second assignment error in Ohio

2026Third Assignment: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 7. {¶ 23} In appellant’s third assignment of error, appellant similarly argues ineffective assistance of counsel, on the same substantive basis underlying the second assignment of error, arguing that, “trial counsel was deficient [when] trial counsel failed to request a mistrial when the state presented testimony to the jury of Overmyer’s plea agreement.” {¶ 24} As held by this court in State v. Alexander, 2023-Ohio-2708 , ¶ 62-63 (6th Dist.), Pursuant to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), a

2026Third Assignment: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 7. {¶ 23} In appellant’s third assignment of error, appellant similarly argues ineffective assistance of counsel, on the same substantive basis underlying the second assignment of error, arguing that, “trial counsel was deficient [when] trial counsel failed to request a mistrial when the state presented testimony to the jury of Overmyer’s plea agreement.” {¶ 24} As held by this court in State v. Alexander, 2023-Ohio-2708 , ¶ 62-63 (6th Dist.), Pursuant to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), a

2025In the second assignment of error, Yelton argues that his convictions for Resisting Arrest and Violating Protection Order are both against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶14} It is well established that “[t]he legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively different.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶15} “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 whet

2025Because he cannot demonstrate that their admissibility amounted to plain error, the first assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 36} In the second assignment of error, Mr. Elkhabiry challenges the manifest weight of the state’s evidence that resulted in his convictions. {¶ 37} The manifest weight of the evidence standard of review requires the appellate court to consider the state’s evidence as an additional, or “thirteenth juror.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997).

2017Id. {¶ 67} In the second assignment of error, we determined that plaintiff-appellee, the State of Ohio, was not required to demonstrate violence as an element of rape in order to classify rape as an offense of violence for purposes of the repeat violent offender specification.

2011Manifest Weight of the Evidence {¶ 23} In the second assignment of error, Bolan argues his convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶ 24} With regard to a manifest weight challenge, the “reviewing court asks whose evidence is more persuasive — the state’s or the defendant’s? * * * ‘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.’ [ Thompkins at 387 ], citing Tibbs v. F

2024Ineffectiveness of trial counsel {¶34} In the second assignment of error, Appellant claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a timely motion to suppress the statements made by Smith, failing to object to hearsay and failing to object to authentication of Speedway videos by Police Chief Ross. {¶35} The standard for reviewing claims for ineffective assistance of counsel is set forth in the seminal case of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) and adopted by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989).

2023Jackson and Jenkins both testified that he did have a gun during the social media exchanges, and it is uncertain what more the defense could have offered if it had known that Dicillo was going to be a potential witness. {¶44} The second assignment of error is without merit. 14 Case No. 2023-L-021 {¶45} In the fourth assignment of error, Jackson argues trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a jury instruction on the castle doctrine. {¶46} “Counsel’s performance will not be deemed ineffective unless and until counsel’s performance is proved to have fallen below an objective standard of

2025Sufficiency and Weight of the Evidence {¶ 15} The second assignment of error states as follows: DAOTO THOMAS’ CONVICTION FOR CRIMINAL DAMAGING WAS BASED ON INSUFFICENT [SIC] EVIDENCE AND AGAINST AGAINST [SIC] THE WIEGHT [SIC] OF THE EVIDENCE. {¶ 16} Thomas claims the State did not present sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction and the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence. -6- {¶ 17} “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 evi

2024In the second assignment of error, Edwards contends that the State presented insufficient evidence in support of the crimes charged in Counts 2, 3, 4, and 6. {¶39} “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.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St. 3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus.

2024Reversal on manifest weight grounds is appropriate “ ‘only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.’ ” Thompkins at 387 , quoting State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). {¶ 41} Mr. Workman makes no additional argument to support the second assignment of error beyond incorporating those made in support of his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence in the first assignment of error.

2017However, as discussed under the second assignment of error, because appellant was not convicted of these counts, any error by his attorney in not objecting to the instructions was harmless and he was not prejudiced. {¶72} For his fourth and last assignment of error, appellant contends: 18 {¶73} “The trial court erred to the prejudice of the defendant-appellant when it returned a verdict of guilty against the manifest weight of the evidence.” {¶74} In reviewing the manifest weight of the evidence, the appellate court reviews “‘the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences

2020See Dresher, 75 Ohio St.3d at 292-293 . {¶28} The Hartungs’ second assignment of error is overruled.

2012Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 , 1996-Ohio-107 , 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). {¶6} For ease of discussion, we shall address the city’s second assignment of error first.

2015Tate, at ¶49. {¶31} The second assignment of error is without merit. {¶32} In his third assignment, Mason alleges: {¶33} “The trial court erred to the prejudice of the Defendant-Appellant when it returned a verdict of guilty against the manifest weight of the evidence.” {¶34} Within this assignment, Mason does not challenge that a burglary occurred; rather, his sole focus concerns whether Mason aided and abetted Donte’s commission of burglary. {¶35} A manifest weight challenge requires the reviewing court to play the role of a “thirteenth juror.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 , 19

2008Since defense counsel's line of questioning had marginal probative value, particularly when the subject had not been raised on redirect, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting Moore's recross-examination of Hill. {¶ 10} Accordingly, the first assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 11} In the second assignment of error, Moore argues that her conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶ 12} In evaluating a challenge to the verdict based on the manifest weight of the evidence, a court sits as the thirteenth juror, and intrudes its judgment into procee

2026Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d at 219 . {¶24} The second assignment of error is overruled.

2019See Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). {¶16} Consequently, we overrule the second assignment of error. {¶17} In his first assignment of error, Hammond contends that the trial court violated the mandatory provisions of R.C. 3109.04 when it denied his motion for a second in-camera interview of the child.

2017See Bridgeman , 55 Ohio St.2d 261 , 381 N.E.2d 184 , at syllabus. {¶ 41} The second assignment of error is overruled.

2017See Bridgeman , 55 Ohio St.2d 261 , 381 N.E.2d 184 , at syllabus. {¶ 41} The second assignment of error is overruled.

2013II. {¶44} In the second assignment of error, Appellant maintains his conviction is against the sufficiency of the evidence. {¶45} Our review of the constitutional sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction is governed by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which requires a court of appeals to determine whether “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.; see also McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120

2013II. {¶44} In the second assignment of error, Appellant maintains his conviction is against the sufficiency of the evidence. {¶45} Our review of the constitutional sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction is governed by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which requires a court of appeals to determine whether “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.; see also McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120

2018See State v. DeHass , 10 Ohio St.2d 230 , 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 18} Because the record demonstrates that Bedell's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence, we overrule the second assignment of error. {¶ 19} In his first assignment of error, which we address next, Bedell argues that misconduct by the prosecutor resulted in a denial of his right to a fair trial.

2018See State v. DeHass , 10 Ohio St.2d 230 , 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 18} Because the record demonstrates that Bedell's convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the weight of the evidence, we overrule the second assignment of error. {¶ 19} In his first assignment of error, which we address next, Bedell argues that misconduct by the prosecutor resulted in a denial of his right to a fair trial.

2006We agree. {¶ 13} Revised Code 2929.14(B) provides as follows: {¶ 14} "B) Except as [otherwise] provided . . ., if the court imposing a sentence upon an offender for a felony elects or is required to impose a prison term on the offender, the court shall impose the shortest prison term authorized for the offense . . . unless one or more of the following applies: {¶ 15} "(1) The offender was serving a prison term at the time of the offense, or the offender previously had served a prison term. {¶ 16} "(2) The court finds on the record that the shortest prison term will demean the seriousness of th

2005State v. Edmonson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 324 . {¶ 20} The second assignment of error is overruled.

2018Banks argues that this is wrong, and that he should not have been subjected to a potential death sentence. {¶9} The second assignment of error reads: “Defendant Dajuan Banks’ sentence is ‘contrary to law, a nullity, and void, for the use of an unconstitutional statute in Ohio Revised Code section 2929.14.” Banks argues that the trial court improperly relied on sentencing factors set forth at R.C. 2929.14 which had been held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 . {¶10} The third assignment of error reads: “Defendant, Dajuan Banks couns

2014Stark County, Case No. 2013CA00198 5 II. {¶19} In the second assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in sentencing him to the maximum prison sentence herein. {¶20} In State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008–Ohio–4912, 896 N.E.2d 124 , the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed its decision in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006–Ohio–856, 845 N.E.2d 470 , as it relates to the remaining sentencing statutes and appellate review of felony sentencing.

2023State v. Sanchez- Sanchez, 2022-Ohio-4080 , 201 N.E.3d 323, ¶ 188 (8th Dist.). {¶68} The second assignment of error is without merit. {¶69} In his third assignment of error, James argues that his convictions were against the manifest weight of evidence, asserting that the “evidentiary shortcomings and inconsistencies of the Appellee’s case are so numerous that they are practically impossible to list in a comprehensive fashion.” {¶70} “[W]eight of the evidence addresses the evidence’s effect of inducing belief.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 , 2007-Ohio-2202 , 865 N.E.

2022Trumbull No. 2015-T-0123, 2016-Ohio-8254 , ¶ 60. {¶16} The second assignment of error is without merit. {¶17} In the first and fourth assignments of error, Heald challenges the weight and 5 Case No. 2021-L-111 sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for Assault. {¶18} Criminal Rule 29(A) provides that “[t]he court * * * shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged * * * if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of such offense or offenses.” In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he relevant inquiry is whether, after vie

2012GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Industries, 47 Ohio St.2d 146 , 351 N.E.2d 113 (1976), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶11} In the second assignment of error, appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing before ruling on their motion for relief of judgment.

2012GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Industries, 47 Ohio St.2d 146 , 351 N.E.2d 113 (1976), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶11} In the second assignment of error, appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing before ruling on their motion for relief of judgment.

2020Based upon the record before this court, we find no grounds to determine that there was confusion surrounding the circumstances of the pleas such that they were not voluntarily and intelligently made. {¶38} The second assignment of error is without merit. 12 {¶39} In her third assignment of error, Cleavenger argues that the trial court erred in sentencing her by taking into consideration facts outside of the record when sentencing her, constituting judicial factfinding “which is unconstitutional.” Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (“Other than

2020Based upon the record before this court, we find no grounds to determine that there was confusion surrounding the circumstances of the pleas such that they were not voluntarily and intelligently made. {¶38} The second assignment of error is without merit. 12 {¶39} In her third assignment of error, Cleavenger argues that the trial court erred in sentencing her by taking into consideration facts outside of the record when sentencing her, constituting judicial factfinding “which is unconstitutional.” Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (“Other than

2022Eastley, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179 , 972 N.E.2d 517 , at ¶ 21 (“every reasonable intendment and every reasonable presumption must be made in favor of the judgment and the finding[s] of fact”) (citation omitted). {¶24} The second assignment of error is without merit. 9 Case No. 2022-P-0008 {¶25} Similarly in the third assignment of error, Charles contends that the presence of the tools on the farm property is against the weight of the evidence.

2022Eastley, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2012-Ohio-2179 , 972 N.E.2d 517 , at ¶ 21 (“every reasonable intendment and every reasonable presumption must be made in favor of the judgment and the finding[s] of fact”) (citation omitted). {¶24} The second assignment of error is without merit. 9 Case No. 2022-P-0008 {¶25} Similarly in the third assignment of error, Charles contends that the presence of the tools on the farm property is against the weight of the evidence.

2007No. 2002-L-177, 2004-Ohio-5014 , at ¶ 18 (odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, unable to balance, driving without headlights); State v. Hummel , 154 Ohio App.3d 123 , 2003-Ohio-4602 , at ¶ 34 (single vehicle accident, odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, slurred speech); cf. Homan , 89 Ohio St.3d at 427 (erratic driving, odor of alcohol, red and glassy eyes, admission of having consumed alcohol). {¶ 22} The first assignment of error is without merit. *Page 7 {¶ 23} Under the second assignment of error, Kirara argues that his conviction for Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcoho

2006Grendell, Judge, dissenting. {¶ 31} I concur with the majority’s conclusion, under the first assignment of error, that the state failed to establish that Trooper Golias conducted the field sobriety tests in accordance with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards. {¶ 32} I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion, under the second assignment error, that Trooper Golias did not have probable cause to arrest appellant for driving under the influence of alcohol. {¶ 33} “In determining whether the police had probable cause to arrest an individual for DUI,” the reviewing

2024She maintains that the State provided inadequate evidence “to convince a rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt” that she “acted recklessly to the children when she contemplated the more safe option of waking them up and handling all four children in a busy parking lot, rather than letting them sleep while she ran her paperwork into the daycare that she parked immediately Highland App. No. 23CA21 6 next to.” Wilson asserts that she “had no concerns of criminal activity, as her daughter was inside the school building and playground that she parked next to.” She claims State v. Martin,

2007As such, resolution of the second assignment of error, regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, in favor of the state without consideration of the hearsay evidence for its substance necessarily precludes a finding in appellant's favor on the first assignment of error. {¶ 19} In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, the reviewing court must "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." State v. Smith , 80 Ohio St.3d 89 , 113 , 19

2021A trial court must then also find that at least one or more of the aggravating factors in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a) through (c) are present. {¶33} In State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 , 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 37 , the Supreme Court of Ohio held that a trial court must make the requisite statutory findings before imposing consecutive sentences “at the sentencing hearing and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry, but it has no obligation to state reasons to support its findings.” 4 The same standard of review from the second assignment of error applies here. -17- Case No. 1-20-34 Analysis

2021A trial court must then also find that at least one or more of the aggravating factors in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a) through (c) are present. {¶33} In State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 , 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 37 , the Supreme Court of Ohio held that a trial court must make the requisite statutory findings before imposing consecutive sentences “at the sentencing hearing and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry, but it has no obligation to state reasons to support its findings.” 4 The same standard of review from the second assignment of error applies here. -17- Case No. 1-20-34 Analysis