potential assignment error in Ohio

2025Attorney Benbow’s evaluation of this potential assignment of error as not meritorious or persuasive is also correct. {¶17} The standard of review for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel was set forth in the seminal case of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and was discussed by this court in Mansfield v. Studer, 2012-Ohio-4840 (5th Dist.): A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a two-prong analysis.

2023Montgomery No. 21153, 2006-Ohio-2670, ¶ 3 , citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 168 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2013Ellis argues that, under State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , the trial court improperly used the fact that he was selling drugs to enhance his prison sentence. {¶ 13} Foster provides that, “The trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the authorized statutory range, and the court is not required to make any findings or give its reasons for imposing maximum or more than minimum sentences.” State v. Lewis, 2d Dist.

2013Counsel suggests that the trial court’s reference to these facts may violate the prohibition against judicial fact-finding set forth in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d. 470. {¶ 22} We agree with counsel that this potential assignment of error has no arguable merit, because it is based upon a misreading of Foster.

2025The trial court issued a Judgment Entry – Sentencing on December 10, 2024, memorializing its decision. {¶9} The appellant filed a timely appeal, and his counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he sets forth the following potential assignment of error: “[w]hether the trial court’s sentence was contrary to law, for not properly considering each of the principles and purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12, pursuant to the Ohio Supreme Court’s decisions in State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio

2025The trial court issued a Judgment Entry – Sentencing on December 10, 2024, memorializing its decision. {¶9} The appellant filed a timely appeal, and his counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he sets forth the following potential assignment of error: “[w]hether the trial court’s sentence was contrary to law, for not properly considering each of the principles and purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12, pursuant to the Ohio Supreme Court’s decisions in State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio

2014Accordingly, we shall proceed with an examination of the potential assignment of error set forth by appellant’s counsel as well as the entire record below to determine if this appeal lacks merit and is, therefore, wholly frivolous. {¶ 9} Appellant’s counsel submits review of the imposition of a statutory maximum sentence is delineated in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124 .

2014Accordingly, we shall proceed with an examination of the potential assignment of error set forth by appellant’s counsel as well as the entire record below to determine if this appeal lacks merit and is, therefore, wholly frivolous. {¶ 9} Appellant’s counsel submits review of the imposition of a statutory maximum sentence is delineated in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124 .

2025We find that the prosecution’s evidence was in fact sufficient to support the conviction. {¶13} “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court does not ask whether the evidence should be believed but, rather, whether the evidence, ‘if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Pountney, 2018-Ohio-22, ¶ 19 , quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. “‘The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trie

1999"The relevant inquiry for the appellate court' is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , paragraph two of the syllabus.

2011The sentences were ordered served consecutive to one another for a total term of incarceration of two years and nine months. {¶3} Counsel for Appellant has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738 , rehearing den. (1967), 388 U.S. 924 , indicating that the within appeal was wholly frivolous and setting forth one proposed Assignments of Error. {¶4} Counsel for Appellant raises the following potential assignment of error: Licking County App. Case No. 10-CA-74 3 {¶5} “I.

2006THE VERDICT OF THE JURY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE." {¶ 7} Initially we note, the record demonstrates appellant's counsel served appellant with a copy of the brief and request to withdraw. {¶ 8} In Anders, supra, the United States Supreme Court held if, after a conscientious examination of the record, a defendant's counsel concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous, then he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw.

2000The potential assignment of error in this case raises the issue of whether appellant's conviction was supported by sufficient proof of guilt as to each essential element of the offenses charged. "`Sufficiency' is a term of art meaning that legal standard which is applied to determine whether * * * the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law." State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 386 , quoting Black's Legal Dictionary (6 Ed. 1990) 1433.

1999Counsel for appellant has raised the following potential assignment of error: "IS APPELLANT'S CONVICTION SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE?" "`[S]ufficiency' 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 support the jury verdict as a matter of law." State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 386 , quoting Black's Law Dictionary (6 Ed. 1990) 1433.

2025We find that the prosecution’s evidence was in fact sufficient to support the conviction. {¶13} “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court does not ask whether the evidence should be believed but, rather, whether the evidence, ‘if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Pountney, 2018-Ohio-22, ¶ 19 , quoting State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. “‘The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trie

2025“If [the] court is unable PAGE 3 OF 7 Case Nos. 2024-A-0049, 2024-A-0050 to find issues of arguable merit, the decision is affirmed on the merits and counsel is allowed to withdraw.” Id. {¶9} Counsel for Frasure has asked this Court to review as a potential assignment of error whether Frasure’s plea is invalid and whether his sentence is contrary to law or is clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record. {¶10} “In order to enter a valid plea in a criminal case under the United States and Ohio Constitutions, ‘the plea must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.’” State v. Garc

2025The trial court issued a Judgment Entry – Sentencing on December 10, 2024, memorializing its decision. {¶9} The appellant filed a timely appeal, and his counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he sets forth the following potential assignment of error: “[w]hether the trial court’s sentence was contrary to law, for not properly considering each of the principles and purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12, pursuant to the Ohio Supreme Court’s decisions in State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio

2025The trial court issued a Judgment Entry – Sentencing on December 10, 2024, memorializing its decision. {¶9} The appellant filed a timely appeal, and his counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he sets forth the following potential assignment of error: “[w]hether the trial court’s sentence was contrary to law, for not properly considering each of the principles and purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12, pursuant to the Ohio Supreme Court’s decisions in State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio

2025Attorney Benbow’s evaluation of this potential assignment of error as not meritorious or persuasive is also correct. {¶17} The standard of review for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel was set forth in the seminal case of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and was discussed by this court in Mansfield v. Studer, 2012-Ohio-4840 (5th Dist.): A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a two-prong analysis.

2023Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); see also State v. Inskeep, 2d Dist.

2023Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); see also State v. Inskeep, 2d Dist.

2023Montgomery No. 21153, 2006-Ohio-2670, ¶ 3 , citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 168 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2023We agree. {¶26} Generally, “a trial court must fully and completely give the jury all instructions which are relevant and necessary for the jury to weigh evidence and discharge its duty as the fact finder.” State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 , 553 N.E.2d 640 Delaware County, Case No. 22CAA060048 8 (1990), paragraph two of the syllabus.

2023We agree. {¶26} Generally, “a trial court must fully and completely give the jury all instructions which are relevant and necessary for the jury to weigh evidence and discharge its duty as the fact finder.” State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 , 553 N.E.2d 640 Delaware County, Case No. 22CAA060048 8 (1990), paragraph two of the syllabus.

2022Montgomery No. 28799, 2021-Ohio-326 , another Anders case, in which this Court determined as follows: Counsel's brief raises a potential assignment of error that questions whether Mills's maximum prison sentence was unduly harsh and whether the trial court properly considered the purposes of sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 or properly considered the seriousness of the crime or the likelihood of recidivism in R.C. 2929.12.

2020Greene No. 2019-CA-29, 2020-Ohio-3744 . -4- Analysis {¶ 6} Counsel suggests as a potential assignment of error that the trial court’s sentence is not authorized by law.

2020Cuyahoga No. 100206, 2014-Ohio-1520, ¶ 14 . {¶ 9} Based on the record in this case, we agree with appellate counsel that the potential assignment of error challenging the trial court’s imposition of the maximum prison term lacks arguable merit.

2019Montgomery No. 27530, 2018-Ohio-2220, ¶ 29-31 . {¶ 13} Given the thorough and complete Crim.R. 11 colloquy set forth above, we agree with counsel for Barnes that this potential assignment of error lacks arguable merit. {¶ 14} Barnes’s counsel’s second potential assignment of error is as follows: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING R.C. 2929.11 AND R.C. 2929.12 ON THE RECORD AT APPELLANT’S SENTENCING HEARING. {¶ 15} Counsel for Barnes notes that this “Court has addressed this issue before and held that failure to mention the specific statutes at sentencing does not invalidate the s

2019Clark No. 2018-CA-60, 2019-Ohio-1253, ¶ 5 . {¶ 12} Counsel for Ali asserts the following potential assignment of error: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT’S ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPELLANT’S GUILTY PLEA AND SUBSEQUENT FELONY SENTENCING FAILED TO COMPLY WITH OHIO LAW. {¶ 13} Regarding acceptance of a plea, Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) provides: (C) Pleas of guilty and no contest in felony cases. *** (2) In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or a plea of no contest, and shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest without first addressing the defendant personally and doing all of the follow

2018Montgomery No. 2017-CA-51, 2018-Ohio-1227, ¶ 10-12 . {¶ 19} We conclude that this potential assignment of error is meritless.

2018Sandusky No. S-18-4, 2018-Ohio-2590 , in which we pronounced that we will no longer accept Anders briefs in criminal appeals.