three assignments error in Ohio

2022The trial court granted Mr. Wright’s motion for release on bond pending appeal. {¶26} Mr. Wright presents the following three assignments of error: {¶27} “[1.] The City of Willoughby Hills failed to provide evidence sufficient to support Defendant-Appellant’s conviction. {¶28} “[2.] Defendant-Appellant’s conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence; therefore, Defendant-Appellant’s conviction is in violation of the Ohio State Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constit[ut]ion. {¶29} “[3.] The sentence imposed by the trial court was an abuse of

2022The trial court granted Mr. Wright’s motion for release on bond pending appeal. {¶26} Mr. Wright presents the following three assignments of error: {¶27} “[1.] The City of Willoughby Hills failed to provide evidence sufficient to support Defendant-Appellant’s conviction. {¶28} “[2.] Defendant-Appellant’s conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence; therefore, Defendant-Appellant’s conviction is in violation of the Ohio State Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constit[ut]ion. {¶29} “[3.] The sentence imposed by the trial court was an abuse of

2023Allen No. 1-21-16, 2022-Ohio-1549 , challenges to the Reagan Tokes Law do not present a matter of first impression to this Court.

2023Allen No. 1-21-16, 2022-Ohio-1549 , challenges to the Reagan Tokes Law do not present a matter of first impression to this Court.

2026In his supplemental brief, Sweeney claims that his prior appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise in his direct appeal the three assignments of error discussed herein. {¶ 30} A claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is judged using the two- part test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

2015Counsel's performance will not be deemed ineffective unless and until counsel's performance is proved to have fallen below an objective standard of reasonable representation and, in addition, prejudice arises from counsel's performance. ( State v. Lytle [1976], 48 Ohio St.2d 391 , 2 O.O.3d 495 , 358 N.E.2d 623 ; Strickland v. Washington [1984], 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , followed.) {¶30} 3.

2022“In essence, sufficiency is a test of adequacy.” Id. {¶32} “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 7 Case Nos. 2021-L-107, 2021-L-108 defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.

2022“In essence, sufficiency is a test of adequacy.” Id. {¶32} “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 7 Case Nos. 2021-L-107, 2021-L-108 defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.

2007For the reasons set forth below, this court affirms the *Page 2 convictions of the trial court and remands for resentencing in conformity with State v. Foster , 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 . {¶ 2} Appellant, Jason N. Simons, sets forth the following three assignments of error: {¶ 3} "ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE: THE VERDICTS WERE UNSUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. {¶ 4} "ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO: THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE TRIAL COURT WAS EXCESSIVE AND CONTRARY TO LAW WHEN THE SENTENCE EXCEEDED THE MINIMUM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT ON

2007Thus, appellant was sentenced to a total prison term of eighteen years. {¶ 5} On October 27, 2005, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, Case No. 2005-L-180, raising the following three assignments of error: {¶ 6} "[1.] The trial court erred in sentencing [appellant] to eighteen years in prison when it sentenced him based upon findings not supported by the record. {¶ 7} "[2.] The trial court violated [appellant's] rights to equal protection and due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and under Sections 2 , 10 and 16 , Article I of the Ohio Con

2020Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 , 506 N.E.2d 212 (1987). {¶ 11} We will review the three assignments of error within the framework of these standards.

2020Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 , 506 N.E.2d 212 (1987). {¶ 11} We will review the three assignments of error within the framework of these standards.

2017In order to obtain summary judgment, a movant is required to show that "(1) there is no genuine issue of material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion when viewing evidence in favor of the nonmoving party, and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party." Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 , 105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996).

2012Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105 , 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996).

2007As the Ohio Supreme Court has stated, arguments concerning the "sufficiency of the evidence" should not be confused with those addressing the "manifest weight of the evidence." See State v. Thompkins , 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997-Ohio-0052 , at paragraph two of the syllabus ("The legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively different.") "Sufficiency of the evidence" is "`a term of art meaning that legal standard which is applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient to su

2002He was also classified as a sexual predator. {¶ 3} On appeal, Poe brings to this court the following three assignments of error: {¶ 4} "The jury's verdict in the case at hand was contrary to the weight and/or sufficiency of the evidence. {¶ 5} "The jury's verdict should be overturned because appellant did not have effective assistance of counsel. {¶ 6} "The trial court erred by not granting defense counsel's motion for dismissal based upon the state's failure to establish jurisdiction in Clark County, Ohio." I {¶ 7} When evaluating a claim that the conviction is against the manifest weight of

2006THE OHIO REVISED CODE SECTION 2152.13 (D) (2) (A) VIOLATES A JUVENILE'S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND TRIAL BY JURY UNDER THE FIFTH , SIXTH , AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I , SECTION 5 AND 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION BECAUSE IT AUTHORIZES A JUVENILE COURT TO IMPOSE AN ADULT SENTENCE ON A JUVENILE BASED ON JUDICIAL FACT-FINDING, IN CONTRAVENTION OF BLAKELY v. WASHINGTON (2004), 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.CT. 2538 .

2006R.C. 2929.14 (E)(4) provided that, "the court may require the offender to serve the prison terms consecutively," if a court makes certain findings. {¶ 11} Appellant, in his first two assignments of error, contends that the trial court's sentencing of non-minimum and consecutive sentences violates appellant's Sixth Amendment rights, as stated in Blakely, supra. {¶ 12} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that Blakely is applicable to Ohio's sentencing plan.

2023Third Assignment of Error The trial court committed prejudicial error in finding that the agency made reasonable efforts for the minor child to return to the custody of appellant-mother. {¶43} We elect to address the three assignments of error together. {¶44} “[T]he right to raise one’s children is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic civil right.’” In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157 , 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990), quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 , 92 S.Ct. 1208 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972).

2023Third Assignment of Error The trial court committed prejudicial error in finding that the agency made reasonable efforts for the minor child to return to the custody of appellant-mother. {¶43} We elect to address the three assignments of error together. {¶44} “[T]he right to raise one’s children is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic civil right.’” In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157 , 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990), quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 , 92 S.Ct. 1208 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972).

2018State v. Hymore (1967), 9 Ohio St.2d 122 , 128 * * *.

2017State v. Hymore (1967), 9 Ohio St.2d 122 , 128 * * *.

2015By judgment entry filed April 16, 2014, the court sentenced appellant to 60 No. 14AP-399 3 months incarceration as to each count, with the sentences to run consecutive, for a total term of imprisonment of 20 years. {¶ 8} On appeal, appellant sets forth the following three assignments of error for this court's review: First Assignment of Error: The trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without making findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and State v. Bonnell, [ 140 Ohio St.3d 209 ], 2014-Ohio-3177 .

2015By judgment entry filed April 16, 2014, the court sentenced appellant to 60 No. 14AP-399 3 months incarceration as to each count, with the sentences to run consecutive, for a total term of imprisonment of 20 years. {¶ 8} On appeal, appellant sets forth the following three assignments of error for this court's review: First Assignment of Error: The trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences without making findings required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and State v. Bonnell, [ 140 Ohio St.3d 209 ], 2014-Ohio-3177 .

2017Appellant filed the instant pro se appeal and asserts the following three assignments of error: {¶8} “[1.] Whether, and pursuant to the clear and unambiguous language of State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 , at: ¶1; State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 ; and, Hernandez v. Kelly, 108 Ohio St.3d 395 , at: ¶23, the trial court was/is prohibited from a *retroactive application of the *new judicial ruling in: State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 ; and, an ex post facto application of: O.R.C. 2929.191, eff. 7/11/2006, with respect to the correction of a facially flawed postrelease control notificatio

2017Portage No. 2015-P-0087, 2016-Ohio-5006, ¶9-11 , recently stated the following regarding post- release control in light of the Ohio Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Fischer, supra: {¶13} “‘(A) trial court must provide statutorily compliant notification to a defendant regarding postrelease control at the time of sentencing, including notifying the defendant of the details of the postrelease control and the consequences of violating postrelease control.’ State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 , 2012-Ohio-1111 , ¶18 * * *.

2012He contends that Prochaska’s testimony violated the Ohio Supreme Court’s directive in State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108 , 545 N.E.2d 1220 (1989), which recognizes that it is improper for an expert witness to vouch for the credibility of a victim’s account of an incident. {¶13} The record reveals that the state specifically asked Prochaska to detail those factors that she considers in evaluating an allegation of sexual abuse, i.e., the applicable red flags in determining whether an allegation is credible or not.

2012He contends that Prochaska’s testimony violated the Ohio Supreme Court’s directive in State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108 , 545 N.E.2d 1220 (1989), which recognizes that it is improper for an expert witness to vouch for the credibility of a victim’s account of an incident. {¶13} The record reveals that the state specifically asked Prochaska to detail those factors that she considers in evaluating an allegation of sexual abuse, i.e., the applicable red flags in determining whether an allegation is credible or not.

2011We agree. 5 {¶ 8} To prevail on a motion under Civ.R. 60(B), the movant must demonstrate that: (1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and (3) the motion is made within a reasonable time, and, where the grounds for relief are Civ.R. 60(B)(1), (2) or (3), not more than one year after the judgment * * *.” GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Indus. (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 146 , 351 N.E.2d 113 , paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 9} In the present case, Resolution has

2011We agree. 5 {¶ 8} To prevail on a motion under Civ.R. 60(B), the movant must demonstrate that: (1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and (3) the motion is made within a reasonable time, and, where the grounds for relief are Civ.R. 60(B)(1), (2) or (3), not more than one year after the judgment * * *.” GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Indus. (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 146 , 351 N.E.2d 113 , paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 9} In the present case, Resolution has

2011ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE “The trial court erred to the prejudice of [Cimino] when it overruled the request in [Cimino’s] brief and a subsequent motion filed by [Cimino] to hold an evidentiary hearing in light of the fact that no conclusions of fact were submitted with the transcript by the Board of Zoning Appeals for the [City.]” ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR TWO “The Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County erred to the prejudice of [Cimino] in holding that the City’s denial of [his] variance request was not arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, and was supported by a preponderance of the substantial, r

2011ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE “The trial court erred to the prejudice of [Cimino] when it overruled the request in [Cimino’s] brief and a subsequent motion filed by [Cimino] to hold an evidentiary hearing in light of the fact that no conclusions of fact were submitted with the transcript by the Board of Zoning Appeals for the [City.]” ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR TWO “The Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County erred to the prejudice of [Cimino] in holding that the City’s denial of [his] variance request was not arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, and was supported by a preponderance of the substantial, r

2008State v. Gondor , 112 Ohio St.3d 377 , 2006-Ohio-6679 , at _58.

2008State v. Gondor , 112 Ohio St.3d 377 , 2006-Ohio-6679 , at_58.

2006Baiko v. Mays (2000), 140 Ohio App.3d 1 , 746 N.E.2d 618 , citing Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 35 , 30 OBR 78, 506 N.E.2d 212 .

2006Baiko v. Mays (2000), 140 Ohio App.3d 1 , citing Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 35 .

2024No. 21AP-24, 2021-Ohio-4195 (“Ice House II”) and remanded the case to this court to address the three assignments of error that were rendered moot by our prior decision in Ice House II.

2024First, the State concedes that the drug possession Counts 4 and 6 merged under State v. Pendleton, 2020-Ohio-6833, ¶ 20 , which held that “the imposition of two punishments for the same, singular quantity of drugs violated the Double Jeopardy protections of the Ohio and United States Constitutions.” In this case, like Pendleton, the State aggregated the drugs charged under Count 6 into the total quantity of drugs that created the first-degree, qualifying felony offense as charged under Count 4.

2024“Personal jurisdiction is a question of law that appellate courts review de novo.” Kauffman Racing Equip., L.L.C. v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81 , 2010-Ohio-2551 , 930 N.E.2d 784, ¶ 27 . {¶30} A “municipal court has jurisdiction to hear misdemeanor cases committed within its territory and has jurisdiction over the violation of any ordinance of any municipal corporation within its territory * * *.” R.C. 1901.20(A)(1).

2024“Personal jurisdiction is a question of law that appellate courts review de novo.” Kauffman Racing Equip., L.L.C. v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81 , 2010-Ohio-2551 , 930 N.E.2d 784, ¶ 27 . {¶30} A “municipal court has jurisdiction to hear misdemeanor cases committed within its territory and has jurisdiction over the violation of any ordinance of any municipal corporation within its territory * * *.” R.C. 1901.20(A)(1).

2023“Parents have a ‘fundamental liberty interest’ in the care, custody, and management of their children.” Id. quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982).

2023“Parents have a ‘fundamental liberty interest’ in the care, custody, and management of their children.” Id. quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982).

2023Third Assignment of Error The trial court committed prejudicial error in finding that the agency made reasonable efforts for the minor child to return to the custody of appellant-mother. {¶43} We elect to address the three assignments of error together. {¶44} “[T]he right to raise one’s children is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic civil right.’” In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157 , 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990), quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 , 92 S.Ct. 1208 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972).

2023Third Assignment of Error The trial court committed prejudicial error in finding that the agency made reasonable efforts for the minor child to return to the custody of appellant-mother. {¶43} We elect to address the three assignments of error together. {¶44} “[T]he right to raise one’s children is an ‘essential’ and ‘basic civil right.’” In re Murray, 52 Ohio St.3d 155, 157 , 556 N.E.2d 1169 (1990), quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 , 92 S.Ct. 1208 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972).

2023“Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution.” State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527 , 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996).

2023“Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution.” State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527 , 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996).

2023He raises the following three assignments of error: {¶36} “[1.] The trial court erred in denying Mr. Little’s Motion to Suppress Evidence from the June 23, 2021 traffic stop in violation of his constitutional rights. {¶37} “[2.] Mr. Little’s convictions for Aggravated Possession and Aggravated Trafficking are not supported by sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. 9 Case Nos. 2023-P-0011 and 2023-P-0012 {¶38} “[3.] The trial court erred in allowing joinder and failing to sever Mr. Little’s two cases for purposes of trial.” Motion to Suppress {¶39} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Li

2023He raises the following three assignments of error: {¶36} “[1.] The trial court erred in denying Mr. Little’s Motion to Suppress Evidence from the June 23, 2021 traffic stop in violation of his constitutional rights. {¶37} “[2.] Mr. Little’s convictions for Aggravated Possession and Aggravated Trafficking are not supported by sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. 9 Case Nos. 2023-P-0011 and 2023-P-0012 {¶38} “[3.] The trial court erred in allowing joinder and failing to sever Mr. Little’s two cases for purposes of trial.” Motion to Suppress {¶39} In his first assignment of error, Mr. Li

2022Ashtabula No. 2022-A-0004, 2022-Ohio-1101 . {¶26} Mr. Walsh filed a motion for a final appealable order. 2 The trial court subsequently filed a judgment entry that adopted the magistrate’s findings of fact and issued orders consistent with the magistrate’s decision. {¶27} Mr. Walsh filed the instant appeal and raises the following three assignments of error: {¶28} “[1.] The Trial Court erred by not applying law with respect to the oral changes made to the original Separation Agreement of November 2016., case no. 2016 DR 334 in the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas. {¶29} “[2.] Magistrate

2022Cuyahoga No. 96997, 2012-Ohio-2300 ], citing State v. Gover, [ 71 Ohio St.3d 577 , 645 N.E.2d 1246 (1995)].