Adkins claim in Ohio

2021Therefore, given Adkins never moved the juvenile court to appear before the juvenile court from prison via phone or video, Adkins' claim that the juvenile court "denied [him] the ability to participate in the proceedings" is simply incorrect. {¶ 11} In so holding, we note that "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion." Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 , 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994).

2021Therefore, given Adkins never moved the juvenile court to appear before the juvenile court from prison via phone or video, Adkins' claim that the juvenile court "denied [him] the ability to participate in the proceedings" is simply incorrect. {¶ 11} In so holding, we note that "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion." Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 , 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994).

2021“The decision whether to grant a motion for extension of time lies within the broad discretion of the trial court and will be reversed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.” Kupczyk v. Kuschnir, [8th Dist.] Cuyahoga No. 76614, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 3380 (July 27, 2000), citing Miller v. Lint, 62 Ohio St.2d 209 , 404 N.E.2d 752 (1980).

2021“The decision whether to grant a motion for extension of time lies within the broad discretion of the trial court and will be reversed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.” Kupczyk v. Kuschnir, [8th Dist.] Cuyahoga No. 76614, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 3380 (July 27, 2000), citing Miller v. Lint, 62 Ohio St.2d 209 , 404 N.E.2d 752 (1980).

2020Kimmel, 2011-Ohio-660, at ¶ 21 , citing Jackson, 22 Ohio St.3d at 284 . {¶57} For these reasons, we cannot conclude that that the jury lost its way by concluding that Adkins did not act in self-defense and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that Adkins’s murder conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. {¶58} Accordingly, Adkins’s third assignment of error is overruled. {¶59} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

2020Kimmel, 2011-Ohio-660, at ¶ 21 , citing Jackson, 22 Ohio St.3d at 284 . {¶57} For these reasons, we cannot conclude that that the jury lost its way by concluding that Adkins did not act in self-defense and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that Adkins’s murder conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. {¶58} Accordingly, Adkins’s third assignment of error is overruled. {¶59} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

2011This court disagrees. {¶ 44} In State v. Hill (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 211 , 661 N.E.2d 1068 , the Ohio Supreme Court stated the standard of appellate review to apply to Adkins’s claim as follows: {¶ 45} “[R]eversal of a conviction or sentence on ineffective assistance requires that the defendant show, first, that ‘counsel’s performance was deficient’ and, second, –13– that ‘the deficient performance prejudiced the defense * * * so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.’ Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 ; State v. Bradley (

2011This court disagrees. {¶ 44} In State v. Hill (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 211 , 661 N.E.2d 1068 , the Ohio Supreme Court stated the standard of appellate review to apply to Adkins’s claim as follows: {¶ 45} “[R]eversal of a conviction or sentence on ineffective assistance requires that the defendant show, first, that ‘counsel’s performance was deficient’ and, second, –13– that ‘the deficient performance prejudiced the defense * * * so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.’ Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 ; State v. Bradley (

2011The trial court, relying on State v. Harrington, Greene App. No. 06 CA 29, 2007-Ohio-1335 , and State v. Sulek, Greene App. No. 09 CA 75, 2010-Ohio-3919 , held that the language it had used when imposing post-release control was sufficient.

2011This court disagrees. {¶ 44} In State v. Hill (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 211 , 661 N.E.2d 1068 , the Ohio Supreme Court stated the standard of appellate review to apply to Adkins’s claim as follows: {¶ 45} “[R]eversal of a conviction or sentence on ineffective assistance requires that the defendant show, first, that ‘counsel’s performance was deficient’ and, second, –13– that ‘the deficient performance prejudiced the defense * * * so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.’ Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 ; State v. Bradley (

2011This court disagrees. {¶ 44} In State v. Hill (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 211 , 661 N.E.2d 1068 , the Ohio Supreme Court stated the standard of appellate review to apply to Adkins’s claim as follows: {¶ 45} “[R]eversal of a conviction or sentence on ineffective assistance requires that the defendant show, first, that ‘counsel’s performance was deficient’ and, second, –13– that ‘the deficient performance prejudiced the defense * * * so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.’ Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 ; State v. Bradley (

2011This court disagrees. {¶ 44} In State v. Hill (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 211 , 661 N.E.2d 1068 , the Ohio Supreme Court stated the standard of appellate review to apply to Adkins’s claim as follows: {¶ 45} “[R]eversal of a conviction or sentence on ineffective assistance requires that the defendant show, first, that ‘counsel’s performance was deficient’ and, second, –13– that ‘the deficient performance prejudiced the defense * * * so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.’ Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 ; State v. Bradley (

2011This court disagrees. {¶ 44} In State v. Hill (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 211 , 661 N.E.2d 1068 , the Ohio Supreme Court stated the standard of appellate review to apply to Adkins’s claim as follows: {¶ 45} “[R]eversal of a conviction or sentence on ineffective assistance requires that the defendant show, first, that ‘counsel’s performance was deficient’ and, second, –13– that ‘the deficient performance prejudiced the defense * * * so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.’ Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 ; State v. Bradley (

2008In State v. Burke , Franklin App. No. 04AP-1234, 2005-Ohio-7020 , at ¶ 46 , reconsideration denied, 2006-Ohio-1026 , this court resolved that "[p]ursuant to Lorraine , coupled with Lott , an indigent capital defendant raising an Atkins claim for the first time in a post-conviction petition filed within 180 days after Atkins , should be afforded the same opportunity `to fully present his constitutional issue' that is afforded a capital defendant who now is able to raise the issue at trial." Thus, an "appeal of a first time Atkins petition is akin to a direct appeal of the issue, and in a direct

2008In State v. Burke , Franklin App. No. 04AP-1234, 2005-Ohio-7020 , at ¶ 46 , reconsideration denied, 2006-Ohio-1026 , this court resolved that "[p]ursuant to Lorraine , coupled with Lott , an indigent capital defendant raising an Atkins claim for the first time in a post-conviction petition filed within 180 days after Atkins , should be afforded the same opportunity `to fully present his constitutional issue' that is afforded a capital defendant who now is able to raise the issue at trial." Thus, an "appeal of a first time Atkins petition is akin to a direct appeal of the issue, and in a direct

2008In State v. Burke , Franklin App. No. 04AP-1234, 2005-Ohio-7020 , at ¶ 46 , reconsideration denied, 2006-Ohio-1026 , this court resolved that "[p]ursuant to Lorraine , coupled with Lott , an indigent capital defendant raising an Atkins claim for the first time in a post-conviction petition filed within 180 days after Atkins , should be afforded the same opportunity `to fully present his constitutional issue' that is afforded a capital defendant who now is able to raise the issue at trial." Thus, an "appeal of a first time Atkins petition is akin to a direct appeal of the issue, and in a direct

2008In State v. Burke , Franklin App. No. 04AP-1234, 2005-Ohio-7020 , at ¶ 46 , reconsideration denied, 2006-Ohio-1026 , this court resolved that "[p]ursuant to Lorraine , coupled with Lott , an indigent capital defendant raising an Atkins claim for the first time in a post-conviction petition filed within 180 days after Atkins , should be afforded the same opportunity `to fully present his constitutional issue' that is afforded a capital defendant who now is able to raise the issue at trial." Thus, an "appeal of a first time Atkins petition is akin to a direct appeal of the issue, and in a direct

2007In State v. Render (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 17 , paragraph two of the syllabus, the court states: {¶ 20} "Where an authenticated transcript of proceedings in the trial court is necessary to exemplify the facts which determined the issues presented there, its absence requires a reviewing court to dismiss the appeal, or to affirm the judgment of the court from which the appeal is taken. ( Ford v. Ideal Aluminum , 7 Ohio St.2d 9 , 218 N.E.2d 434 , and Crow v. Brite Metal Treating , 9 Ohio St.2d 63 , 223 N.E.2d 595 , approved and followed.)" {¶ 21} In the instant case, the absent transcript would be

2007In State v. Render (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 17 , paragraph two of the syllabus, the court states: {¶ 20} "Where an authenticated transcript of proceedings in the trial court is necessary to exemplify the facts which determined the issues presented there, its absence requires a reviewing court to dismiss the appeal, or to affirm the judgment of the court from which the appeal is taken. ( Ford v. Ideal Aluminum , 7 Ohio St.2d 9 , 218 N.E.2d 434 , and Crow v. Brite Metal Treating , 9 Ohio St.2d 63 , 223 N.E.2d 595 , approved and followed.)" {¶ 21} In the instant case, the absent transcript would be

2007In State v. Render (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 17 , paragraph two of the syllabus, the court states: {¶ 20} "Where an authenticated transcript of proceedings in the trial court is necessary to exemplify the facts which determined the issues presented there, its absence requires a reviewing court to dismiss the appeal, or to affirm the judgment of the court from which the appeal is taken. ( Ford v. Ideal Aluminum , 7 Ohio St.2d 9 , 218 N.E.2d 434 , and Crow v. Brite Metal Treating , 9 Ohio St.2d 63 , 223 N.E.2d 595 , approved and followed.)" {¶ 21} In the instant case, the absent transcript would be

2007In State v. Render (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 17 , paragraph two of the syllabus, the court states: {¶ 20} "Where an authenticated transcript of proceedings in the trial court is necessary to exemplify the facts which determined the issues presented there, its absence requires a reviewing court to dismiss the appeal, or to affirm the judgment of the court from which the appeal is taken. ( Ford v. Ideal Aluminum , 7 Ohio St.2d 9 , 218 N.E.2d 434 , and Crow v. Brite Metal Treating , 9 Ohio St.2d 63 , 223 N.E.2d 595 , approved and followed.)" {¶ 21} In the instant case, the absent transcript would be

2007In State v. Render (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 17 , paragraph two of the syllabus, the court states: {¶ 20} "Where an authenticated transcript of proceedings in the trial court is necessary to exemplify the facts which determined the issues presented there, its absence requires a reviewing court to dismiss the appeal, or to affirm the judgment of the court from which the appeal is taken. ( Ford v. Ideal Aluminum , 7 Ohio St.2d 9 , 218 N.E.2d 434 , and Crow v. Brite Metal Treating , 9 Ohio St.2d 63 , 223 N.E.2d 595 , approved and followed.)" {¶ 21} In the instant case, the absent transcript would be

1998Wright v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 82 , 661 N.E.2d 728 , paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 12} Finally, Adkins’s claim that his appointed counsel was ineffective is not supported by the evidence, nor is Adkins’s assertion that the APA refused his request to have certain witnesses subpoenaed.

1998Wright v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 82 , 661 N.E.2d 728 , paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 12} Finally, Adkins’s claim that his appointed counsel was ineffective is not supported by the evidence, nor is Adkins’s assertion that the APA refused his request to have certain witnesses subpoenaed.

1990However, the court stated that: “Adkins’ claim to contractual royalties accruing before the 1960 patent issued is, however, a much more difficult one, since it squarely raises the question whether, and to what extent, the States may protect the owners of unpatented inventions who are willing to disclose their ideas to manufacturers only upon payment of royalties.” Id. at 674 .