fourth degree felony violation in Ohio

2014Appellant appealed, and we affirmed his conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded the matter for resentencing based on State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470 .

2006Pursuant to State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , appellant's sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded for re-sentencing. {¶ 2} On November 23, 2005, appellant pleaded guilty to one count of failure to comply with an order of a police officer, a felony of the third degree in violation of R.C. 2921.331 (B), one count of receiving stolen property, a felony of the third degree in violation of R.C. 2923.24 , and one count of burglary, a fourth degree felony in violation of R.C. 2911.12 (A)(4). {¶ 3} On January 3, 2006, appellant was sentenced: On the failure to comply charge, a

2006As the result of a plea agreement, appellant entered a plea pursuant North Carolina v. Alford (1970), 400 U.S. 25 , to the charge of disseminating matter harmful to a juvenile to two counts of attempted unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, a fourth degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2907.04 (A) and (B)(3).

2001Appellant pled guilty to one count of robbery, and pled guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford (1970), 400 U.S. 25 to the other count of robbery.

2025As this Court stated in State v. Eitzman, 2022-Ohio-574 (3d Dist.): [T]he axiomatic rule is that a court speaks through its journal entries.” State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407 , 2010-Ohio-5705 , 940 N.E.2d 924, ¶ 12 .

2025As this Court stated in State v. Eitzman, 2022-Ohio-574 (3d Dist.): [T]he axiomatic rule is that a court speaks through its journal entries.” State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407 , 2010-Ohio-5705 , 940 N.E.2d 924, ¶ 12 .

2025As this Court stated in State v. Eitzman, 2022-Ohio-574 (3d Dist.): [T]he axiomatic rule is that a court speaks through its journal entries.” State v. Miller, 127 Ohio St.3d 407 , 2010-Ohio-5705 , 940 N.E.2d 924, ¶ 12 .

2023We consider both assignments together. {¶11} First assignment of error: “The trial court erred in convicting Appellant of Disorderly Conduct and Disorderly Conduct by Intoxication as the record does not contain sufficient evidence of each element of those offenses.” {¶12} Second assignment of error: “Appellant’s convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence.” 3 Case Nos. 2023-P-0018, 2023-P-0019 {¶13} “‘Sufficiency’ is a term of art meaning that legal standard which is applied to determine whether the case may go to the [factfinder] or whether the evidence is legally sufficient t

2023We consider both assignments together. {¶11} First assignment of error: “The trial court erred in convicting Appellant of Disorderly Conduct and Disorderly Conduct by Intoxication as the record does not contain sufficient evidence of each element of those offenses.” {¶12} Second assignment of error: “Appellant’s convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence.” 3 Case Nos. 2023-P-0018, 2023-P-0019 {¶13} “‘Sufficiency’ is a term of art meaning that legal standard which is applied to determine whether the case may go to the [factfinder] or whether the evidence is legally sufficient t

2023Cuyahoga No. 99700, 2014-Ohio-112, ¶ 9 .1 In CR-655219, Pierce was sentenced to 18 months’ incarceration for assault of a police officer, a fourth-degree felony violation of R.C. 2903.13; 12 1 The Ohio Supreme Court recently accepted this issue for review.

2022Id. {¶3} On or about October 30, 2016, appellant was released from prison and placed on a five-year period of post-release control with the Adult Parole Authority. {¶4} On August 22, 2019, appellant was indicted in case 2018-CR-00709 on one count of escape, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2921.34(A)(3).

2021Licking No. 16-CA-92, 2017-Ohio-6991, ¶ 2 [Ahmad I]. {¶3} On August 4, 2016, appellant was charged by indictment as follows: Count One: Trafficking in Cocaine, a first-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)(2)(C)(4)(f); Count Two: Trafficking in Cocaine, a fifth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)(C)(4)(a); Count Three: Trafficking in Cocaine, a fifth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)(C)(4)(a); Count Four: Possession of Heroin, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(6)(b); Count Five: Tampering with Evidence, a third-degree felony in vio

2019State v. Bates, 118 Ohio St.3d 174 , 2008-Ohio-1983 , 887 N.E.2d 328, ¶ 19 ; Olmsted Falls v. Clifford, 8th Dist.

2019State v. Bates, 118 Ohio St.3d 174 , 2008-Ohio-1983 , 887 N.E.2d 328, ¶ 19 ; Olmsted Falls v. Clifford, 8th Dist.

2018Harper was arraigned on October 6, 2016; he pled not guilty to the indictment. {¶ 4} On November 29, 2016, Harper filed a motion to exclude certain testimony pursuant to Evid.R. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).

2018Harper was arraigned on October 6, 2016; he pled not guilty to the indictment. {¶ 4} On November 29, 2016, Harper filed a motion to exclude certain testimony pursuant to Evid.R. 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).

2018“Furthermore, it is well settled under Ohio law that an inmate is not entitled to the issuance of the writ when there exists an alternative legal remedy through which he could obtain the identical relief sought under the habeas corpus claim.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Cornell v. Schotten, 69 Ohio St.3d 466, 467 (1994) (habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for other forms of action, such as a direct appeal or postconviction relief petition). {¶3} In September 2013, petitioner pled guilty to Burglary, a second-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(1); Burglary, a fourth-d

2016Carol Ann Robb Dated: July 29, 2016 [Cite as State v. Goudy, 2016-Ohio-5193 .] DONOFRIO, P.J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Mark Goudy, appeals from a Belmont County Common Pleas Court judgment convicting him of one count of reproduction of obscene material involving a minor and one count of possession of obscene material involving a minor, following his guilty plea and the sentence that followed. {¶2} On May 27, 2015, appellant was charged by way of a bill of information with one count of reproduction of obscene material involving a minor, a second- degree felony in violation of R.C. 2907.321(A)(

2014The State subsequently dismissed the one count of Possession of Marijuana. [Cite as State v. Brown, 2014-Ohio-2301 .] {¶ 4} A jury found Brown not guilty of the Improper Handling of Firearms in a Motor Vehicle count and guilty on the remaining three counts.

2014Mary DeGenaro Dated: September 17, 2014 [Cite as State v. Franklin, 2014-Ohio-4152 .] DONOFRIO, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Raymond Cortez Franklin, appeals from a Jefferson County Common Pleas Court judgment convicting him of possession of drugs following his no contest plea. {¶2} On December 5, 2012, a Jefferson County Grand Jury indicted appellant on one count of trafficking in drugs, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)(C)(6)(b); and one count of possession of drugs, specifically possession of heroin in an amount that equals or exceeds one gram but is less than five g

2013In State v. Thomas (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 254, 259 , 15 O.O.3d 262 , 400 N.E.2d 897 , overruled on other grounds in State v. Crago (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 243 , 559 N.E.2d 1353 , syllabus, the court explained, ‘This test focuses upon the elements of the two statutory provisions, not upon the evidence proffered in a given case.’ Thus, as summarized in United States v. Dixon (1993), 509 U.S. 688, 696 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 , the Blockburger test ‘inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the “same offense” and double jeopardy bars add

2013In State v. Thomas (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 254, 259 , 15 O.O.3d 262 , 400 N.E.2d 897 , overruled on other grounds in State v. Crago (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 243 , 559 N.E.2d 1353 , syllabus, the court explained, ‘This test focuses upon the elements of the two statutory provisions, not upon the evidence proffered in a given case.’ Thus, as summarized in United States v. Dixon (1993), 509 U.S. 688, 696 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 , the Blockburger test ‘inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the “same offense” and double jeopardy bars add

2013In State v. Thomas (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 254, 259 , 15 O.O.3d 262 , 400 N.E.2d 897 , overruled on other grounds in State v. Crago (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 243 , 559 N.E.2d 1353 , syllabus, the court explained, ‘This test focuses upon the elements of the two statutory provisions, not upon the evidence proffered in a given case.’ Thus, as summarized in United States v. Dixon (1993), 509 U.S. 688, 696 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 , the Blockburger test ‘inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the “same offense” and double jeopardy bars add

2013In State v. Thomas (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 254, 259 , 15 O.O.3d 262 , 400 N.E.2d 897 , overruled on other grounds in State v. Crago (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 243 , 559 N.E.2d 1353 , syllabus, the court explained, ‘This test focuses upon the elements of the two statutory provisions, not upon the evidence proffered in a given case.’ Thus, as summarized in United States v. Dixon (1993), 509 U.S. 688, 696 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 , the Blockburger test ‘inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the “same offense” and double jeopardy bars add

2013In State v. Thomas (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 254, 259 , 15 O.O.3d 262 , 400 N.E.2d 897 , overruled on other grounds in State v. Crago (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 243 , 559 N.E.2d 1353 , syllabus, the court explained, ‘This test focuses upon the elements of the two statutory provisions, not upon the evidence proffered in a given case.’ Thus, as summarized in United States v. Dixon (1993), 509 U.S. 688, 696 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 , the Blockburger test ‘inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the “same offense” and double jeopardy bars add

2013In State v. Thomas (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 254, 259 , 15 O.O.3d 262 , 400 N.E.2d 897 , overruled on other grounds in State v. Crago (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 243 , 559 N.E.2d 1353 , syllabus, the court explained, ‘This test focuses upon the elements of the two statutory provisions, not upon the evidence proffered in a given case.’ Thus, as summarized in United States v. Dixon (1993), 509 U.S. 688, 696 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 , the Blockburger test ‘inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the “same offense” and double jeopardy bars add

2013Waite Dated: November 27, 2013 [Cite as State v. Barber, 2013-Ohio-5281 .] DONOFRIO, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Bryan Barber, appeals from a Columbiana County Common Pleas Court judgment overruling his motion for expungement of his conviction for corruption of a minor. {¶2} In 1999, appellant pleaded guilty to one count of corruption of a minor, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2907.04(A).

2013Waite Dated: March 27, 2013 [Cite as State v. Howard, 2013-Ohio-1437 .] DONOFRIO, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jeffrey Howard, appeals from a Mahoning County Common Pleas Court judgment denying his post-sentence motion to vacate his guilty plea to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon. {¶2} On July 16, 2009, a Mahoning County Grand Jury indicted appellant on one count of carrying a concealed weapon, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2)(F)(1).

2012THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT SENTENCED RONALD BERNHART TO THE MAXIMUM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT FOR CONVICTION OF A FOURTH DEGREE FELONY.” {¶7} In State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008–Ohio–4912, 896 N.E.2d 124 , the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed its decision in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , Holmes County, Case No. 11CA017 3 2006–Ohio–856, 845 N.E.2d 470 as it relates to the sentencing statutes and appellate review of felony sentencing.

2012THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT SENTENCED RONALD BERNHART TO THE MAXIMUM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT FOR CONVICTION OF A FOURTH DEGREE FELONY.” {¶7} In State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008–Ohio–4912, 896 N.E.2d 124 , the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed its decision in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , Holmes County, Case No. 11CA017 3 2006–Ohio–856, 845 N.E.2d 470 as it relates to the sentencing statutes and appellate review of felony sentencing.

2012Mary DeGenaro Dated: November 2, 2012 [Cite as State v. Heslop, 2012-Ohio-5118 .] DONOFRIO, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Ellis Heslop, appeals from a Belmont County Common Pleas Court judgment vacating his guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and dismissing the bill of information without prejudice. {¶2} On December 10, 2010, a complaint was filed against appellant alleging that he was guilty of violating R.C. 2907.04(A)(B)(3) for engaging in unlawful sexual conduct with a minor when appellant was ten or more years older than the other person, a third-degree felony

2012Mary DeGenaro Dated: March 27, 2012 [Cite as State v. Rice, 2012-Ohio-1474 .] DONOFRIO, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Richard Rice, appeals from a Mahoning County Common Pleas Court judgment convicting him of attempted murder with a firearm specification and one count of improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle, following his guilty plea. {¶2} A Mahoning County Grand Jury indicted appellant on July 15, 2010, on one count of attempted murder, a first-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A)(D) and R.C. 2923.02(A), with a firearm specification; one count of felonious assault, a seco

2011FRY Prosecuting Attorney 10 West Newlon Place Mansfield, OH 44902 By: BRENT N. ROBINSON Assistant Prosecutor 38 South Park Street Mansfield, OH 44902 [Cite as State v. Latona, 2011-Ohio-1253 .] Delaney, J. {¶1} Defendant-Appellant Vincent Latona appeals his conviction and sentence by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas for Improperly Handling Firearms in a Motor Vehicle, a fourth degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.16(B).

2011Waite Dated: September 12, 2011 [Cite as State v. Howard, 2011-Ohio-4754 .] DONOFRIO, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jeffrey Howard, appeals from a Mahoning County Common Pleas Court judgment convicting him of carrying concealed weapons following his guilty plea. {¶2} On July 16, 2009, a Mahoning County Grand Jury indicted appellant on one count of carrying concealed weapons, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2)(F)(1).

2011Mary DeGenaro Dated: March 24, 2011 [Cite as State v. Lewis, 2011-Ohio-1457 .] DONOFRIO, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Joseph Lewis, appeals from a Mahoning County Common Pleas Court judgment convicting him of two counts of domestic violence and the resulting sentence, following a guilty plea. {¶2} A Mahoning County grand jury indicted appellant on two counts of domestic violence, fourth-degree felonies in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A); and one count of disrupting public services, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2909.04(A)(1). {¶3} Appellant initially entered a not guilty plea.

2011Mary DeGenaro Dated: May 26, 2011 [Cite as State v. Glenn, 2011-Ohio-2628 .] DONOFRIO, J. {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Mickele Glenn, appeals from a Mahoning County Common Pleas Court judgment convicting him of having weapons under disability, following his guilty plea, and the resulting sentence. {¶2} On July 9, 2009, a Mahoning County grand jury indicted appellant on one count of having weapons while under disability, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3)(B), and one count of aggravated assault, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2903.12(A)(2)(B) with an accompanying

2008Per the *Page 3 notice, Mr. Hundzsa was admitted to the correctional facility and began serving his sentence on November 4, 2004. {¶ 7} Roughly two months later, on January 13, 2005, the trial court issued another nunc pro tunc order and judgment entry, which changed the terms of the sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently. {¶ 8} On December 15, 2005, Mr. Hundzsa, pro se, filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging sentencing errors in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 .

2001Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this section, if, in accordance with section 2901.05 of the Revised Code, an accused who is charged with a fourth degree felony violation of division (C)(2), (4), (5), or (6) of this section sustains the burden of going forward with evidence of and establishes by a preponderance of the evidence the affirmative defense described in this division, the accused may be prosecuted for and may plead guilty to or be convicted of a misdemeanor violation of division (C)(2) of this section or a fifth degree felony violation of division (C)(4), (5), or (6) of this

2001Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this section, if, in accordance with section 2901.05 of the Revised Code, an accused who is charged with a fourth degree felony violation of division (C)(2), (4), (5), or (6) of this section sustains the burden of going forward with evidence of and establishes by a preponderance of the evidence the affirmative defense described in this division, the accused may be prosecuted for and may plead guilty to or be convicted of a misdemeanor violation of division (C)(2) of this section or a fifth degree felony violation of division (C)(4), (5), or (6) of this