commits prejudicial error in Ohio

2006Mentor v. Hamercheck (1996), 112 Ohio App.3d 291 , 296 ; State v. Singleton, 11th Dist.

2004Mentor v. Hammercheck (1996), 112 Ohio App.3d 291 , 296 .

2004In State v. Mayrides (Feb. 17, 1998), Franklin App. No. 97APA05-689, this court reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded for further proceedings, finding, in part, "[t]he facts set forth by the trial court in its decision and entry are not specific enough to permit meaningful review." The trial court issued a new decision and entry on March 14, 2003, again dismissing appellant's petition. {¶ 9} On appeal, appellant has set forth the following statement of "assignment of error one" for review: (a) The trial court commits prejudicial error in ruling on a post-conviction petition, in

2001The trial court commits prejudicial error if it refuses "to administer a requested charge which is pertinent to the case, states the law correctly, and is not covered by the general charge." Sneed, 63 Ohio St.3d at 9 , 584 N.E.2d at 1166 , quoting State v. Scott (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92 , 101 , 497 N.E.2d 55 , 63 , certiorari denied (1987), 480 U.S. 923 , 107 S.Ct. 1386 .

2001The trial court commits prejudicial error if it refuses "to administer a requested charge which is pertinent to the case, states the law correctly, and is not covered by the general charge." Sneed, 63 Ohio St.3d at 9 , 584 N.E.2d at 1166 , quoting State v. Scott (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92 , 101 , 497 N.E.2d 55 , 63 , certiorari denied (1987), 480 U.S. 923 , 107 S.Ct. 1386 .

2001The trial court commits prejudicial error if it refuses "to administer a requested charge which is pertinent to the case, states the law correctly, and is not covered by the general charge." Sneed, 63 Ohio St.3d at 9 , 584 N.E.2d at 1166 , quoting State v. Scott (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92 , 101 , 497 N.E.2d 55 , 63 , certiorari denied (1987), 480 U.S. 923 , 107 S.Ct. 1386 .

2001The trial court commits prejudicial error if it refuses "to administer a requested charge which is pertinent to the case, states the law correctly, and is not covered by the general charge." Sneed, 63 Ohio St.3d at 9 , 584 N.E.2d at 1166 , quoting State v. Scott (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92 , 101 , 497 N.E.2d 55 , 63 , certiorari denied (1987), 480 U.S. 923 , 107 S.Ct. 1386 .

2001The trial court commits prejudicial error if it refuses "to administer a requested charge which is pertinent to the case, states the law correctly, and is not covered by the general charge." Sneed, 63 Ohio St.3d at 9 , 584 N.E.2d at 1166 , quoting State v. Scott (1986), 26 Ohio St.3d 92 , 101 , 497 N.E.2d 55 , 63 , certiorari denied (1987), 480 U.S. 923 , 107 S.Ct. 1386 .

1997“Assignment of Error Two “When the trial court interjects its personal opinion as to the defendant’s credibility and propriety of his defense, limits cross-examination and continually mocks and ridicules the defendant, who is acting as his own counsel, all of which occurs before the jury, the defendant is denied his right to a fair trial.” In his first assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred when it did not hold a pretrial hearing to determine whether appellant was capable of representing himself or whether he understood the risk he was taking by representing himself.

1997“Assignment of Error Two “When the trial court interjects its personal opinion as to the defendant’s credibility and propriety of his defense, limits cross-examination and continually mocks and ridicules the defendant, who is acting as his own counsel, all of which occurs before the jury, the defendant is denied his right to a fair trial.” In his first assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred when it did not hold a pretrial hearing to determine whether appellant was capable of representing himself or whether he understood the risk he was taking by representing himself.

1997“Assignment of Error Two “When the trial court interjects its personal opinion as to the defendant’s credibility and propriety of his defense, limits cross-examination and continually mocks and ridicules the defendant, who is acting as his own counsel, all of which occurs before the jury, the defendant is denied his right to a fair trial.” In his first assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred when it did not hold a pretrial hearing to determine whether appellant was capable of representing himself or whether he understood the risk he was taking by representing himself.

1997“Assignment of Error Two “When the trial court interjects its personal opinion as to the defendant’s credibility and propriety of his defense, limits cross-examination and continually mocks and ridicules the defendant, who is acting as his own counsel, all of which occurs before the jury, the defendant is denied his right to a fair trial.” In his first assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred when it did not hold a pretrial hearing to determine whether appellant was capable of representing himself or whether he understood the risk he was taking by representing himself.

1996Brady, 48 Ohio App.3d at 42 , 548 N.E.2d at 279-280 , citing Cincinnati v. Epperson (1969), 20 Ohio St.2d 59 , 49 O.O.2d 342 , 253 N.E.2d 785 .

1996Brady, 48 Ohio App.3d at 42 , 548 N.E.2d at 279-280 , citing Cincinnati v. Epperson (1969), 20 Ohio St.2d 59 , 49 O.O.2d 342 , 253 N.E.2d 785 .

1996Brady, 48 Ohio App.3d at 42 , 548 N.E.2d at 279-280 , citing Cincinnati v. Epperson (1969), 20 Ohio St.2d 59 , 49 O.O.2d 342 , 253 N.E.2d 785 .

1996Brady, 48 Ohio App.3d at 42 , 548 N.E.2d at 279-280 , citing Cincinnati v. Epperson (1969), 20 Ohio St.2d 59 , 49 O.O.2d 342 , 253 N.E.2d 785 .

1996In State v. Casalicchio (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 178 , 569 N.E.2d 916 , syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled: “Where property is ruled contraband pursuant to R.C. 2933.42(B), forfeiture of that property pursuant to R.C. 2933.43 constitutes a separate criminal penalty in addition to the penalty the defendant faces for conviction of the underlying felony.” *292 As Justice Wright noted in his lead opinion, Casalicchio challenged the scope of Ohio’s forfeiture statutes on due process grounds, questioning specifically whether the automobile he was driving when arrested, which contained marijuana and

1996In State v. Casalicchio (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 178 , 569 N.E.2d 916 , syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled: “Where property is ruled contraband pursuant to R.C. 2933.42(B), forfeiture of that property pursuant to R.C. 2933.43 constitutes a separate criminal penalty in addition to the penalty the defendant faces for conviction of the underlying felony.” *292 As Justice Wright noted in his lead opinion, Casalicchio challenged the scope of Ohio’s forfeiture statutes on due process grounds, questioning specifically whether the automobile he was driving when arrested, which contained marijuana and

1984It declares: “When a timely objection is made during the course of trial as to the improper method of proving damages, under the ‘cost of repair’ doctrine, the trial court commits prejudicial error when it permits the plaintiff to proceed, and the court ultimately awards plaintiff damages under this improper mode of proof.” A strikingly similar case to the litigation sub judice was presented to this court in Sadler v. Bromberg (1950), 62 Ohio Law Abs. 73 .