first assigned error in Ohio

2014“When a court of appeals reverses a judgment of a trial court on the basis that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as a ‘thirteenth juror’ and disagrees with the factfinder’s resolution of the conflicting testimony.” Id. at 387 , 678 N.E.2d 541 , citing Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42 , 102 S.Ct. 2211 , 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982). {¶39} As discussed in the first assigned error, the state presented circumstantial evidence that I.N.R. penetrated the extremely intoxicated victim while she slept.

2014“When a court of appeals reverses a judgment of a trial court on the basis that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the appellate court sits as a ‘thirteenth juror’ and disagrees with the factfinder’s resolution of the conflicting testimony.” Id. at 387 , 678 N.E.2d 541 , citing Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 42 , 102 S.Ct. 2211 , 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982). {¶39} As discussed in the first assigned error, the state presented circumstantial evidence that I.N.R. penetrated the extremely intoxicated victim while she slept.

2012Manifest Weight of Evidence 11 {¶28} In the first assigned error, Allen argues his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶29} In State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , the Ohio Supreme Court addressed the standard of review for a criminal manifest weight challenge, as follows: The criminal manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard was explained in State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997-Ohio-52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 .

2012Manifest Weight of Evidence {¶9} We begin with the first assigned error, wherein Williams argues his conviction for having weapons while under disability was against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶10} In State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , the Ohio Supreme Court addressed the standard of review for a criminal manifest weight challenge, as follows: The criminal manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard was explained in State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997-Ohio-52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 .

2012Manifest Weight of Evidence 11 {¶28} In the first assigned error, Allen argues his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶29} In State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , the Ohio Supreme Court addressed the standard of review for a criminal manifest weight challenge, as follows: The criminal manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard was explained in State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997-Ohio-52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 .

2012Manifest Weight of Evidence {¶9} We begin with the first assigned error, wherein Williams argues his conviction for having weapons while under disability was against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶10} In State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.2d 1264 , the Ohio Supreme Court addressed the standard of review for a criminal manifest weight challenge, as follows: The criminal manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard was explained in State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997-Ohio-52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 .

2013Baiko v. Mays, 140 Ohio App.3d 1 , 746 N.E.2d 618 (8th Dist.2000), citing Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 , 506 N.E.2d 212 (1987); N.E.

2012Baiko v. Mays, 140 Ohio App.3d 1 , 746 N.E.2d 618 (8th Dist.2000), citing Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 , 506 N.E.2d 212 (1987); N.E.

2013Baiko v. Mays, 140 Ohio App.3d 1 , 746 N.E.2d 618 (8th Dist.2000), citing Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 , 506 N.E.2d 212 (1987); N.E.

2013Baiko v. Mays, 140 Ohio App.3d 1 , 746 N.E.2d 618 (8th Dist.2000), citing Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 , 506 N.E.2d 212 (1987); N.E.

2013Baiko v. Mays, 140 Ohio App.3d 1 , 746 N.E.2d 618 (8th Dist.2000), citing Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 , 506 N.E.2d 212 (1987); N.E.

2012Baiko v. Mays, 140 Ohio App.3d 1 , 746 N.E.2d 618 (8th Dist.2000), citing Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 , 506 N.E.2d 212 (1987); N.E.

2021That did not occur in the present matter. {¶31} The first assignment of error is without merit. 11 Case No. 2020-P-0086 {¶32} In his second assignment of error, Cooper argues that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to utilize the remaining peremptory challenge to remove juror number 20, citing his rationale in the first assigned error relating to the juror’s bias and prejudice caused to Cooper resulting from his inclusion on the jury. {¶33} To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must prove “(1) that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonab

2021That did not occur in the present matter. {¶31} The first assignment of error is without merit. 11 Case No. 2020-P-0086 {¶32} In his second assignment of error, Cooper argues that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to utilize the remaining peremptory challenge to remove juror number 20, citing his rationale in the first assigned error relating to the juror’s bias and prejudice caused to Cooper resulting from his inclusion on the jury. {¶33} To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must prove “(1) that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonab

2022Due to our disposition of the first assigned error, we do not reach the merits of Wymer’s arguments as to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence with respect to those counts. {¶53} In his fifth assigned error, Wymer argues that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. {¶54} “Counsel’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. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989)

2022Due to our disposition of the first assigned error, we do not reach the merits of Wymer’s arguments as to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence with respect to those counts. {¶53} In his fifth assigned error, Wymer argues that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. {¶54} “Counsel’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. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989)

2026Lycan v. Cleveland, 2016-Ohio-422 , ¶ 21 (reversing the Eighth Appellate District's decision addressing res judicata on the merits for the first time on appeal); Tree of Life Church v. Agnew, 2014-Ohio-878, ¶ 27-28 (7th Dist.) (declining to consider the merits of summary judgment arguments not raised to the trial court); Gonzales v. Perez, 2015-Ohio-1282 , ¶ 17 (7th Dist.) (declining to address argument raised for the first time on appeal.) {¶52} Because the trial court has not yet assessed whether the facts in evidence support such a finding, we decline to do so for the first time on appeal.

2025Lycan v. Cleveland, 2016-Ohio-422 , ¶ 21 (reversing the Eighth Appellate District's decision addressing res judicata on the merits for the first time on appeal); Tree of Life Church v. Agnew, 2014-Ohio-878, ¶ 27-28 (7th Dist.) (declining to consider the merits of summary judgment arguments not raised to the trial court); Gonzales v. Perez, 2015-Ohio-1282 , ¶ 17 (7th Dist.) (declining to address argument raised for the first time on appeal.) Despite the likely lack of compliance with the seven- day notice requirement, this argument does not support the Trust’s first assigned error, which seeks

2019Assignment of Error No. I {¶ 13} In the first assigned error, appellant argues he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel because the trial court forced him to proceed to trial without counsel or “a fair chance.” Appellee contends appellant cannot establish ineffective assistance because he chose to proceed pro se at trial. 4. {¶ 14} In evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the test is “whether the accused, under all the circumstances, * * * had a fair trial and substantial justice was done.” State v. Hester, 45 Ohio St.2d 71 , 341 N.E.2d 304 (1976), paragraph four of th

2019Assignment of Error No. I {¶ 13} In the first assigned error, appellant argues he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel because the trial court forced him to proceed to trial without counsel or “a fair chance.” Appellee contends appellant cannot establish ineffective assistance because he chose to proceed pro se at trial. 4. {¶ 14} In evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the test is “whether the accused, under all the circumstances, * * * had a fair trial and substantial justice was done.” State v. Hester, 45 Ohio St.2d 71 , 341 N.E.2d 304 (1976), paragraph four of th

2017Richland County, Case No. 15CA85 7 {¶16} 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) at paragraph two of the syllabus, 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 admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2017Richland County, Case No. 15CA85 7 {¶16} 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) at paragraph two of the syllabus, 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 admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2014Withdrawal of Guilty Plea {¶7} In the first assigned error, Thomas argues the trial court should have held a hearing to determine whether his request to withdraw his guilty plea was meritorious. {¶8} Under Crim.R. 32.1, a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest may be made only before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his or her plea. {¶9} In general, “a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea should be freely and liberally granted.” State v. Xie, 62 Ohio S

2014Withdrawal of Guilty Plea {¶7} In the first assigned error, Thomas argues the trial court should have held a hearing to determine whether his request to withdraw his guilty plea was meritorious. {¶8} Under Crim.R. 32.1, a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest may be made only before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his or her plea. {¶9} In general, “a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea should be freely and liberally granted.” State v. Xie, 62 Ohio S

2014Sufficiency of Evidence {¶17} In the first assigned error, Wingfield argues his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence. {¶18} The sufficiency of the evidence standard of review is set forth in State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 , 381 N.E.2d 184 (1978), syllabus: Pursuant to Criminal Rule 29(A), a court shall not order an entry of judgment of acquittal if the evidence is such that reasonable minds can reach different conclusions as to whether each material element of a crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

2014Sufficiency of Evidence {¶17} In the first assigned error, Wingfield argues his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence. {¶18} The sufficiency of the evidence standard of review is set forth in State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 , 381 N.E.2d 184 (1978), syllabus: Pursuant to Criminal Rule 29(A), a court shall not order an entry of judgment of acquittal if the evidence is such that reasonable minds can reach different conclusions as to whether each material element of a crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

2025Election of One-year or Three-year Firearm Specification While Steele maintains he should not have been subject to a firearm specification, his second assigned error is grounded on this court’s recent holding in State v. Holliman, 2025-Ohio-1187 (8th Dist.).

2025Because the trial court’s judgment [Cite as Middleton v. Clarky's Closeouts, 2025-Ohio-1414 .] did not turn on whether Mrs. Middleton was warned of the hole prior to her fall, the Middletons’ second assigned error lacks merit. {¶19} With respect to the Middletons’ first assigned error, we note that the deposition transcripts provide a limited description of the premises and the location of the hole and surrounding area.

2025Specifically, he maintains trial counsel did not inform him that the plea could function to enhance any future allegation on the same offense; trial counsel failed to inform him that his plea might affect his ability to possess firearms; and that counsel failed to apprise him that he would be waiving his right to remain silent. {¶21} To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must prove “(1) that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defendant resulting in an unreliable or fundame

2024Case No. 24 BE 0003 [Cite as State v. Bradley, 2024-Ohio-5225 .] For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the Appellant’s first assigned error has merit in part.

2020In support of this 1 Lake pled guilty to and was sentenced to two years in prison; Thomas was found guilty of aggravated murder and other offenses and was sentenced to life without parole and other concurrent terms; Sims pled guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery with three-year firearm specifications and was sentenced to a total of 17 years of imprisonment; Brunson was found guilty of aggravated murder and other offenses and was sentenced to life without parole and other concurrent and consecutive terms. assigned error, Hollins cites United States v. Randolph, 794 F.3d 602 (6th Cir.2015)

2020In support of this 1 Lake pled guilty to and was sentenced to two years in prison; Thomas was found guilty of aggravated murder and other offenses and was sentenced to life without parole and other concurrent terms; Sims pled guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery with three-year firearm specifications and was sentenced to a total of 17 years of imprisonment; Brunson was found guilty of aggravated murder and other offenses and was sentenced to life without parole and other concurrent and consecutive terms. assigned error, Hollins cites United States v. Randolph, 794 F.3d 602 (6th Cir.2015)

2020In Blackstone v. Moore, 155 Ohio St.3d 448 , 2018-Ohio-4959 , 122 N.E.3d 132 , the Ohio Supreme Court explained the Marketable Title Act as follows: the act provides that a person “who has an unbroken chain of title of record to any interest in land for forty years or more, has a marketable record title to such interest.” R.C. 5301.48.

2020In Blackstone v. Moore, 155 Ohio St.3d 448 , 2018-Ohio-4959 , 122 N.E.3d 132 , the Ohio Supreme Court explained the Marketable Title Act as follows: the act provides that a person “who has an unbroken chain of title of record to any interest in land for forty years or more, has a marketable record title to such interest.” R.C. 5301.48.

2020The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” See also State v. Leach, 102 Ohio St.3d 135 , 2004-Ohio-2147 , 807 N.E.2d 335 , ¶ 11.

2020Summit No. 27209, 2014-Ohio-2749, ¶ 41 . {¶21} Appellant, in similar fashion to her argument in the first assigned error, fails to present any clear authority that substantial compliance with the regulations for substitute care and relative placements in OAC 5101:2-42 is a prerequisite to the trial court accepting an agency’s permanency plan for a dependent child subject to the court’s jurisdiction in a permanent custody matter.2 {¶22} Appellant's Second Assignment of Error is therefore overruled. {¶23} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Co

2020In support of this 1 Lake pled guilty to and was sentenced to two years in prison; Thomas was found guilty of aggravated murder and other offenses and was sentenced to life without parole and other concurrent terms; Sims pled guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery with three-year firearm specifications and was sentenced to a total of 17 years of imprisonment; Brunson was found guilty of aggravated murder and other offenses and was sentenced to life without parole and other concurrent and consecutive terms. assigned error, Hollins cites United States v. Randolph, 794 F.3d 602 (6th Cir.2015)