The Ohio Court of Appeals recently upheld a domestic violence protection order against Kory A. Sharp, affirming the decision made by the Licking County Court of Common Pleas. This ruling affects Sharp's rights and obligations regarding contact with Deborah A. Merrill, the petitioner, and underscores the court's commitment to protecting victims of domestic violence.
The case, Merrill v. Sharp, was filed under docket number 2026 CA 00046. The initial petition for a domestic violence civil protection order was filed by Merrill on October 31, 2025, following a series of alarming incidents involving Sharp. The court's decision to maintain the protection order until October 31, 2030, highlights the serious nature of the allegations and the court's findings regarding Sharp's behavior.
The parties involved in this case are Deborah A. Merrill and Kory A. Sharp. Merrill filed for a protection order after a troubling incident on October 23, 2025, during which Sharp allegedly attempted to take their children while intoxicated, brandished a firearm, and physically assaulted Merrill. The trial court issued an ex parte protection order, which is a temporary order granted without a full hearing, and scheduled a hearing for November 7, 2025. Sharp was served with the order three days prior to the hearing but did not attend.
On November 25, 2025, the trial court granted a domestic violence civil protection order against Sharp, which included findings that he posed a threat to Merrill's safety. The court noted that Sharp had a mental health episode following the incident and found that Merrill had a reasonable fear of imminent harm. This order was set to remain in effect until 2030.
After several months, Sharp filed a motion to modify or terminate the protection order, claiming he had not been properly served and that the order contained factual errors. A hearing on his motions took place on May 15, 2026, where both parties represented themselves. The trial court modified the protection order in some respects but maintained the original expiration date, noting that Merrill still feared Sharp and that he had not completed required treatment programs.
On June 18, 2026, Sharp filed a notice of appeal, challenging the trial court's findings and the validity of the protection order. The court ruled on his appeal on October 13, 2026, stating that the appellant had not provided transcripts of the hearings, which were necessary for the appellate review. The court emphasized that without these transcripts, it had to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings.
The court ruled, "When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm."
The court found that Sharp's arguments regarding the trial court's reliance on evidence were unsubstantiated due to the lack of transcripts. The court also noted that the trial court's findings regarding Sharp's behavior during the October 23 incident were supported by the evidence presented at the hearings, even if Sharp disputed them.
The court's ruling indicates that it takes allegations of domestic violence seriously and is willing to uphold protection orders when there is evidence of a threat to a victim's safety. This ruling serves as a reminder of the legal protections available to victims of domestic violence in Ohio.
Moving forward, the ruling in this case reinforces the importance of providing evidence in appeals. Sharp's failure to provide transcripts limited his ability to challenge the trial court's findings effectively. This ruling may impact future cases involving domestic violence protection orders, as it sets a precedent for the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in the appeals process.
As for what’s next, Sharp has the option to seek further appeal to a higher court, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases. The outcome of this case will likely influence how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly in terms of the evidence required to challenge protection orders.