contested hearing in Ohio

1992We held in Scott, supra, at 100 , 26 OBR at 86, 497 N.E.2d at 62 , that: “A review of the contested instruction in the instant case reveals that it does not misstate the appropriate quantum of proof.

1992While it is true that this court, in Scott , stated that “ * * * this instruction must be reviewed under the plain error standard,” we nevertheless addressed the merits of the claim “pursuant to State v. Sargent ” and found that “ * * * the contested instruction * * * does not misstate the appropriate quantum of proof.” Id.

2021Justice required a vacation of the stipulated adjudication because Mother demonstrated that it was not based on “full and accurate information.” See In re Whitman, 81 Ohio St.3d at 242 . {¶13} As noted already, no evidence was taken in this case, but the parties do not dispute the following relevant facts.

2020“The prejudice inquiry, thus, focuses not only on outcome determination, but also on ‘whether the result of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable.’” State v. Montgomery, 148 Ohio St.3d 347 , 2016-Ohio-5487 , 71 N.E.3d 180 quoting Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369 , 113 S.Ct. 838 , 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993). {¶5} Moll claims that his counsel was ineffective because counsel recommended that he admit to the violation rather than demand a contested hearing.

2020“The prejudice inquiry, thus, focuses not only on outcome determination, but also on ‘whether the result of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable.’” State v. Montgomery, 148 Ohio St.3d 347 , 2016-Ohio-5487 , 71 N.E.3d 180 quoting Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369 , 113 S.Ct. 838 , 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993). {¶5} Moll claims that his counsel was ineffective because counsel recommended that he admit to the violation rather than demand a contested hearing.

2020“The prejudice inquiry, thus, focuses not only on outcome determination, but also on ‘whether the result of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable.’” State v. Montgomery, 148 Ohio St.3d 347 , 2016-Ohio-5487 , 71 N.E.3d 180 quoting Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369 , 113 S.Ct. 838 , 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993). {¶5} Moll claims that his counsel was ineffective because counsel recommended that he admit to the violation rather than demand a contested hearing.

2020“The prejudice inquiry, thus, focuses not only on outcome determination, but also on ‘whether the result of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable.’” State v. Montgomery, 148 Ohio St.3d 347 , 2016-Ohio-5487 , 71 N.E.3d 180 quoting Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369 , 113 S.Ct. 838 , 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993). {¶5} Moll claims that his counsel was ineffective because counsel recommended that he admit to the violation rather than demand a contested hearing.

2018Athens No. 07CA26, 2008-Ohio-3754, ¶ 19 . {¶54} Here, immediately prior to the contested inquiry, White admitted that she pleaded guilty to murder: “I pled to murder, not the aggravated murder. * * * Yes, sir.” Furthermore, during her direct testimony she acknowledged that she faces 15 years to life in prison “for murder”.

2016Warren No. CA2004-01-009, 2005-Ohio-2502 ." No Exhibit, No Record, No Service {¶ 36} Although Parisi indicated she previously submitted requests for admission to Horstman, such requests were never tendered as an exhibit and therefore are not available for appellate review.

1999Open adoptions are currently provided for by statute, R.C. 3107.60 et seq ., and generally allow for visitation by the birth parents, see, generally, In re Adoption of Zschach (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 648 .

1986Appellant argues that the language of the contested instruction in the case at bar was similar to the language utilized to amplify the burden of proof by trial courts in State v. Seneff (1980), 70 Ohio App. 2d 171 [ 24 O.O.3d 215 ], and later in State v. Swanson (1984), 16 Ohio App. 3d 375 .

1986Appellant argues that the language of the contested instruction in the case at bar was similar to the language utilized to amplify the burden of proof by trial courts in State v. Seneff (1980), 70 Ohio App. 2d 171 [ 24 O.O.3d 215 ], and later in State v. Swanson (1984), 16 Ohio App. 3d 375 .