. Bingham, 2018 IL 122008, on the issue of whether a defendant may raise the constitutionality of the Sex Offender Registration Act ( 730 ILCS 150/1 to 12) on direct appeal.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Pedro BAHENA-MENDOZA, Petitioner.
    No. 123641
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
    In the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, First District, is directed to vacate its judgment in People v. Bahena-Mendoza, case No. 1-15-1997 (05/02/18). The appellate court is directed to consider the effect of this court's opinion in People v. Bingham, 2018 IL 122008, on the issue of whether a defendant may raise the constitutionality of the Sex Offender Registration Act ( 730 ILCS 150/1 to 12) on direct appeal.


text:
    RADIANT STAR ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., Respondent, v. METROPOLIS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Petitioner.
    No. 123744
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
   Neville, J. took no part.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. William CHABAN, Petitioner.
    No. 123829
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Dionne VASSELL, Petitioner, v. PRESENCE SAINT FRANCIS HOSPITAL, Respondent.
    No. 123837
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Thomas NEUHENGEN, Respondent, v. GLOBAL EXPERIENCE SPECIALISTS, INC., etc., et al., Petitioners.
    No. 123846
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. John G. MONTELEONE, Petitioner.
    No. 123863
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Coolidge SMITH, Petitioner.
    No. 123881
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Kelli SWANSON et al., Respondents, v. CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT 158 et al., Petitioners.
    No. 123883
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Petitioner, v. Stephen P. TRIPP, Respondent.
    No. 123884
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. David BALLER, Petitioner.
    No. 123889
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. William ANDERSON, Petitioner.
    No. 123890
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Terrance M. LLOYD, Petitioner.
    No. 123891
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    John JONES et al., Respondents, v. PNEUMO ABEX LLC, Petitioner.
    No. 123895
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Allowed.
    This case is consolidated with Case No. 124002.
   Thomas, J. took no part.

Theis, J. took no part.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Brenon PENISTER, Petitioner.
    No. 123896
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
   Neville, J. took no part.


text:
    IN RE MARRIAGE OF Joshua D. SCRITCHFIELD, Respondent, and Sarah EMANUELE, Petitioner.
    No. 123897
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Petitioner, v. Benjamin THRUSH, Respondent.
    No. 123898
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Valen LITTLE, Petitioner.
    No. 123903
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Joshua Pierre KING, Petitioner.
    No. 123907
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Sandy TSAI, Petitioner, v. Spiros PICOULAS et al. (Angeliki Stamelos et al., Respondents).
    No. 123908
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Ival E. MILES, Petitioner.
    No. 123909
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Pedro IBARRA-LANDA, Petitioner.
    No. 123913
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Shawn M. BAHRS, Petitioner.
    No. 123916
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Art MCCRAY, Petitioner.
    No. 123923
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Steven J. VARNAUSKAS, Petitioner.
    No. 123924
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Dan E. SYLVESTER, Petitioner.
    No. 123928
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Daniel HITES, Respondent, v. WAUBONSEE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Petitioner.
    No. 123932
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Dameko S. BRICKHOUSE, Petitioner.
    No. 123934
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    James KERO, Petitioner, v. Sharon PALACIOS, R.N. et al. (Symphony of Lincoln Park, LLC, Respondent).
    No. 123938
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Willie WELLS, Petitioner.
    No. 123940
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Brian DORE, Petitioner, v. PRIMARY CARE ASSOCIATES, LTD., et al., Respondents.
    No. 123947
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
   Neville, J. took no part.


text:
    PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Respondent, v. Scott R. FOSTER, Petitioner.
    No. 123950
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
   Neville, J. took no part.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Wysingo TURNER, Petitioner.
    No. 123951
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Joseph JANKE, Petitioner.
    No. 123953
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, respondent, v. Marvin CARTER, petitioner.
    No. 123955
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Donald P. HORWITZ, Petitioner, v. SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL, Respondent.
    No. 123956
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
   Neville, J. took no part.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Michael ROMANO, Petitioner.
    No. 123957
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Deshawn BRANCH, Petitioner.
    No. 123280
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    POLICEMEN'S BENEVOLENT & PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS, UNIT 156A-SERGEANTS, Petitioner, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Respondent.
    No. 123835
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Shawn M. BAHRS, Petitioner, v. George J. BAKALIS, Respondent.
    No. 123893
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Petitioner, v. Jerry BROWN, Respondent.
    No. 123902
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Allowed.
    This case is consolidated with Case No. 123901.
   Neville, J. took no part.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. James C. SIMPSON, Petitioner.
    No. 123912
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Mohamed SAMANTAR, Petitioner.
    No. 123914
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Carlos JENKINS, Petitioner.
    No. 123917
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
   Neville, J. took no part.


text:
    Gerald R. WARD, Indv., etc., Respondent, v. DECATUR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Petitioner.
    No. 123937
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Allowed.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Rodney LOVE, Petitioner.
    No. 123939
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Jerome ADAMS, Petitioner.
    No. 123948
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Jerry JOHNSON, Petitioner.
    No. 123954
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
   Neville, J. took no part.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Terrence GALLOWAY, Petitioner.
    No. 124032
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
   Neville, J. took no part.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Melvin FAGAN, Petitioner.
    No. 124042
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Terrin LEE, Petitioner.
    No. 123922
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Appeal as a Matter of Right or, in the alternative, Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    Debbie FERRARI, Petitioner, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent.
    No. 123933
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Petitioner, v. Gabriela ESCUTIA, Respondent.
    No. 123991
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Khalie EARLY, Petitioner.
    No. 123992
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.


text:
    PEOPLE State of Illinois, Respondent, v. Michael E. CRENSHAW, Petitioner.
    No. 123993
    Supreme Court of Illinois.
    November 28, 2018
    Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.