commits plain error in Ohio

2013Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-1 , 922 N.E.2d 923 (a trial court commits plain error when it fails to merge allied offenses of similar import); State v. Johnson 128 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2010-Ohio-6314 , 942 N.E.2d 1061 (R.C. 2941.25 instructs courts to look at the defendant’s conduct when evaluating whether his offenses are allied); and State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 , 2012-Ohio-5699 , 983 N.E.2d 1245 (an appellate court should apply a de novo standard of review in reviewing a trial court’s R.C. 2941.25 merger determination).

2013Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-1 , 922 N.E.2d 923 (a trial court commits plain error when it fails to merge allied offenses of similar import); State v. Johnson 128 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2010-Ohio-6314 , 942 N.E.2d 1061 (R.C. 2941.25 instructs courts to look at the defendant’s conduct when evaluating whether his offenses are allied); and State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 , 2012-Ohio-5699 , 983 N.E.2d 1245 (an appellate court should apply a de novo standard of review in reviewing a trial court’s R.C. 2941.25 merger determination).

2018"A trial court commits plain error by ordering a defendant to pay restitution without first considering his ability to pay." Id. {¶ 30} The record reflects and the State concedes that the trial court ordered Mr. Yeager to pay $14,928.18 in restitution without first considering his ability to pay.

2017“A trial court commits plain error by ordering a defendant to pay restitution without first considering his ability to pay.” Id. 7 {¶19} In the case sub judice, the trial court considered Mr. Stevens’ present and future ability to pay prior to ordering restitution when it engaged defense counsel in the following discussion: THE COURT: What has your client done to try to make amends for the financial loss that has been caused by his actions? *** THE COURT: Did you tell him to start setting some money aside, that, you know, she’s out several hundred thousand dollars?

2017Summit No. 26014, 2012-Ohio-5873, ¶ 17 . {¶ 12} In this case, the record contains ample evidence indicating the trial court considered Chaffin's present and future ability to pay the restitution order imposed.

2015Summit No. 26014, 2012-Ohio-5873, ¶ 17 .

2016Hamilton No. C-110735, 2012-Ohio-4664, ¶ 32 . {¶29} In this case, the trial court ordered restitution in the amount of $300 to the owner of the iPod and $700 to the owner of the laptop computer.

2014Hamilton No. C-110735, 2012-Ohio-4664, ¶ 32 . {¶34} Here, without first considering Mr. Shover’s present or future ability to pay, the trial court stated that “[t]he [c]ourt is going to impose a monetary fine upon you in the amount of $500.” The record indicates that after the trial court imposed the fine, there was no further discussion regarding this issue.

2013Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-1 , 922 N.E.2d 923 (a trial court commits plain error when it fails to merge allied offenses of similar import); State v. Johnson 128 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2010-Ohio-6314 , 942 N.E.2d 1061 (R.C. 2941.25 instructs courts to look at the defendant’s conduct when evaluating whether his offenses are allied); and State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 , 2012-Ohio-5699 , 983 N.E.2d 1245 (an appellate court should apply a de novo standard of review in reviewing a trial court’s R.C. 2941.25 merger determination).

2013Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-1 , 922 N.E.2d 923 (a trial court commits plain error when it fails to merge allied offenses of similar import); State v. Johnson 128 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2010-Ohio-6314 , 942 N.E.2d 1061 (R.C. 2941.25 instructs courts to look at the defendant’s conduct when evaluating whether his offenses are allied); and State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 , 2012-Ohio-5699 , 983 N.E.2d 1245 (an appellate court should apply a de novo standard of review in reviewing a trial court’s R.C. 2941.25 merger determination).

2024Geauga No. 2004-G-2597, 2005-Ohio-3258, ¶ 20 ; Ferbstein v. Silver, 9th Dist.

2023Bailey, 2022-Ohio-4407, at ¶ 8 . {¶45} Armstrong has failed to demonstrate plain error.

2022A trial court cannot create a sentence; rather, it “must impose only those sentences provided for by statute.” State v. Paige, 153 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2018-Ohio-813 , 103 N.E.3d 800, ¶ 13 , citing State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 , 2015-Ohio-2089 , 35 N.E.3d 512, ¶ 12 . {¶11} When a trial court imposes a sentence that is incompatible with the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty, the court commits plain error.

2022A trial court cannot create a sentence; rather, it “must impose only those sentences provided for by statute.” State v. Paige, 153 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2018-Ohio-813 , 103 N.E.3d 800, ¶ 13 , citing State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 , 2015-Ohio-2089 , 35 N.E.3d 512, ¶ 12 . {¶11} When a trial court imposes a sentence that is incompatible with the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty, the court commits plain error.

2022A trial court cannot create a sentence; rather, it “must impose only those sentences provided for by statute.” State v. Paige, 153 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2018-Ohio-813 , 103 N.E.3d 800, ¶ 13 , citing State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 , 2015-Ohio-2089 , 35 N.E.3d 512, ¶ 12 . {¶11} When a trial court imposes a sentence that is incompatible with the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty, the court commits plain error.

2022A trial court cannot create a sentence; rather, it “must impose only those sentences provided for by statute.” State v. Paige, 153 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2018-Ohio-813 , 103 N.E.3d 800, ¶ 13 , citing State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 , 2015-Ohio-2089 , 35 N.E.3d 512, ¶ 12 . {¶11} When a trial court imposes a sentence that is incompatible with the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty, the court commits plain error.

2018A trial court commits plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) where, " 'but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.' " State v. Kibble , 2017-Ohio-12 , 80 N.E.3d 1066 , ¶ 21, quoting State v. Long , 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph two of the syllabus.

2018A trial court commits plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) where, " 'but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.' " State v. Kibble , 2017-Ohio-12 , 80 N.E.3d 1066 , ¶ 21, quoting State v. Long , 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph two of the syllabus.

2018Cuyahoga No. 103822, 2017-Ohio-12, ¶ 21 , quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph two of the syllabus.

2018A trial court commits plain error under Crim.R. 52(B) where, " 'but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.' " State v. Kibble , 2017-Ohio-12 , 80 N.E.3d 1066 , ¶ 21, quoting State v. Long , 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , 372 N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph two of the syllabus.

2016Ashland No. 03-COA-031, 2004-Ohio-2803, ¶ 11 ; 2929.18(A)(1)/(E); 2929.19(B)(5). {¶20} Appellant herein emphasizes that the trial court did not determine the amount of her restitution, either at sentencing on March 3, 2009 or at the judicial release Delaware County, Case No. 15 CAA 09 0071 6 hearing on December 6, 2010.3 In her brief, appellant directs us to case law supporting the proposition that a trial court commits plain error in failing to establish the amount of restitution at the sentencing hearing and/or in open court.

2015Because we determine that our decision is dictated by the recent Ohio Supreme Court case, State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , we overrule Mr. Mayfield’s argument. {¶6} In Rogers, a certified conflict case, the Supreme Court was faced with deciding “[w]hether a trial court commits plain error where multiple offenses present a facial question of allied offenses of similar import, yet the trial court fails to determine whether those offenses should merge under R.C. 2941.25 at sentencing[.]” Id. at ¶ 1.

2015The en banc court subsequently recognized that its decision also conflicted with the decision of the Ninth District in State v. Wilson, 21 Ohio App.3d 171 , 486 N.E.2d 1242 (9th Dist.1985), and certified a third issue for our review: (3) Whether an offender who receives, retains, or disposes of the property of two or more other persons in a single transaction may be convicted and sentenced for more than one count of receiving stolen property? {¶ 2} We determined that the conflicts exist, and the parties have briefed the issues. {¶ 3} We answer the first two questions in the negative.

2015The en banc court subsequently recognized that its decision also conflicted with the decision of the Ninth District in State v. Wilson, 21 Ohio App.3d 171 , 486 N.E.2d 1242 (9th Dist.1985), and certified a third issue for our review: (3) Whether an offender who receives, retains, or disposes of the property of two or more other persons in a single transaction may be convicted and sentenced for more than one count of receiving stolen property? {¶ 2} We determined that the conflicts exist, and the parties have briefed the issues. {¶ 3} We answer the first two questions in the negative.

2013Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-1 , 922 N.E.2d 923 (a trial court commits plain error when it fails to merge allied offenses of similar import); State v. Johnson 128 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2010-Ohio-6314 , 942 N.E.2d 1061 (R.C. 2941.25 instructs courts to look at the defendant’s conduct when evaluating whether his offenses are allied); and State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 , 2012-Ohio-5699 , 983 N.E.2d 1245 (an appellate court should apply a de novo standard of review in reviewing a trial court’s R.C. 2941.25 merger determination).

2013Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-1 , 922 N.E.2d 923 (a trial court commits plain error when it fails to merge allied offenses of similar import); State v. Johnson 128 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2010-Ohio-6314 , 942 N.E.2d 1061 (R.C. 2941.25 instructs courts to look at the defendant’s conduct when evaluating whether his offenses are allied); and State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 , 2012-Ohio-5699 , 983 N.E.2d 1245 (an appellate court should apply a de novo standard of review in reviewing a trial court’s R.C. 2941.25 merger determination).

2011State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-1, at ¶31 . {¶11} In State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2010-Ohio-6314 , the Supreme Court of Ohio reevaluated its allied offense jurisprudence and overruled its prior decision in State v. Rance (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 632 .

2008Thus, the trial court ordered restitution to a third-party, not the victim of the crime, an order not permitted by the statute. {¶ 12} In State v. Smith , Washington App. No. 07CA25, 2008-Ohio-142 , at ¶ 5 , we concluded that the trial court commits plain error in ordering the defendant to pay restitution to the victim's insurance carrier and the Ohio Victims of Crime Fund.

2007No. 05-CO-11, 2006-Ohio-5303 , which held that a trial court commits plain error when it fails to instruct the jury on all the essential elements of an offense.

2006To counteract the prejudicial tendency of such evidence, "the trial court should immediately instruct the jury concerning the limited purpose for which the evidence is being offered." Goney, 87 Ohio App.3d at 503 ; State v. Whited (Oct. 20, 1983), Cuyahoga App. No. 46586; see, also, State v. Boyle, Portage App. Nos. 2003-P-0027, 2003-P-0028, 2003-P-0029, 2004-Ohio-1531 . {¶ 69} In Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d at 61 , fn. 9, the court refused to conclude that a trial court commits plain error by failing to give a limiting instruction regarding other acts evidence.

2005In re Solis (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 547 , 550 ; App. R. 12(A). {¶ 35} In In re Alyssa, we followed In re M.L.R. (2002), 150 Ohio App.3d 39 , to conclude that a trial court commits plain error by permitting a parent's counsel in a termination case leave to withdraw without first ascertaining whether the client "by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out his employment effectively." 153 Ohio App.3d at 20 , citing In re M.L.R. and DR 2-110(C)(1)(d).

2005In re Solis (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 547 , 550 ; App. R. 12(A). {¶ 35} In In re Alyssa, we followed In re M.L.R. (2002), 150 Ohio App.3d 39 , to conclude that a trial court commits plain error by permitting a parent's counsel in a termination case leave to withdraw without first ascertaining whether the client "by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out his employment effectively." 153 Ohio App.3d at 20 , citing In re M.L.R. and DR 2-110(C)(1)(d).

2005Because termination of a parent's rights is the most serious of proceedings, 2003-Ohio-5855 at ¶ 42 , parents "must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law allows." In re Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App. 3d 1 , 16 . {¶ 36} Therefore, to adequately protect a parent's right to counsel, Juv.

2005Because termination of a parent's rights is the most serious of proceedings, 2003-Ohio-5855 at ¶ 42 , parents "must be afforded every procedural and substantive protection the law allows." In re Smith (1991), 77 Ohio App. 3d 1 , 16 . {¶ 36} Therefore, to adequately protect a parent's right to counsel, Juv.

2005In re Solis (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 547 , 550 ; App. R. 12(A). {¶ 35} In In re Alyssa, we followed In re M.L.R. (2002), 150 Ohio App.3d 39 , to conclude that a trial court commits plain error by permitting a parent's counsel in a termination case leave to withdraw without first ascertaining whether the client "by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out his employment effectively." 153 Ohio App.3d at 20 , citing In re M.L.R. and DR 2-110(C)(1)(d).

2000Appellants rely on O'Connell v. Chesapeake Ohio Railroad Co. (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 226 , 569 N.E.2d 889 , which held that a trial court commits plain error when it enters judgment upon a jury verdict when the "same juror" rule is violated.

2000Appellants rely on O'Connell v. Chesapeake Ohio Railroad Co. (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 226 , 569 N.E.2d 889 , which held that a trial court commits plain error when it enters judgment upon a jury verdict when the "same juror" rule is violated.