five assignments error in Ohio

2008He timely appealed to this court, where we remanded for resentencing pursuant to State v. Foster (2006), 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , on December 12, 2006. {¶ 5} Accordingly, after holding a hearing on January 8, 2007, the trial court resentenced Mr. Hunger to serve the same four-year sentence imposed previously. {¶ 6} Mr. Hunger now timely appeals, raising the following five assignments of error: {¶ 7} "[1.] The trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant-appellant to more-than-the-minimum prison terms in violation of the due process and ex post facto clauses of the Ohio and Unite

2007On August 11, 2005, the court issued a judgment entry that sentenced appellant to serve two concurrent four year terms of prison for the counts of robbery, and further that restitution be made to the victim in the amount of $344.15. {¶ 4} On September 9, 2005, appellant timely filed an appeal to this court, where we remanded for resentencing pursuant to State v. Foster (2006), 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , on December 12, 2006. {¶ 5} Accordingly, appellant was resentenced on January 8, 2007 to serve the same sentence imposed previously. {¶ 6} Appellant now timely appeals, raising the foll

2007No. 2006-L-075, 2006-Ohio-7011 . 2 .

2007No. *Page 7 2006-L-075, 2006-Ohio-7011 . 2 {¶ 32} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred by sentencing him to more than the minimum and consecutive prison terms in violation of the due process and ex post facto clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions.

2006This appeal followed. {¶ 34} Appellant now raises the following five assignments of error: {¶ 35} "Assignment of Error I {¶ 36} "The identification of Jones by Kiss and Lutman using a video that was not shown to the jurors was reversible error. {¶ 37} "Assignment of Error II {¶ 38} "The trial court should have granted a mistrial when Kiss knowingly testified, in violation of a court order, that Jones had just been released from custody. {¶ 39} "Assignment of Error III {¶ 40} "Jones' conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence due to the absence of any direct or reliable circumst

2005Based upon its findings, the court adjudicated appellant as a sexual predator. {¶ 9} From this judgment, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and now sets forth the following five assignments of error: {¶ 10} "[1.] The trial court's sentence violated Blakely v. Washington * * * and the case must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing. {¶ 11} "[2.] The trial court's consecutive sentence violated the Ohio Supreme Court's requirement that consecutive sentences are reserved for the worst offenses and worst offenders pursuant to State v. Comer * * *. {¶ 12} "[3.] The court's conclusion that

2023The court’s actions violated Appellant’s Right to Due Process of Law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Due Course of Law provisions of Article I, Sections 1 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution, the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution, State v. Patrick, 164 Ohio St.3d 309 (2020), R.C. 2929.02(B), R.C. 2929.12, Crim.

2020Assignment of Error No. 2: Trial court is not permitted to weight [sic] evidence or resolved issues of credibility on judgment [* * *] []Cook v. Reising, 181 Ohio App.3d 546 , 2009-Ohio-1131 (9th Dist.) Assignment of error No. 3: McKinney v. Stoltzfus, 9th Dist.

2020Assignment of Error No. 2: Trial court is not permitted to weight [sic] evidence or resolved issues of credibility on judgment [* * *] []Cook v. Reising, 181 Ohio App.3d 546 , 2009-Ohio-1131 (9th Dist.) Assignment of error No. 3: McKinney v. Stoltzfus, 9th Dist.

2018Robb, P. J., concurs Bartlett, J., concurs Case No. 17 HA 0008 [Cite as Bardall v. Fisher, 2018-Ohio-2477 .] For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the five assignments of error are overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the Court of Domestic Relations of Harrison County, Ohio, is affirmed.

2018The trial court abused its discretion when it failed to hold a hearing on Buehner's motion for leave to file a motion for new trial when the record and circumstances supported Buehner's claims that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the state of Ohio, Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 97, 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) and State v. Johnston , 39 Ohio St.3d 48 , 60, 529 N.E.2d 898 (1988). 2.

2018The trial court abused its discretion when it failed to hold a hearing on Buehner's motion for leave to file a motion for new trial when the record and circumstances supported Buehner's claims that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the state of Ohio, Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 97, 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) and State v. Johnston , 39 Ohio St.3d 48 , 60, 529 N.E.2d 898 (1988). 2.

2018The trial court abused its discretion when it failed to hold a hearing on Buehner's motion for leave to file a motion for new trial when the record and circumstances supported Buehner's claims that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the state of Ohio, Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 97, 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) and State v. Johnston , 39 Ohio St.3d 48 , 60, 529 N.E.2d 898 (1988). 2.

2018The trial court abused its discretion when it failed to hold a hearing on Buehner's motion for leave to file a motion for new trial when the record and circumstances supported Buehner's claims that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the state of Ohio, Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 97, 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) and State v. Johnston , 39 Ohio St.3d 48 , 60, 529 N.E.2d 898 (1988). 2.

2017Under these assignments of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in: (1) failing to strike the evidentiary materials introduced by appellees in support of their motion for summary judgment, (2) denying appellant's motion for partial summary judgment, (3) denying appellant's objections and request to strike appellees' memorandum contra appellant's motion for partial summary judgment, and (4) adopting appellees' affirmative defense arguments raised for the first time in their memorandum contra appellant's motion for partial summary judgment and renewed motion for summary judgment. {¶ 1

2015More specifically, appellant argues that the state failed to prove: (a) the identity of the controlled substance, (b) that he funded another's drug business, (c) the element of specific intent, and (d) that he engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity. {¶ 60} In reviewing "a record for sufficiency, '[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.' " State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163 , 2010-Ohio-1017, ¶ 146 , quoting State v.

2015More specifically, appellant argues that the state failed to prove: (a) the identity of the controlled substance, (b) that he funded another's drug business, (c) the element of specific intent, and (d) that he engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity. {¶ 60} In reviewing "a record for sufficiency, '[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.' " State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163 , 2010-Ohio-1017, ¶ 146 , quoting State v.

2015More specifically, appellant argues that the state failed to prove: (a) the identity of the controlled substance, (b) that he funded another's drug business, (c) the element of specific intent, and (d) that he engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity. {¶ 60} In reviewing "a record for sufficiency, '[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.' " State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163 , 2010-Ohio-1017, ¶ 146 , quoting State v.

2013I further agree that the majority’s determination that the OHSAA’s appeal is moot directly conflicts with the Second Appellate District’s opinion in Ulliman v. Ohio High School Athletic Assn., 184 Ohio App.3d 52 , 2009-Ohio-3756 , 919 N.E.2d 763 (2d Dist.).

2013I further agree that the majority’s determination that the OHSAA’s appeal is moot directly conflicts with the Second Appellate District’s opinion in Ulliman v. Ohio High School Athletic Assn., 184 Ohio App.3d 52 , 2009-Ohio-3756 , 919 N.E.2d 763 (2d Dist.).

2011This assignment of error lacks merit. {¶ 15} As stated by this Court in In re B.S., 184 Ohio App.3d 463 , 2009-Ohio-5497 , 921 N.E.2d 320 , the standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel is as follows: “The two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel used in criminal cases, as set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , applies equally in actions by the state to force the permanent, involuntary termination of parental rights.

2011This assignment of error lacks merit. {¶ 15} As stated by this Court in In re B.S., 184 Ohio App.3d 463 , 2009-Ohio-5497 , 921 N.E.2d 320 , the standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel is as follows: “The two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel used in criminal cases, as set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , applies equally in actions by the state to force the permanent, involuntary termination of parental rights.

2011This assignment of error lacks merit. {¶ 15} As stated by this Court in In re B.S., 184 Ohio App.3d 463 , 2009-Ohio-5497 , 921 N.E.2d 320 , the standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel is as follows: “The two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel used in criminal cases, as set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , applies equally in actions by the state to force the permanent, involuntary termination of parental rights.

2011This assignment of error lacks merit. {¶ 15} As stated by this Court in In re B.S., 184 Ohio App.3d 463 , 2009-Ohio-5497 , 921 N.E.2d 320 , the standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel is as follows: “The two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel used in criminal cases, as set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , applies equally in actions by the state to force the permanent, involuntary termination of parental rights.

2011In re Guardianship of Muehrcke, Cuyahoga App. Nos. 85087 and 85183, 2005-Ohio-2627 . {¶ 11} The five assignments of error are overruled.

2010State v. Bodyke, [126] Ohio St.3d [266], 2010-Ohio-2424 , [933] N.E.2d [753], approved and followed.

2009On April 22, 2008, the trial court sentenced appellant to 30 years to life incarceration. {¶ 16} On appeal, appellant sets forth the following five assignments of error for this court's review: Assignment of Error Number One THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING APPELLANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PRIOR ACTS TESTIMONY. *Page 6 Assignment of Error Number [T]wo APPELLANT WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BY THE PROSECUTOR'S PATTERN OF RACIALLY BIASED PREMPTORY [sic] CHALLENGES FORBIDDEN BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S DECISION OF BATSON V KENTUCKY [(1986), 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 ] AND APPLIED

2009On April 22, 2008, the trial court sentenced appellant to 30 years to life incarceration. {¶ 16} On appeal, appellant sets forth the following five assignments of error for this court's review: Assignment of Error Number One THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING APPELLANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PRIOR ACTS TESTIMONY. *Page 6 Assignment of Error Number [T]wo APPELLANT WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BY THE PROSECUTOR'S PATTERN OF RACIALLY BIASED PREMPTORY [sic] CHALLENGES FORBIDDEN BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S DECISION OF BATSON V KENTUCKY [(1986), 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 ] AND APPLIED

2009On April 22, 2008, the trial court sentenced appellant to 30 years to life incarceration. {¶ 16} On appeal, appellant sets forth the following five assignments of error for this court's review: Assignment of Error Number One THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING APPELLANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PRIOR ACTS TESTIMONY. *Page 6 Assignment of Error Number [T]wo APPELLANT WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BY THE PROSECUTOR'S PATTERN OF RACIALLY BIASED PREMPTORY [sic] CHALLENGES FORBIDDEN BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S DECISION OF BATSON V KENTUCKY [(1986), 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 ] AND APPLIED

2009On April 22, 2008, the trial court sentenced appellant to 30 years to life incarceration. {¶ 16} On appeal, appellant sets forth the following five assignments of error for this court's review: Assignment of Error Number One THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING APPELLANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PRIOR ACTS TESTIMONY. *Page 6 Assignment of Error Number [T]wo APPELLANT WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BY THE PROSECUTOR'S PATTERN OF RACIALLY BIASED PREMPTORY [sic] CHALLENGES FORBIDDEN BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S DECISION OF BATSON V KENTUCKY [(1986), 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 ] AND APPLIED

2008An April 21, 2005 sentencing judgment entry followed. {¶ 35} Appellant now appeals the judgment against him, setting forth the following five assignments of error: {¶ 36} "ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE {¶ 37} "The trial court erred to the prejudice of Mr. Triplett by permitting the introduction of the analysis of DNA results without requiring the examiner's testimony in violation of his right to confront witnesses and his right to due process in violation of his rights under the Fifth , Sixth , and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the

2008An April 21, 2005 sentencing judgment entry followed. {¶ 35} Appellant now appeals the judgment against him, setting forth the following five assignments of error: {¶ 36} "ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE {¶ 37} "The trial court erred to the prejudice of Mr. Triplett by permitting the introduction of the analysis of DNA results without requiring the examiner's testimony in violation of his right to confront witnesses and his right to due process in violation of his rights under the Fifth , Sixth , and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the

2008No. 06CA0070-M, 2007-Ohio-2841 (refusing to consider denial of motion for new trial). {¶ 17} As previously noted, McLeod challenged his conviction on direct appeal, but failed to raise any of the issues identified in the five assignments of error contained in his November 16, 2007 appellate brief.

2007No. 2005-P-0006, 2006-Ohio-4171 ("Gibson II")), in which he asserted the following five assignments of error: 3 {¶ 10} "[1.] The trial court committed prejudicial reversible error when it failed to file findings of fact and conclusions of law on [a]ppellant's claims as mandated by [R.C.] 2953.21(C). {¶ 11} "[2.] The trial court erred by denying appellant's petition for post conviction relief, without a hearing, where the record reveals that appellant's trial counsel provided *Page 4 ineffective assistance, in violation of Mr. Gibson's rights provided by the Sixth Amendment to the United States

2007They maintain that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Radio One when if found that Radio One did not breach an oral agreement between the parties, a written agreement, or breach the custom and practice between the parties. {¶ 13} In order for a summary judgment to be granted, the moving party must prove: "* * * (1) no genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) it appears from *Page 5 the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most str

2007They maintain that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Radio One when if found that Radio One did not breach an oral agreement between the parties, a written agreement, or breach the custom and practice between the parties. {¶ 13} In order for a summary judgment to be granted, the moving party must prove: "* * * (1) no genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) it appears from *Page 5 the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most str

2007Ferko claims the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument by "urging the jury to consider facts not in evidence, commenting on the credibility of witnesses, urging the jury to draw improper inferences and rely on improper considerations." For the reasons explained below, Ferko's arguments are without merit. *Page 10 {¶ 23} In analyzing claims of prosecutorial misconduct, the test is "whether remarks were improper and, if so, whether they prejudicially affected substantial rights of the accused." State v. Jones , 90 Ohio St.3d 403 , 2000-Ohio-187 .

2007Ferko claims the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument by "urging the jury to consider facts not in evidence, commenting on the credibility of witnesses, urging the jury to draw improper inferences and rely on improper considerations." For the reasons explained below, Ferko's arguments are without merit. *Page 10 {¶ 23} In analyzing claims of prosecutorial misconduct, the test is "whether remarks were improper and, if so, whether they prejudicially affected substantial rights of the accused." State v. Jones , 90 Ohio St.3d 403 , 2000-Ohio-187 .

2006The Court of Claims overruled appellant's objections and adopted the magistrate's decision. {¶ 3} Appellant filed a notice of appeal, raising the following five assignments of error: FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR : The trial court abused its discretion by failing to review appellant's objections under the common-law standard that was held in the case Woods-vs-Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation And Corrections , cited 721 N.E.2d 143 (1998).

2006Reviewing the administrative appeal, "[t]he common pleas court considers the `whole record,' * * * and determines whether the administrative order is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence." Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 , 147 , 2000-Ohio-493 .