sixth assigned error in Ohio

2018Manifest Weight of the Evidence {¶30} In the sixth assigned error, Strowder argues his convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶31} 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 (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997 Ohio 52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 .

2014Manifest Weight of the Evidence {¶56} In the sixth assigned error, Wright argues his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶57} 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 (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997-Ohio-52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 .

2018Manifest Weight of the Evidence {¶30} In the sixth assigned error, Strowder argues his convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶31} 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 (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997 Ohio 52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 .

2018Manifest Weight of the Evidence {¶30} In the sixth assigned error, Strowder argues his convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶31} 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 (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997 Ohio 52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 .

2018Manifest Weight of the Evidence {¶30} In the sixth assigned error, Strowder argues his convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶31} 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 (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997 Ohio 52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 .

2014Manifest Weight of the Evidence {¶56} In the sixth assigned error, Wright argues his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶57} 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 (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997-Ohio-52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 .

2022See Bell at ¶ 60. {¶83} Accordingly, the sixth assigned error lacks merit. {¶84} In his seventh assigned error, Furmage argues: {¶85} “Appellant was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.” {¶86} To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must demonstrate “(1) his counsel was deficient in some aspect of his representation, and (2) there is a reasonable probability, were it not for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.” State v. Hope, 2019-Ohio-2174 , 137 N.E.3d 549 , ¶ 88 (11th Dist.), citing Strickland v. Washington,

2022See Bell at ¶ 60. {¶83} Accordingly, the sixth assigned error lacks merit. {¶84} In his seventh assigned error, Furmage argues: {¶85} “Appellant was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.” {¶86} To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must demonstrate “(1) his counsel was deficient in some aspect of his representation, and (2) there is a reasonable probability, were it not for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.” State v. Hope, 2019-Ohio-2174 , 137 N.E.3d 549 , ¶ 88 (11th Dist.), citing Strickland v. Washington,

2022Hope at ¶ 89, citing State v. Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d 98, 100 , 477 N.E.2d 1128 (1985).

2022Hope at ¶ 89, citing State v. Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d 98, 100 , 477 N.E.2d 1128 (1985).

2022See Bell at ¶ 60. {¶83} Accordingly, the sixth assigned error lacks merit. {¶84} In his seventh assigned error, Furmage argues: {¶85} “Appellant was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.” {¶86} To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must demonstrate “(1) his counsel was deficient in some aspect of his representation, and (2) there is a reasonable probability, were it not for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different.” State v. Hope, 2019-Ohio-2174 , 137 N.E.3d 549 , ¶ 88 (11th Dist.), citing Strickland v. Washington,

2019State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139 , 2007-Ohio-5048 , 873 N.E.2d 1263 , ¶ 123, citing State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 , 2006-Ohio-160 , 840 N.E.2d 1032 , and State v. Hanna, 95 Ohio St.3d 285 , 2002-Ohio-2221 , 767 N.E.2d 678 . {¶36} The sixth assigned error lacks merit.

2019State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139 , 2007-Ohio-5048 , 873 N.E.2d 1263 , ¶ 123, citing State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 , 2006-Ohio-160 , 840 N.E.2d 1032 , and State v. Hanna, 95 Ohio St.3d 285 , 2002-Ohio-2221 , 767 N.E.2d 678 . {¶36} The sixth assigned error lacks merit.

2019State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139 , 2007-Ohio-5048 , 873 N.E.2d 1263 , ¶ 123, citing State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 , 2006-Ohio-160 , 840 N.E.2d 1032 , and State v. Hanna, 95 Ohio St.3d 285 , 2002-Ohio-2221 , 767 N.E.2d 678 . {¶36} The sixth assigned error lacks merit.

2019State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139 , 2007-Ohio-5048 , 873 N.E.2d 1263 , ¶ 123, citing State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 , 2006-Ohio-160 , 840 N.E.2d 1032 , and State v. Hanna, 95 Ohio St.3d 285 , 2002-Ohio-2221 , 767 N.E.2d 678 . {¶36} The sixth assigned error lacks merit.

2019State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139 , 2007-Ohio-5048 , 873 N.E.2d 1263 , ¶ 123, citing State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 , 2006-Ohio-160 , 840 N.E.2d 1032 , and State v. Hanna, 95 Ohio St.3d 285 , 2002-Ohio-2221 , 767 N.E.2d 678 . {¶36} The sixth assigned error lacks merit.

2017No.2002CA00014, 2003–Ohio–137, ¶ 154, appeal not allowed, 101 Ohio St.3d 1466 , 2004–Ohio–819, 804 N.E.2d 40 . {¶45} The sixth assigned error is overruled.

2017No.2002CA00014, 2003–Ohio–137, ¶ 154, appeal not allowed, 101 Ohio St.3d 1466 , 2004–Ohio–819, 804 N.E.2d 40 . {¶45} The sixth assigned error is overruled.

2014Remmer Hearing {¶67} In the sixth assigned error, Johnson argues the court erred by failing to conduct a hearing pursuant to Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 , 74 S.Ct. 450 , 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954), when his grandmother indicated, after the verdict was rendered, that she knew one of the jurors. {¶68} About two weeks after the verdict, defense counsel filed a motion for a Remmer hearing to determine juror bias.

2014Remmer Hearing {¶67} In the sixth assigned error, Johnson argues the court erred by failing to conduct a hearing pursuant to Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 , 74 S.Ct. 450 , 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954), when his grandmother indicated, after the verdict was rendered, that she knew one of the jurors. {¶68} About two weeks after the verdict, defense counsel filed a motion for a Remmer hearing to determine juror bias.

2014Specifically, Taylor contends that the indictment improperly charged him with sexually violent predator specifications when he had no prior conviction for a sexually violent offense. {¶65} Taylor relies on State v. Smith, 104 Ohio St.3d 106 , 2004-Ohio-6238 , 818 N.E.2d 283 , in support of his position.

2012In State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2010-Ohio-6314 , 942 N.E.2d 1061 , the Ohio Supreme Court recently revised its allied-offense jurisprudence.

2012In State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2010-Ohio-6314 , 942 N.E.2d 1061 , the Ohio Supreme Court recently revised its allied-offense jurisprudence.

2011Simson, Discrimination Against Nonresidents and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, 128 U.Pa.L.Rev. 379, 387 (1979); Leis v. Flynt (1979), 439 U.S. 438, 442 , 99 S.Ct. 698 , 58 L.Ed.2d 717 .

2011Simson, Discrimination Against Nonresidents and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, 128 U.Pa.L.Rev. 379, 387 (1979); Leis v. Flynt (1979), 439 U.S. 438, 442 , 99 S.Ct. 698 , 58 L.Ed.2d 717 .

2011For the following reasons, we disagree, and we overrule the sixth assigned error. {¶ 7} Regulation of the practice of law has always been left to the individual states, and without certain residency requirements, each individual state “ ‘would cease to be the separate political communit[y] that history and the constitutional text make plain w[as] contemplated.’” Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper (1985), 470 U.S. 274, 282 , 105 S.Ct. 1272 , 84 L.Ed.2d 205, fn. 13 , quoting Gary J.

2011For the following reasons, we disagree, and we overrule the sixth assigned error. {¶ 7} Regulation of the practice of law has always been left to the individual states, and without certain residency requirements, each individual state “ ‘would cease to be the separate political communit[y] that history and the constitutional text make plain w[as] contemplated.’” Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper (1985), 470 U.S. 274, 282 , 105 S.Ct. 1272 , 84 L.Ed.2d 205, fn. 13 , quoting Gary J.