two assignments error in Ohio

2007On appeal, appellant submits the following two assignments of error for review: {¶ 4} Assignment of Error No. 1: {¶ 5} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY CONSTRUING THE DIRECT ATTACK MADE BY APPELLANT IN HIS MOTION AS A POST-CONVICTION PETITION." {¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 2: {¶ 7} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY FAILING TO GRANT THE MOTION TO CORRECT THE UNLAWFUL SENTENCE." {¶ 8} In his first assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court erred by construing his motion as a petition for postconviction relief. {¶ 9} Appellant's motion, filed seven years after h

2007On appeal, appellant submits the following two assignments of error for review: {¶ 4} Assignment of Error No. 1: {¶ 5} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY CONSTRUING THE DIRECT ATTACK MADE BY APPELLANT IN HIS MOTION AS A POST-CONVICTION PETITION." {¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 2: {¶ 7} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW BY FAILING TO GRANT THE MOTION TO CORRECT THE UNLAWFUL SENTENCE." {¶ 8} In his first assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court erred by construing his motion as a petition for postconviction relief. {¶ 9} Appellant's motion, filed seven years after h

2011Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105 , 671 N.E.2d 241 .

2007Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102 , 105 ; Norris v. Ohio Std.

2025State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St. 3d 259 , paragraph two of the syllabus (1991).

2024THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT OVERRULED MILLER’S MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL PURSUANT TO CRIM.R. 29. {¶ 10} “An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Marshall, 191 Ohio App.3d 444 , 2010-Ohio-5160 , 946 N.E.2d 762, ¶ 52 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.

2007The trial court filed a corrected entry on August 9, 2006. {¶ 5} On appeal, appellant sets forth the following two assignments of error for review: Assignment of Error No. 1: The court of common pleas violated Defendant-Appellant's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which incorporates principles of the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I, § 10, by re-sentencing him to a prison term that exceeded the "maximum" sentence which could be imposed under the laws in effect at the time of his offense before applying any sentence enhancement

2007The trial court filed a corrected entry on August 9, 2006. {¶ 5} On appeal, appellant sets forth the following two assignments of error for review: Assignment of Error No. 1: The court of common pleas violated Defendant-Appellant's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which incorporates principles of the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I, § 10, by re-sentencing him to a prison term that exceeded the "maximum" sentence which could be imposed under the laws in effect at the time of his offense before applying any sentence enhancement

2025The defendant was deprived his constitutional right to counsel as argued in his post-conviction, and his civil rule 60(B) when sufficient evidence was presented to the court that counsel was ineffective during his criminal trial which deprived defendant of his Due Process rights as guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the constitution of the United States; and Article I, Section 10, of the constitution of Ohio. {¶ 11} Because both of Cline’s assignments of error argue that the trial court erred -6- in overruling his Civ.R. 60(B) motion, we will consider them together. {

2000ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR Appellant sets forth the following two assignments of error: "AS THERE WAS NO LEGAL BASIS SUPPORTING APPELLEE'S MOTION, THE TRIAL COURT'S GRANTING RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT WAS ERROR OF LAW." "GRANTING APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT WAS ERROR OF LAW BECAUSE THE MOTION WAS IN ACTUALITY A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL WAS THE PROPER COURSE OF ACTION." Appellant's first assignment argues that appellee's Civ.R. 60(B) motion should not have been granted because it failed to set forth a meritorious claim or defense and it failed to allege entitlement for relief und

2011We find no merit to this argument. {¶ 7} We review felony sentences using the framework announced in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.2d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124 .

2011We disagree. {¶ 5} We review felony sentences using the framework announced in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.2d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124 .

2006Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 , 105 , 1996-Ohio-336 .

2006Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 , 105 , 1996-Ohio-336 .

2023Mr. Talley now asserts the following two assignments of error: {¶22} “[1.] The trial court erred when it sentenced appellant to consecutive prison terms when clearly and convincingly the record failed to support its findings, and abused its discretion when the appellant and the state had reached an agreement for a twelve month sentence, and further failed to advise appellant that the court would not or did not intend to be bound by the terms of that agreement. {¶23} “[2.] Appellant’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United Stat

2023Mr. Talley now asserts the following two assignments of error: {¶22} “[1.] The trial court erred when it sentenced appellant to consecutive prison terms when clearly and convincingly the record failed to support its findings, and abused its discretion when the appellant and the state had reached an agreement for a twelve month sentence, and further failed to advise appellant that the court would not or did not intend to be bound by the terms of that agreement. {¶23} “[2.] Appellant’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United Stat

2023Standard of Review We begin our analysis with the recognition that while a parent’s right to raise a child is an essential and basic civil right, In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48 , 679 N.E.2d 680 (1997), children have the right to “parenting from either natural or adoptive parents which provides support, care, discipline, protection and motivation.” In re Hitchcock, 120 Ohio App.3d 88, 102 , 696 N.E.2d 1090 (8th Dist.1996).

2023Standard of Review We begin our analysis with the recognition that while a parent’s right to raise a child is an essential and basic civil right, In re Hayes, 79 Ohio St.3d 46, 48 , 679 N.E.2d 680 (1997), children have the right to “parenting from either natural or adoptive parents which provides support, care, discipline, protection and motivation.” In re Hitchcock, 120 Ohio App.3d 88, 102 , 696 N.E.2d 1090 (8th Dist.1996).

2021The record does not support the trial court's findings to impose consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and R.C. 2929.41(A), and mandated by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 , 2014-Ohio-3177 , 16 N.E.3d 659 . [II].

2021The record does not support the trial court's findings to impose consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and R.C. 2929.41(A), and mandated by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 , 2014-Ohio-3177 , 16 N.E.3d 659 . [II].

2018Assignments of Error {¶ 11} Appellant appeals and brings the following two assignments of error: [I.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S CRIMINAL RULE 29 MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL. [II.] THE VERDICTS OF GUILTY TO AGGRAVATED BURGLARY, AGGRAVATED ROBBERY, KIDNAPPING, MURDER AND FELONIOUS ASSAULT ARE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

2005Third assignment of error: The trial court erred when it suppressed the in-court identification of defendant by victim Junko Glover. {¶ 29} Defendant cross-appeals from the trial court’s decision and entry, assigning the following two assignments of error: Cross-appellant’s first assignment of error: The trial court erred in failing to suppress Brandon Johnson’s statements to the Netcare worker made during a court ordered drug and alcohol assessment under Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 , [ 101 S.Ct. 1866 , 68 L.Ed.2d 359 ] (1981) and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 [ 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2

2017Davis v. Loopco Industries, Inc. , 66 Ohio St.3d 64 , 66, 609 N.E.2d 144 (1993).

2017Davis v. Loopco Industries, Inc. , 66 Ohio St.3d 64 , 66, 609 N.E.2d 144 (1993).

2014He asserts the following two assignments of error: 5 {¶14} “[1.] The trial court erred in denying appellant’s Criminal Rule 29 motion for acquittal when there was insufficient evidence of identification. {¶15} “[2.] Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial as trial counsel’s legal service fell below the standard of reasonable representation.” {¶16} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred in denying his Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal because there was insufficient evidence that he was the heroin trafficker. {¶17} With regard to suff

2014The Court stated that “[p]ursuant to Crim.R. 29(A), a court shall not order an entry of judgment of acquittal if the evidence is such that reasonable minds can reach different conclusions as to whether each material element of a crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at syllabus.

2011It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine what circumstances justify granting such a motion. * * *” State v. Xie (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 584 N.E.2d 715 , citing Barker v. United States (C.A. 10, 1978), 579 F.2d 1219 . {¶ 10} Accordingly, this court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a 7 presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea under an abuse of discretion standard.

2011It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine what circumstances justify granting such a motion. * * *” State v. Xie (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 584 N.E.2d 715 , citing Barker v. United States (C.A. 10, 1978), 579 F.2d 1219 . {¶ 10} Accordingly, this court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a 7 presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea under an abuse of discretion standard.

2009JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION *Page 3 {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, James Dzelajlija, appeals his convictions for robbery under R.C. 2911.02 (A)(2) and (A)(3). 1 He raises the following two assignments of error: {¶ 2} " [I.] The case must be dismissed as a result of a defective indictment. {¶ 3} "[II.] The convictions of appellant were against the manifest weight of the evidence." {¶ 4} Under the Ohio Supreme Court's recent holding in State v. Colon , 118 Ohio St.3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-1624 (" Colon I "), and its subsequent clarification in State v. Colon , 119 Ohio St.3d 204 , 2008-Ohio-3749 (" Colon II

2008In support, appellant relies on the Supreme Court of Ohio's case captioned State v. Colon , 118 Ohio St.3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-1624 .

2006Rice, J., O'Toole, J., concur. 1 State v. Foster, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2006-Ohio-856 . 2 Id., at paragraphs three and four of the syllabus, citing Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 and Booker v. United States (2005), 543 U.S. 220 . 3 State v. Saxon, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2006-Ohio-1245 , paragraph three of the syllabus.

2005The trial court committed an error of law by imposing a sentence in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution pursuant to U.S. v. Booker [(2005), 125 S.Ct. 738 ] and Blakely v. Washington [(2004), 124 S.Ct. 2531 ]. {¶ 10} These assignments of error focus on Jones' burglary conviction.

2006NEW JERSEY (2000), 530 U.S. 466 AND ITS PROGENY." {¶ 8} Appellant's assignments of error essentially claim the trial court erred by imposing more than the minimum sentence for a second-degree felony.

2005Assignment of Error No. 2: The trial court abused its discretion in imposing a non-minimum sentences on Appellant, as such sentences are contrary to law and are not supported by the record from the sentencing hearing. {¶ 7} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing a non-minimum sentence where the facts necessary to impose such a sentence had not been proven by a jury or admitted by him, relying on the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , and Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), 530 U.

2006The two assignments of error are interrelated and will be addressed together. {¶ 10} On November 2, 2006, this court decided IndyMac Bank, FSB v. Bridges , Franklin App. No. 05AP-1214, 2006-Ohio-5742 (" IndyMac I ").

2006The two assignments of error are interrelated and will be addressed together. {¶ 10} On November 2, 2006, this court decided IndyMac Bank, FSB v. Bridges , Franklin App. No. 05AP-1214, 2006-Ohio-5742 (" IndyMac I ").

2004Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660 , it further stated that because the policy covered "you," Brenda Hugg, having been a family member of the "you," was an insured under the Federal policy. {¶ 4} Federal raises the following two assignments of error on appeal: {¶ 5} "I.

2003Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660 . {¶ 4} The Kohntopps now appeal from the judgment granted in favor of ACE, setting forth the following two assignments of error: {¶ 5} "Assignment of Error No. 1 {¶ 6} "The trial court erred as a matter of law when it held the appellants were not insureds for the purpose of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage provided under the automobile liability policy issued by appellee, ACE property Casualty Insurance Company to appellant, Ann Kohntopp's employer, Sunoco, Inc. {¶ 7} "Assignment of Error No. 2 {¶ 8} "The trial court erred as a matter of law when it held

2026Chalmers v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., 2017-Ohio-5678, ¶ 21 (6th Dist.); Hudson v. Petrosurance, Inc., 2010-Ohio-4505, ¶ 29 . {¶ 15} Civ.R. 56 provides that summary judgment may be granted only when it is demonstrated: “(1) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the 1 Plaintiffs also list to their second assignment of error as “Appellants claim that the Trial Court erred in granting Appellee’s Mot

2026Chalmers v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., 2017-Ohio-5678, ¶ 21 (6th Dist.); Hudson v. Petrosurance, Inc., 2010-Ohio-4505, ¶ 29 . {¶ 15} Civ.R. 56 provides that summary judgment may be granted only when it is demonstrated: “(1) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the 1 Plaintiffs also list to their second assignment of error as “Appellants claim that the Trial Court erred in granting Appellee’s Mot