four assignments error in Ohio

2024Trumbull Nos. 2003-T- 0166 and 2003-T-0167, 2004-Ohio-6688 , ¶ 18. {¶38} “‘“Sufficiency” is a term of art meaning that legal standard which is applied to determine whether the case may go to the jury or whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law.’” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 , 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1433 (6th Ed.1990).

2005OPINION {¶ 1} Montrey Antwan Smith is appealing from his conviction, after a jury trial, of the offenses of robbery (use of force), aggravated robbery (deadly weapon), three-year firearms specification, felonious assault (deadly weapon), three-year firearms specification, and possession of cocaine, and was duly sentenced to various terms which amounted to consecutively and concurrently for a total of eight years. {¶ 2} Defendant brings the following four assignments of error on appeal: FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶ 3} "APPELLANT'S CONVICTION AND SENTENCING IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE

2012We agree. {¶ 16} The standard of review with regard to the sufficiency of the evidence is set forth in State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 , 381 N.E.2d 184 (1978), as follows: Pursuant to Crim.R. 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. {¶ 17} Bridgeman must be interpreted in light of the sufficiency test outlined in State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabu

2012We agree. {¶ 16} The standard of review with regard to the sufficiency of the evidence is set forth in State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 , 381 N.E.2d 184 (1978), as follows: Pursuant to Crim.R. 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. {¶ 17} Bridgeman must be interpreted in light of the sufficiency test outlined in State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabu

2009He argues that after State v. Foster , 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , R.C. 2929.11 (B) still requires a trial court to impose consistent sentences.

2007Appellant timely filed an appeal of this sentence on October 12, 2006, and now raises the following four assignments of error: {¶ 6} "[1.] The trial court erred to the prejudice of appellant when it sentenced him to prison which sentence is contrary to law. {¶ 7} "[2.] The trial court erred to the prejudice of the appellant when it sentenced him to more than the minimum prison term which sentence is contrary to law. {¶ 8} "[3.] The trial court erred when it sentenced the defendant-appellant to prison instead of community control and in sentencing him to more than the minimum *Page 3 prison ter

2012We agree. {¶ 16} The standard of review with regard to the sufficiency of the evidence is set forth in State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 , 381 N.E.2d 184 (1978), as follows: Pursuant to Crim.R. 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. {¶ 17} Bridgeman must be interpreted in light of the sufficiency test outlined in State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabu

2012We agree. {¶ 16} The standard of review with regard to the sufficiency of the evidence is set forth in State v. Bridgeman, 55 Ohio St.2d 261 , 381 N.E.2d 184 (1978), as follows: Pursuant to Crim.R. 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. {¶ 17} Bridgeman must be interpreted in light of the sufficiency test outlined in State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabu

2008State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , paragraph two of the syllabus, citing Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307 , 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 . {¶ 16} Hall was found not guilty of felonious assault as charged, but guilty of aggravated menacing, R.C. 2903.21 .

2008State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259 , paragraph two of the syllabus, citing Jackson v. Virginia (1979), 443 U.S. 307 , 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 . {¶ 16} Hall was found not guilty of felonious assault as charged, but guilty of aggravated menacing, R.C. 2903.21 .

2005State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 107 , 18 O.O.3d 348 , 413 N.E.2d 819 . {¶ 24} The standard of review of a trial court’s decision denying postconviction relief is a mixed question of law and fact; therefore, factual issues are reviewed under a manifest weight of the evidence standard, and legal issues are reviewed de novo.

2005State v. Jackson (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 107 , 18 O.O.3d 348 , 413 N.E.2d 819 . {¶ 24} The standard of review of a trial court’s decision denying postconviction relief is a mixed question of law and fact; therefore, factual issues are reviewed under a manifest weight of the evidence standard, and legal issues are reviewed de novo.

2002We disagree. {¶ 14} In State v. Fisher (Dec. 20, 2001), Franklin App. No. 01AP-614, 2001 WL 1631397 , certification of conflict granted (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 1484 , 763 N.E.2d 1183 , this court held that the practice of allowing jurors to submit questions does not amount to plain error.

2002We disagree. {¶ 14} In State v. Fisher (Dec. 20, 2001), Franklin App. No. 01AP-614, certification of conflict granted (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 1484 , this court held that the practice of allowing jurors to submit questions does not amount to plain error.

2025ILLINOIS (1979), 440 U.S. 367 .

2025Second Assignment of Error: The Lower Court’s application of Borkowski v. Abood 117 Ohio St.3d 347 , 2008-Ohio-857 (et seq.) is improper because the Defendants lack personal jurisdiction over the Citation.

2023See, e.g., Hall; Moore v. Texas, 581 U.S. 1 , 137 S.Ct. 1039 , 197 L.Ed.2d 416 (2017) (“Moore I”); Moore v. Texas, 586 U.S. ---, 139 S.Ct. 666 , 203 L.Ed.2d 1 (2019) (“Moore II”). {¶29} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that courts must consider the following three core elements in determining whether an offender is intellectually disabled for purposes of eligibility for the death penalty: “(1) intellectual-functioning deficits (indicated by an IQ score approximately two standard deviations below the mean—i.e., a score of roughly 70 or lower when adjusted for the standard error of measurement

2023See, e.g., Hall; Moore v. Texas, 581 U.S. 1 , 137 S.Ct. 1039 , 197 L.Ed.2d 416 (2017) (“Moore I”); Moore v. Texas, 586 U.S. ---, 139 S.Ct. 666 , 203 L.Ed.2d 1 (2019) (“Moore II”). {¶29} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that courts must consider the following three core elements in determining whether an offender is intellectually disabled for purposes of eligibility for the death penalty: “(1) intellectual-functioning deficits (indicated by an IQ score approximately two standard deviations below the mean—i.e., a score of roughly 70 or lower when adjusted for the standard error of measurement

2023At an evidentiary hearing held in November 2022, Dr. Greenspan testified as a teaching expert. {¶21} On December 29, 2022, the trial court filed a 50-page judgment entry in which it again found that Mr. Williams failed to carry his burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is intellectually disabled and denied his petition. {¶22} Mr. Williams appealed and raises the following four assignments of error: {¶23} “[1.] The trial court’s conclusion that Mr. Williams does not have significantly subaverage intellectual functioning is an abuse of discretion as it is based upon arbitrar

2023At an evidentiary hearing held in November 2022, Dr. Greenspan testified as a teaching expert. {¶21} On December 29, 2022, the trial court filed a 50-page judgment entry in which it again found that Mr. Williams failed to carry his burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is intellectually disabled and denied his petition. {¶22} Mr. Williams appealed and raises the following four assignments of error: {¶23} “[1.] The trial court’s conclusion that Mr. Williams does not have significantly subaverage intellectual functioning is an abuse of discretion as it is based upon arbitrar

2022No. 20AP-506, 2021-Ohio-4456, ¶ 15 , quoting In re A.B., 12th Dist.

2022On February 28, 2022, the trial court filed the judgment entry of divorce. {¶23} Mr. Kaydo appealed and presents the following four assignments of error: {¶24} “[1.] The Trial Court committed prejudicial error by granting Appellee a divorce when neither of the parties had been residents of the State of Ohio for six months immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint for Divorce. {¶25} “[2.] The Trial Court committed prejudicial and plain error when it filed on February 28, 2022 Appellee’s proposed entry which increased Appellant’s financial obligation by $36,567.05. {¶26} “[3.] The Trial

2022On February 28, 2022, the trial court filed the judgment entry of divorce. {¶23} Mr. Kaydo appealed and presents the following four assignments of error: {¶24} “[1.] The Trial Court committed prejudicial error by granting Appellee a divorce when neither of the parties had been residents of the State of Ohio for six months immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint for Divorce. {¶25} “[2.] The Trial Court committed prejudicial and plain error when it filed on February 28, 2022 Appellee’s proposed entry which increased Appellant’s financial obligation by $36,567.05. {¶26} “[3.] The Trial

2022In this opinion and the related case, we have re-numbered the four assignments of error in consecutive order. [Cite as In re J.J., 2022-Ohio-4196 .] ANALYSIS I. {¶39} In her first assignment of error, Mother argues the trial court should not have permitted the Agency’s records custodian to testify to the contents of its records regarding the family’s history with the Agency.

2022In this opinion and the related case, we have re-numbered the four assignments of error in consecutive order. [Cite as In re D.J., 2022-Ohio-4195 .] ANALYSIS I. {¶39} In her first assignment of error, Mother argues the trial court should not have permitted the Agency’s records custodian to testify to the contents of its records regarding the family’s history with the Agency.

2022On February 28, 2022, the trial court filed the judgment entry of divorce. {¶23} Mr. Kaydo appealed and presents the following four assignments of error: {¶24} “[1.] The Trial Court committed prejudicial error by granting Appellee a divorce when neither of the parties had been residents of the State of Ohio for six months immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint for Divorce. {¶25} “[2.] The Trial Court committed prejudicial and plain error when it filed on February 28, 2022 Appellee’s proposed entry which increased Appellant’s financial obligation by $36,567.05. {¶26} “[3.] The Trial

2021On January 23, 2019, the trial court filed an amended judgment entry. {¶ 32} On appeal, appellant sets forth the following four assignments of error for this court's review: No. 19AP-61 8 [I.] Rudasill's trial attorney was ineffective with resulting prejudice because he did not move to suppress his statements, because substantive inadmissible hearsay was introduced without objection, and because he failed to request a jury instruction on abandonment. [II.] The State's evidence against Rudasill was legally insufficient as a matter of law. [III.] The evidence weighed manifestly against convictin

2020Ashtabula No. 2015-A-0009, 2015-Ohio-5337, ¶21 , where we held that “when a judgment on fewer than all claims renders the remaining claims moot, it becomes a judgment on all the claims and Civ.R. 54(B) no longer applies.” We subsequently issued a judgment entry indicating that our jurisdictional concerns were resolved. 5 {¶19} State Farm now sets forth the following four assignments of error for our review: {¶20} “[1.] The trial court erred in denying State Farm’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether State Farm is entitled to a lien upon any recovery Mr. Alcus receives f

2020"Ordinarily, we review a trial court's hearsay rulings for an abuse of discretion." State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 , 2016-Ohio-5735, ¶ 97 , citing State v. Hymore, 9 Ohio St.2d 122, 128 (1967).

2020"Ordinarily, we review a trial court's hearsay rulings for an abuse of discretion." State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 , 2016-Ohio-5735, ¶ 97 , citing State v. Hymore, 9 Ohio St.2d 122, 128 (1967).

2019Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 187 Ohio App.3d 24 , 2010-Ohio-2068 , ¶ 22 (5th Dist.) (applying de novo standard of review to common pleas court's dismissal of appeal of Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals' ruling as moot). {¶ 16} The Haueisens' four assignments of error all relate to their underlying claim that the common pleas court erred by dismissing their appeal as moot.

2019This reasoning lies in their origins being rooted in procedure-based technicalities, rather than the submission of adequate evidence, triggering liability. {¶ 13} As is succinctly set forth in GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Ind., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 , 351 N.E.2d 113 (1976), “[W]here timely relief is sought from a default judgment and the movant has a meritorious defense, doubt, if any, should be resolved in favor of the motion to set aside the judgment so that cases may be decided on their merits.” (Emphasis added). {¶ 14} Appellant sets forth the following four assignments of error: 1.

2019This reasoning lies in their origins being rooted in procedure-based technicalities, rather than the submission of adequate evidence, triggering liability. {¶ 13} As is succinctly set forth in GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Ind., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 , 351 N.E.2d 113 (1976), “[W]here timely relief is sought from a default judgment and the movant has a meritorious defense, doubt, if any, should be resolved in favor of the motion to set aside the judgment so that cases may be decided on their merits.” (Emphasis added). {¶ 14} Appellant sets forth the following four assignments of error: 1.

2019SADLER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. {¶ 48} Because I agree with the majority's resolution of the four assignments of error of the Ohio Department of Transportation ("ODOT") but disagree with their resolution of Monique's single assignment of error, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part. {¶ 49} R.C. 2743.02(D) provides, in relevant part, that "[r]ecoveries against the state shall be reduced by the aggregate of insurance proceeds, disability award, or other collateral recovery received by the claimant." The constitutionality of R.C. 2743.02(D) under both the equal

2018On October 5, 2017, the common pleas court issued a decision and judgment entry, in which the court affirmed the board's order. {¶ 6} Appellant appeals the judgment of the trial court, asserting the following four assignments of error: [I.] The lower court abused its discretion by affirming the Medical Board's Adjudication Order, because the Adjudication Order was blatantly lacking the reliable, probative and substantial evidence required under R.C. 119.12 to affirm an administrative agency order. [II.] The lower court erred as a matter of law in affirming the Medical Board's Adjudication Orde

2017HAND , 149 OHIO ST.3D 94, 2016-OHIO-5504 , 73 N.E.3D 448, WHEN IT FOUND APPELLANT GUILTY AND SENTENCED HIM FOR A WEAPON UNDER DISABILITY OFFENSE WHICH WAS BASED UPON A PRIOR JUVENILE ADJUDICATION. [III.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CALCULATING APPELLANT'S JAIL-TIME CREDIT CONTRARY TO R.C. 2967.191, R.C. 2929.41, AND APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION. [IV.] APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND SECTION 10 AND 16, ARTICLE I OF T

2017HAND, SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-5504 , WHEN IT FOUND APPELLANT GUILTY AND SENTENCED HIM FOR A WEAPON UNDER DISABILITY OFFENSE WHICH WAS BASED UPON A PRIOR JUVENILE ADJUDICATION. [III.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CALCULATING APPELLANT'S JAIL-TIME CREDIT CONTRARY TO R.C. 2967.191, R.C. 2929.41, AND APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION. [IV.] APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND SECTION 10 AND 16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTI