second proposed assignment error in Ohio

2017Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 .

2017Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 .

2014Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2014Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2024State v. Marcum, 2016-Ohio-1002 .

2023See, e.g., State v. Hodgkin, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2020-08-048, 2021-Ohio-1353, ¶ 17, fn. 2 ; State v. Ratliff, 2022-Ohio-1372 , 190 N.E.3d 684, ¶ 62 (5th Dist.), appeal accepted, 167 Ohio St.3d 1481 , 2022-Ohio-2765 , 192 N.E.3d 516 , ¶ 30; State v. Guyton, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190657, 2022-Ohio-2962, ¶ 68 , appeal accepted, 168 Ohio St.3d 1418 , 2022-Ohio-3752 , 196 N.E.3d 850 . {¶33} Accordingly, the second proposed assignment of error is without merit. 8 {¶34} After an independent review of the record, we conclude the instant appeal is wholly frivolous.

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 (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 (1990), paragraph two of the syllabus.

2022II. {¶17} In the second proposed assignment of error, appellant’s counsel examines, but finds no merit in the assertion that the conviction for attempted felonious assault was not supported by sufficient evidence or was against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶18} The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is set forth in State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), in which the Ohio Supreme Court held, “an appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admi

2022II. {¶17} In the second proposed assignment of error, appellant’s counsel examines, but finds no merit in the assertion that the conviction for attempted felonious assault was not supported by sufficient evidence or was against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶18} The standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is set forth in State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), in which the Ohio Supreme Court held, “an appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admi

2022The relevant inquiry 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 proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” {¶19} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the court of appeals functions as the “thirteenth juror,” and after “reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and crea

2022The relevant inquiry 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 proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” {¶19} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the court of appeals functions as the “thirteenth juror,” and after “reviewing the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and crea

2019Champaign No. 2017-CA-16, 2018-Ohio-2661, ¶ 8 , citing State v. King, 2013-Ohio-2021 , 992 N.E.2d 491 , ¶ 45 (2d Dist.).

2019Champaign No. 2017-CA-16, 2018-Ohio-2661, ¶ 8 , citing State v. King, 2013-Ohio-2021 , 992 N.E.2d 491 , ¶ 45 (2d Dist.).

2016Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 , 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954). {¶ 17} We note that the sentence in this case does not require the findings that R.C. 2953.08(G) specifically addresses.

2016Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 , 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954). {¶ 17} We note that the sentence in this case does not require the findings that R.C. 2953.08(G) specifically addresses.

2007Cf. Street , supra. {¶ 20} This cause is reinstated to the docket of this court and the sentence is vacated and remanded.

2007State v. Xie (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 526 ; State v. Stumpf (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 95 , 104 .

2007State v. Xie (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 526 ; State v. Stumpf (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 95 , 104 .

2003This court finds no merit in this assignment of error. {¶ 56} On the authority of State v. Elkins, 148 Ohio App.3d 370 , 2002 Ohio 2914, and State v. McCoy (November. 9, 2001), Hamilton App. No. C-000659 and C-000660, this court finds that R.C. 2941.10 (B), the major drug offender specification, is not unconstitutional. {¶ 57} Accordingly, appellant's sixth assignment of error is found not well-taken. {¶ 58} Pursuant to Anders, this court is required to review the record independently to determine that appellate counsel has made a diligent, thorough and sound effort and that the proceedings be

2001When considering an appellant's claim that a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, our role is to determine whether the evidence produced at trial "attains the high degree of probative force and certainty required of a criminal conviction." State v. Getsy (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 180 , 193 .