33 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2026 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jacintogreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., State v. Sims, 2016-Ohio-4763, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.) (appellant did not meet burden of demonstrating error on appeal where she only preserved plain error and did not argue the existence of plain error on appeal). “‘An appellate court is not obliged to construct or develop arguments to support a defendant’s assignment of error and will not guess at undeveloped claims on appeal.’” Id., quoting State v. Jacinto, 2020-Ohio-3722, ¶ 56 (8th Dist.), see also State v. Collins, 2008-Ohio-2363, ¶ 91 (8th Dist.) (“‘[I]t is not the duty of this Court to develop an argument in support of an assignme 2025See, e.g., State v. Sims, 2016-Ohio-4763, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.) (appellant did not meet burden of demonstrating error on appeal where she only preserved plain error and did not argue the existence of plain error on appeal). “‘An appellate court is not obliged to construct or develop arguments to support a defendant’s assignment of error and “will not” guess at undeveloped claims on appeal.’” (Cleaned up.) Id., quoting State v. Jacinto, 2020-Ohio-3722, ¶ 56 (8th Dist.). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Pattongreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., State v. Sims, 2016-Ohio-4763, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.) (appellant did not meet burden of demonstrating error on appeal where she only preserved plain error and did not argue the existence of plain error on appeal). “‘An appellate court is not obliged to construct or develop arguments to support a defendant’s assignment of error and will not guess at undeveloped claims on appeal.’” Id., quoting State v. Jacinto, 2020-Ohio-3722, ¶ 56 (8th Dist.), see also State v. Collins, 2008-Ohio-2363, ¶ 91 (8th Dist.) (“‘[I]t is not the duty of this Court to develop an argument in support of an assignme 2025See also State v. Collins, 2008- Ohio-2363, ¶ 91 (8th Dist.) (it is not the duty of this court to develop an argument in support of an assignment of error if one exists); State v. Patton, 2021-Ohio-295, ¶ 25 (1st Dist.) (“An appeals court will not construct a claim of plain error on a defendant’s behalf if the defendant fails to argue plain error on appeal.”). {¶14} Therefore, Chavers’s first assignment of error is overruled. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Simsgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., State v. Sims, 2016-Ohio-4763, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.) (appellant did not meet burden of demonstrating error on appeal where she only preserved plain error and did not argue the existence of plain error on appeal). “‘An appellate court is not obliged to construct or develop arguments to support a defendant’s assignment of error and will not guess at undeveloped claims on appeal.’” Id., quoting State v. Jacinto, 2020-Ohio-3722, ¶ 56 (8th Dist.), see also State v. Collins, 2008-Ohio-2363, ¶ 91 (8th Dist.) (“‘[I]t is not the duty of this Court to develop an argument in support of an assignme 2026See, e.g., State v. Sims, 2016-Ohio-4763, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.) (appellant did not meet burden of demonstrating error on appeal where she only preserved plain error and did not argue the existence of plain error on appeal). “‘An appellate court is not obliged to construct or develop arguments to support a defendant’s assignment of error and will not guess at undeveloped claims on appeal.’” Id., quoting State v. Jacinto, 2020-Ohio-3722, ¶ 56 (8th Dist.), see also State v. Collins, 2008-Ohio-2363, ¶ 91 (8th Dist.) (“‘[I]t is not the duty of this Court to develop an argument in support of an assignme | 3 | 3 |
State v. Coopergreen2 sentences2017See State v. Cooper , 170 Ohio App.3d 418 , 2007-Ohio-1186 , 867 N.E.2d 493 , ¶ 31 (4th Dist.) ("The defendant carries the burden to establish the existence of plain error, unlike the situation in a claim of harmless error, where the burden lies with the state"). {¶ 15} After Ross filed his appellate brief the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected the Tenth District's analysis in Smith, supra , and reversed the judgments in Mohammad and Mobarak, supra. See State v. Shalash , 148 Ohio St.3d 611 , 2016-Ohio-8358 , 71 N.E.3d 1089 . 2017See State v. Cooper , 170 Ohio App.3d 418 , 2007-Ohio-1186 , 867 N.E.2d 493 , ¶ 31 (4th Dist.) ("The defendant carries the burden to establish the existence of plain error, unlike the situation in a claim of harmless error, where the burden lies with the state"). {¶ 15} After Ross filed his appellate brief the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected the Tenth District's analysis in Smith, supra , and reversed the judgments in Mohammad and Mobarak, supra. See State v. Shalash , 148 Ohio St.3d 611 , 2016-Ohio-8358 , 71 N.E.3d 1089 . | 3 | 3 |
State v. Tibbettsgreen2 sentences2015See State v. Tibbetts, 92 Ohio St.3d 146, 161 (2001) (“Because he failed to object at trial on the specific ground raised here, Tibbetts has forfeited the issue, limiting us to a plain error analysis [of the defendant’s Evid.R. 404(B) argument].”). {¶33} Although Jacobs has preserved plain error review in regard to the Evid.R. 404(B) issue, he has failed to argue the existence of plain error on appeal. 2015See State v. Tibbetts, 92 Ohio St.3d 146, 161 (2001) (“Because he failed to object at trial on the specific ground raised here, [the defendant] has forfeited the issue, limiting us to a plain error analysis [of the defendant’s Evid.R. 404(B) argument].”). {¶9} Although Thomas has preserved plain error review in regard to the Evid.R. 404(B) issue, he has failed to argue the existence of plain error in the admission of this evidence on appeal. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Adamsgreen2 sentences1998See, e.g. , State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151 , 153 , 404 N.E.2d 144 ; State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 , paragraph one of the syllabus. 1998See, e.g. , State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151 , 153 , 404 N.E.2d 144 ; State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 , paragraph one of the syllabus. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Barnesgreen2 sentences2025“Plain error should be found only in exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Id., citing State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 203 (2001). {¶ 40} McClain has failed to identify the existence of plain error in this case. 2003Given the state of this record, we cannot find the existence of plain error. {¶ 40} In State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21 , 2002-Ohio-68 , the Supreme Court of Ohio recently reiterated the well-established plain error standard by which we are bound in reviewing this claimed error: {¶ 41} "Under Crim.R. 52(B), `plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.' By its very terms, the rule places three limitations on a reviewing court's decision to correct an error despite the absence of a timely objection at t | 1 | 4 |
State v. Thomasgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., State v. Sims, 2016-Ohio-4763, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.) (appellant did not meet burden of demonstrating error on appeal where she only preserved plain error and did not argue the existence of plain error on appeal). “‘An appellate court is not obliged to construct or develop arguments to support a defendant’s assignment of error and will not guess at undeveloped claims on appeal.’” Id., quoting State v. Jacinto, 2020-Ohio-3722, ¶ 56 (8th Dist.), see also State v. Collins, 2008-Ohio-2363, ¶ 91 (8th Dist.) (“‘[I]t is not the duty of this Court to develop an argument in support of an assignme | 1 | 1 |
State v. Collins, 89668 (5-15-2008)green1 sentence2026See, e.g., State v. Sims, 2016-Ohio-4763, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.) (appellant did not meet burden of demonstrating error on appeal where she only preserved plain error and did not argue the existence of plain error on appeal). “‘An appellate court is not obliged to construct or develop arguments to support a defendant’s assignment of error and will not guess at undeveloped claims on appeal.’” Id., quoting State v. Jacinto, 2020-Ohio-3722, ¶ 56 (8th Dist.), see also State v. Collins, 2008-Ohio-2363, ¶ 91 (8th Dist.) (“‘[I]t is not the duty of this Court to develop an argument in support of an assignme | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., State v. Sims, 2016-Ohio-4763, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.) (appellant did not meet burden of demonstrating error on appeal where she only preserved plain error and did not argue the existence of plain error on appeal). “‘An appellate court is not obliged to construct or develop arguments to support a defendant’s assignment of error and will not guess at undeveloped claims on appeal.’” Id., quoting State v. Jacinto, 2020-Ohio-3722, ¶ 56 (8th Dist.), see also State v. Collins, 2008-Ohio-2363, ¶ 91 (8th Dist.) (“‘[I]t is not the duty of this Court to develop an argument in support of an assignme | 1 | 1 |
State v. Franklin, Unpublished Decision (9-6-2006)green1 sentence2026See, e.g., State v. Sims, 2016-Ohio-4763, ¶ 11 (10th Dist.) (appellant did not meet burden of demonstrating error on appeal where she only preserved plain error and did not argue the existence of plain error on appeal). “‘An appellate court is not obliged to construct or develop arguments to support a defendant’s assignment of error and will not guess at undeveloped claims on appeal.’” Id., quoting State v. Jacinto, 2020-Ohio-3722, ¶ 56 (8th Dist.), see also State v. Collins, 2008-Ohio-2363, ¶ 91 (8th Dist.) (“‘[I]t is not the duty of this Court to develop an argument in support of an assignme | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mohamedgreen1 sentence2025“The existence of plain error satisfies the prejudice prong of the test for ineffective assistance of counsel.” Jarrell at ¶ 51 , citing State v. Mohamed, 2016-Ohio-1116, ¶ 37 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hillgreen1 sentence2025“Plain error should be found only in exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Id., citing State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 203 (2001). {¶ 40} McClain has failed to identify the existence of plain error in this case. | 1 | 1 |
Tye v. Beausaygreen2 sentences2023Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4713, ¶ 40 (arguments not presented to the trial court before it resolves the issue presented for review are forfeited for appellate review, except if the appellant can demonstrate the existence of plain error), citing State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 15 , and Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121-122 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997); see also Tye v. Beausay, 2020-Ohio-3746 , 156 N.E.3d 331, ¶ 77 (2d Dist.), quoting USA Freight, L.L.C. v. CBS Outdoor Group, Inc., 2d Dist. 2023Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4713, ¶ 40 (arguments not presented to the trial court before it resolves the issue presented for review are forfeited for appellate review, except if the appellant can demonstrate the existence of plain error), citing State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 15 , and Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121-122 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997); see also Tye v. Beausay, 2020-Ohio-3746 , 156 N.E.3d 331, ¶ 77 (2d Dist.), quoting USA Freight, L.L.C. v. CBS Outdoor Group, Inc., 2d Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Ohio Power Co. v. Burnsgreen1 sentence2023Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4713, ¶ 40 (arguments not presented to the trial court before it resolves the issue presented for review are forfeited for appellate review, except if the appellant can demonstrate the existence of plain error), citing State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 15 , and Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121-122 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997); see also Tye v. Beausay, 2020-Ohio-3746 , 156 N.E.3d 331, ¶ 77 (2d Dist.), quoting USA Freight, L.L.C. v. CBS Outdoor Group, Inc., 2d Dist. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Handgreen1 sentence2017See State v. Cooper , 170 Ohio App.3d 418 , 2007-Ohio-1186 , 867 N.E.2d 493 , ¶ 31 (4th Dist.) ("The defendant carries the burden to establish the existence of plain error, unlike the situation in a claim of harmless error, where the burden lies with the state"). {¶ 15} After Ross filed his appellate brief the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected the Tenth District's analysis in Smith, supra , and reversed the judgments in Mohammad and Mobarak, supra. See State v. Shalash , 148 Ohio St.3d 611 , 2016-Ohio-8358 , 71 N.E.3d 1089 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shalash (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2017See State v. Cooper , 170 Ohio App.3d 418 , 2007-Ohio-1186 , 867 N.E.2d 493 , ¶ 31 (4th Dist.) ("The defendant carries the burden to establish the existence of plain error, unlike the situation in a claim of harmless error, where the burden lies with the state"). {¶ 15} After Ross filed his appellate brief the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected the Tenth District's analysis in Smith, supra , and reversed the judgments in Mohammad and Mobarak, supra. See State v. Shalash , 148 Ohio St.3d 611 , 2016-Ohio-8358 , 71 N.E.3d 1089 . 2017See State v. Cooper , 170 Ohio App.3d 418 , 2007-Ohio-1186 , 867 N.E.2d 493 , ¶ 31 (4th Dist.) ("The defendant carries the burden to establish the existence of plain error, unlike the situation in a claim of harmless error, where the burden lies with the state"). {¶ 15} After Ross filed his appellate brief the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected the Tenth District's analysis in Smith, supra , and reversed the judgments in Mohammad and Mobarak, supra. See State v. Shalash , 148 Ohio St.3d 611 , 2016-Ohio-8358 , 71 N.E.3d 1089 . | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ballewgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Long
green
2 sentences2020Courts are to notice plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) " 'with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of No. 19AP-425 6 justice.' " Barnes at 27 , quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (1978), paragraph three of syllabus. {¶ 15} In the present case, appellant does not argue the existence of plain error on appeal. 2020The decision to correct a plain error is discretionary and should be made “with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶24} In the context of proving the existence of plain error, Durham must fulfill the requirements of the Supreme Court of Ohio described in State v. Brinkley, 105 Ohio St.3d 231 , 2005-Ohio-1507 , 824 N.E.2d 959 , ¶ 135 (2005) to prove prosecutorial misconduct. | 8 | 1994–2020 |
Goldfuss v. Davidson
green
2 sentences2023Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4713, ¶ 40 (arguments not presented to the trial court before it resolves the issue presented for review are forfeited for appellate review, except if the appellant can demonstrate the existence of plain error), citing State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 15 , and Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121-122 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997); see also Tye v. Beausay, 2020-Ohio-3746 , 156 N.E.3d 331, ¶ 77 (2d Dist.), quoting USA Freight, L.L.C. v. CBS Outdoor Group, Inc., 2d Dist. 2023Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4713, ¶ 40 (arguments not presented to the trial court before it resolves the issue presented for review are forfeited for appellate review, except if the appellant can demonstrate the existence of plain error), citing State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 15 , and Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121-122 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997); see also Tye v. Beausay, 2020-Ohio-3746 , 156 N.E.3d 331, ¶ 77 (2d Dist.), quoting USA Freight, L.L.C. v. CBS Outdoor Group, Inc., 2d Dist. | 2 | 2021–2023 |
City of Cleveland v. Scott
green
2 sentences2012Masters assumed the existence of plain error despite acknowledging that “there are insufficient facts in the record for this court to [find whether offenses are allied] in the instant case.” Id. 2011Masters assumed the existence of plain error despite acknowledging that “there are insufficient facts in the record for this court to [find whether offenses are allied] in the instant case.” Id. | 2 | 2011–2012 |
State v. Quarterman (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2023Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4713, ¶ 40 (arguments not presented to the trial court before it resolves the issue presented for review are forfeited for appellate review, except if the appellant can demonstrate the existence of plain error), citing State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 15 , and Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121-122 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997); see also Tye v. Beausay, 2020-Ohio-3746 , 156 N.E.3d 331, ¶ 77 (2d Dist.), quoting USA Freight, L.L.C. v. CBS Outdoor Group, Inc., 2d Dist. 2023Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4713, ¶ 40 (arguments not presented to the trial court before it resolves the issue presented for review are forfeited for appellate review, except if the appellant can demonstrate the existence of plain error), citing State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464 , 2014-Ohio-4034 , 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 15 , and Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121-122 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997); see also Tye v. Beausay, 2020-Ohio-3746 , 156 N.E.3d 331, ¶ 77 (2d Dist.), quoting USA Freight, L.L.C. v. CBS Outdoor Group, Inc., 2d Dist. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Rodger v. McDonald's Restaurants of Ohio, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023Montgomery No. 26425, 2015-Ohio-1474 , ¶ 21, and Rodger v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Ohio, Inc., 8 Ohio App.3d 256, 258 , 456 N.E.2d 1262 (8th Dist.1982), fn. 7. 2023Montgomery No. 26425, 2015-Ohio-1474 , ¶ 21, and Rodger v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Ohio, Inc., 8 Ohio App.3d 256, 258 , 456 N.E.2d 1262 (8th Dist.1982), fn. 7. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Waddell
green
2 sentences2022State v. Waddell, 75 Ohio St.3d 163, 166 , 661 N.E.2d 1043 (1996). {¶36} In the instant case, appellant does not explain why the outcome of the trial would have been different if the accomplice-testimony instruction would had been given. 2022State v. Waddell, 75 Ohio St.3d 163, 166 , 661 N.E.2d 1043 (1996). {¶36} In the instant case, appellant does not explain why the outcome of the trial would have been different if the accomplice-testimony instruction would had been given. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Casares v. Mercy St. Vincent Med. Ctr.
neutral
1 sentence2020Id. at 124 . {¶ 34} Appellant was not prejudiced because the trial court’s decision to deny appellant’s challenge of Juror 9 for “good cause” did not force appellant to exhaust his peremptory challenges since he still had two more available to him prior to seating the jury. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Brinkley
green
1 sentence2020The decision to correct a plain error is discretionary and should be made “with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶24} In the context of proving the existence of plain error, Durham must fulfill the requirements of the Supreme Court of Ohio described in State v. Brinkley, 105 Ohio St.3d 231 , 2005-Ohio-1507 , 824 N.E.2d 959 , ¶ 135 (2005) to prove prosecutorial misconduct. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2017As a result, any error in the guilty verdicts for Counts 3 and 4 was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. {¶65} In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt, he failed to demonstrate the existence of plain error. {¶66} For his third assigned error, appellant alleges: {¶67} “The defendant-appellant’s constitutional rights to due process and fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution were prejudiced by the ineffective assistance of counsel.” {¶68} The Ohio Supr 2017In order to demonstrate prejudice, the defendant must show “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would be different.” Strickland, supra, at 694 . {¶69} Moreover, “‘a court need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies. * * * If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, * * * that course should be followed.’“ Bradley, supra, at 143 , quoting Strickla | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Shalash
green
2 sentences2017In Shalash , the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted a certified conflict between the Tenth District's holdings in Mohammad and Mobarak , which held that the sale or possession of controlled substance analogs were not criminalized until December 20, 2012 by H.B. 334, and the Twelfth District's holding in State v. Shalash , 2015-Ohio-3836 , 41 N.E.3d 1263 (12th Dist.), which held that they were criminalized as of October 17, 2011 by 2011 Sub.H.B. 2017In Shalash , the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted a certified conflict between the Tenth District's holdings in Mohammad and Mobarak , which held that the sale or possession of controlled substance analogs were not criminalized until December 20, 2012 by H.B. 334, and the Twelfth District's holding in State v. Shalash , 2015-Ohio-3836 , 41 N.E.3d 1263 (12th Dist.), which held that they were criminalized as of October 17, 2011 by 2011 Sub.H.B. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Powell
green
1 sentence2017In fact, when the trial court explained why it did not believe the lesser included offense instructions were warranted under Counts 3 and 4, defense counsel said he agreed. {¶60} Crim.R. 30(A) provides in relevant part: “On appeal, a party may not assign as error the giving or the failure to give any instructions unless the party objects before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating specifically the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection.” Thus, having waived any error related to the trial court’s decision not to give this instruction, our review is precluded unless app | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Bradley
green
2 sentences2017As a result, any error in the guilty verdicts for Counts 3 and 4 was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. {¶65} In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt, he failed to demonstrate the existence of plain error. {¶66} For his third assigned error, appellant alleges: {¶67} “The defendant-appellant’s constitutional rights to due process and fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution were prejudiced by the ineffective assistance of counsel.” {¶68} The Ohio Supr 2017In order to demonstrate prejudice, the defendant must show “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would be different.” Strickland, supra, at 694 . {¶69} Moreover, “‘a court need not determine whether counsel’s performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies. * * * If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, * * * that course should be followed.’“ Bradley, supra, at 143 , quoting Strickla | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Greene, 91104 (2-26-2009)
neutral
1 sentence2013No. 91104, 2009-Ohio-850, ¶ 106 . {¶15} It is difficult to prove the existence of plain error in the court’s failure to give a jury instruction on the alibi. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Shaw, 21880 (3-21-2008) green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Barnes green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Moreland green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Underwood green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.