eighth assignment error in Ohio

2023Accordingly, the court was well within its discretion to foreclose inquiry into Williams’ crimes. {¶36} The eighth assignment of error is without merit. {¶37} In his fifth assignment of error, Mack alleges the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. {¶38} “Counsel’s performance will not be deemed ineffective unless and until counsel’s performance is proved to have fallen below an objective standard of reasonable representation and, in addition, prejudice arises from counsel’s performance.” State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Mad

2023Accordingly, the court was well within its discretion to foreclose inquiry into Williams’ crimes. {¶36} The eighth assignment of error is without merit. {¶37} In his fifth assignment of error, Mack alleges the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. {¶38} “Counsel’s performance will not be deemed ineffective unless and until counsel’s performance is proved to have fallen below an objective standard of reasonable representation and, in addition, prejudice arises from counsel’s performance.” State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Mad

2001We will discuss the import of these remarks infra , when addressing the eighth assignment of error. 14 The less flattering alternative is that the admissible purpose was entirely pretextual, and the evidence was intended at all times for its inadmissible purpose. 15 Evid.R. 401. 16 State v. Sutherland (1994), 92 Ohio App.3d 840 , 847 , 637 N.E.2d 366 , 370 . 17 State v. Broom (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 277 , 533 N.E.2d 682 , paragraph one of the syllabus. 18 State v. Lowe (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 527 , 634 N.E.2d 616 , paragraph one of the syllabus. 19 Id ., at 530, 634 N.E.2d at 619 . 20 Id . 21 Stat

2001We will discuss the import of these remarks infra , when addressing the eighth assignment of error. 14 The less flattering alternative is that the admissible purpose was entirely pretextual, and the evidence was intended at all times for its inadmissible purpose. 15 Evid.R. 401. 16 State v. Sutherland (1994), 92 Ohio App.3d 840 , 847 , 637 N.E.2d 366 , 370 . 17 State v. Broom (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 277 , 533 N.E.2d 682 , paragraph one of the syllabus. 18 State v. Lowe (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 527 , 634 N.E.2d 616 , paragraph one of the syllabus. 19 Id ., at 530, 634 N.E.2d at 619 . 20 Id . 21 Stat

2016Manifest Weight of the Evidence {¶63} In the ninth assignment of error, Tate argues that his convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence because DeJesus gave conflicting and contradictory testimony regarding whether he knew Tate and whether they were in an altercation prior to the shooting. {¶64} The Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997-Ohio-52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 court explained the manifest weight of the evidence as follows: Weight of the evidence concerns “the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than

1998Accordingly, they are not against the manifest weight of the evidence as explained in State v. Thompkins , supra. The eighth assignment of error is sustained as to count three of the indictment and overruled as it applies to counts one, two and four of the indictment.

2006More particularly, plaintiff contends the trial court erred "as a matter of law" in considering the case a "deviation" case and in failing to determine the child support obligation on a case-by-case basis as R.C. 3119.04 (B) requires. {¶ 40} R.C. 3119.04 (B) provides that "[i]f the combined gross income of both parents is greater than one hundred fifty thousand dollars per year, the court, with respect to a court child support order, * * * shall determine the amount of the obligor's child support obligation on a case-by-case basis and shall consider the needs and the standard of living of the

2006More particularly, plaintiff contends the trial court erred "as a matter of law" in considering the case a "deviation" case and in failing to determine the child support obligation on a case-by-case basis as R.C. 3119.04 (B) requires. {¶ 40} R.C. 3119.04 (B) provides that "[i]f the combined gross income of both parents is greater than one hundred fifty thousand dollars per year, the court, with respect to a court child support order, * * * shall determine the amount of the obligor's child support obligation on a case-by-case basis and shall consider the needs and the standard of living of the

2025In short, we find no plain error here. {¶86} 2025-Ohio-725, ¶¶ 15-18 . {¶87} Likewise, in the instant case we find the trial court’s inclusion of the “no alcohol, drugs, or bars” condition did not impose a manifest injustice on Appellant, particularly as he affirmatively agreed to the conditions of community control at his first sentencing hearing, and failed to raise an objection to the condition at his resentencing hearing. {¶88} The eighth assignment of error is overruled.

2025Revilo Tyluka, L.L.C. v. Simon Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., 2011-Ohio-1922, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.), citing Seasons Coal v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (1984).

2025Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989), paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. “[E]vidence of prior convictions is prohibited except under narrow circumstances.” State v. Trimble, 2009-Ohio-2961, ¶ 172 .

2023R. 54(D); Muze v. Mayfield, 61 Ohio St.3d 173, 175 , 573 N.E.2d 1078 (1991). {¶57} Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks merit. {¶58} In the eighth assignment of error, Appellant asserts: Trial Court abused its discretion by joinder, and in dismissal of Belmont County Court, Common Pleas, cases 21-TF-0004 with 22-CV- 0331, and in conclusions of law not backed in fact, or in evidence. {¶59} Appellant adds little to this assignment of error, except to state that the court erred “by joinder as ‘prejudicial’” and she cites State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.3d 340 , 421 N.E.2d 1288 (1981). {¶60} Th

2023Motley cites State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239, 264-266 , 473 N.E.2d 768 (1984), State v. Morales, 32 Ohio St.3d 252, 259 , 513 N.E.2d 267 (1987), and State v. Watson, 61 Ohio St.3d 1 , 572 N.E.2d 97 (1991), as controlling authority that, according to him, limits the introduction of “gruesome” photographs to less than a handful at trial.

2023Motley cites State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239, 264-266 , 473 N.E.2d 768 (1984), State v. Morales, 32 Ohio St.3d 252, 259 , 513 N.E.2d 267 (1987), and State v. Watson, 61 Ohio St.3d 1 , 572 N.E.2d 97 (1991), as controlling authority that, according to him, limits the introduction of “gruesome” photographs to less than a handful at trial.

2023R. 54(D); Muze v. Mayfield, 61 Ohio St.3d 173, 175 , 573 N.E.2d 1078 (1991). {¶57} Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks merit. {¶58} In the eighth assignment of error, Appellant asserts: Trial Court abused its discretion by joinder, and in dismissal of Belmont County Court, Common Pleas, cases 21-TF-0004 with 22-CV- 0331, and in conclusions of law not backed in fact, or in evidence. {¶59} Appellant adds little to this assignment of error, except to state that the court erred “by joinder as ‘prejudicial’” and she cites State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.3d 340 , 421 N.E.2d 1288 (1981). {¶60} Th

2023R. 54(D); Muze v. Mayfield, 61 Ohio St.3d 173, 175 , 573 N.E.2d 1078 (1991). {¶57} Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks merit. {¶58} In the eighth assignment of error, Appellant asserts: Trial Court abused its discretion by joinder, and in dismissal of Belmont County Court, Common Pleas, cases 21-TF-0004 with 22-CV- 0331, and in conclusions of law not backed in fact, or in evidence. {¶59} Appellant adds little to this assignment of error, except to state that the court erred “by joinder as ‘prejudicial’” and she cites State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.3d 340 , 421 N.E.2d 1288 (1981). {¶60} Th

2023Motley cites State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239, 264-266 , 473 N.E.2d 768 (1984), State v. Morales, 32 Ohio St.3d 252, 259 , 513 N.E.2d 267 (1987), and State v. Watson, 61 Ohio St.3d 1 , 572 N.E.2d 97 (1991), as controlling authority that, according to him, limits the introduction of “gruesome” photographs to less than a handful at trial.

2023Motley cites State v. Maurer, 15 Ohio St.3d 239, 264-266 , 473 N.E.2d 768 (1984), State v. Morales, 32 Ohio St.3d 252, 259 , 513 N.E.2d 267 (1987), and State v. Watson, 61 Ohio St.3d 1 , 572 N.E.2d 97 (1991), as controlling authority that, according to him, limits the introduction of “gruesome” photographs to less than a handful at trial.

2023Accordingly, the court was well within its discretion to foreclose inquiry into Williams’ crimes. {¶36} The eighth assignment of error is without merit. {¶37} In his fifth assignment of error, Mack alleges the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. {¶38} “Counsel’s performance will not be deemed ineffective unless and until counsel’s performance is proved to have fallen below an objective standard of reasonable representation and, in addition, prejudice arises from counsel’s performance.” State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Mad

2023Accordingly, the court was well within its discretion to foreclose inquiry into Williams’ crimes. {¶36} The eighth assignment of error is without merit. {¶37} In his fifth assignment of error, Mack alleges the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. {¶38} “Counsel’s performance will not be deemed ineffective unless and until counsel’s performance is proved to have fallen below an objective standard of reasonable representation and, in addition, prejudice arises from counsel’s performance.” State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Mad

2021Montgomery No. 27660, 2018-Ohio-4133, ¶ 92 , quoting State v. Withrow, 2d Dist.

2020Franklin No. 2016-Ohio-5535, ¶ 26 , citing MCCORMAC, OHIO CIVIL RULES PRACTICE (1970) 350, Section 14.10. {¶99} However, due to our resolution of the eighth assignment of error, in which we have affirmed the trial court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, but reversed and vacated the grant of a permanent injunction, the trial court will have to conduct another hearing on Precision Strip’s application for a permanent injunction after there is an adjudication by a finder of fact at a hearing or trial where both sides are given the opportunity to present evidence in support of their respective p

2018(Citations omitted.) Specifically, the prisoner must show 'purposeful discrimination' and then establish that the discrimination had a discriminatory affect on him." Nedea v. Voinovich, 994 F. Supp. 910 , 1998 U.S. Dist.

2018(Citations omitted.) Specifically, the prisoner must show 'purposeful discrimination' and then establish that the discrimination had a discriminatory affect on him." Nedea v. Voinovich, 994 F. Supp. 910 , 1998 U.S. Dist.

2018The eighth assignment of error does not specifically allege an error by the trial court, and instead states generally that the trial court acted with prejudice against Mr. O’Halloran and his sisters. {¶42} An Ohio district court of appeals “has no authority to render a decision with regard to disqualification, or to void a trial court’s judgment on the basis of personal bias or prejudice on the part of a trial judge.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Hunter, 151 Ohio App.3d 276 , 2002-Ohio-7326 , ¶ 18 (9th Dist.).

2018The eighth assignment of error does not specifically allege an error by the trial court, and instead states generally that the trial court acted with prejudice against Mr. O’Halloran and his sisters. {¶42} An Ohio district court of appeals “has no authority to render a decision with regard to disqualification, or to void a trial court’s judgment on the basis of personal bias or prejudice on the part of a trial judge.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Hunter, 151 Ohio App.3d 276 , 2002-Ohio-7326 , ¶ 18 (9th Dist.).

2017Cuyahoga No. 103088, 2016-Ohio-2627 , 2016 WL 1593075 , ¶ 70, citing State v. Davis , 8th Dist.

2017We overrule the seventh assignment of error. {¶ 24} Finally, in the eighth assignment of error, Dennis claims that consecutive service of his two sentences was in error because (1) the trial court failed to provide reasons in support of the required findings, (2) the trial court failed to consider a presentence investigation report, and (3) the trial court did not consider all sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.12. {¶ 25} We summarily find no merit to any of those arguments: (1) a trial court need not provide reasons in support of its consecutive-sentence findings- State v. Watkins , 2017-Ohio

2017We overrule the seventh assignment of error. {¶ 24} Finally, in the eighth assignment of error, Dennis claims that consecutive service of his two sentences was in error because (1) the trial court failed to provide reasons in support of the required findings, (2) the trial court failed to consider a presentence investigation report, and (3) the trial court did not consider all sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.12. {¶ 25} We summarily find no merit to any of those arguments: (1) a trial court need not provide reasons in support of its consecutive-sentence findings- State v. Watkins , 2017-Ohio

2016Manifest Weight of the Evidence {¶63} In the ninth assignment of error, Tate argues that his convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence because DeJesus gave conflicting and contradictory testimony regarding whether he knew Tate and whether they were in an altercation prior to the shooting. {¶64} The Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 1997-Ohio-52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 court explained the manifest weight of the evidence as follows: Weight of the evidence concerns “the inclination of the greater amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than

2016State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 , 656 N.E.2d 623 (1995).

2016State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 , 656 N.E.2d 623 (1995).

2015Lake No. 2002-L-046] 2002-Ohio-7279 , at ¶23, quoting Cardi v. Gump (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 16, 22 , * * *.” (Parallel citation omitted.) Goddard v. Stabile, 185 Ohio App.3d 485 , 2009-Ohio-6375 , ¶30 (11th Dist.) {¶65} In Glazer v. Chase Home Fin.

2015Bd. of Edn., 73 Ohio St.3d 260, 272 , 652 N.E.2d 952 , 1995-Ohio-136 , citing Hughes v. Groves, 47 F.R.D. 52, 56 (W.D.Mo.1969). {¶36} The eighth assignment of error is overruled.

2015Bd. of Edn., 73 Ohio St.3d 260, 272 , 652 N.E.2d 952 , 1995-Ohio-136 , citing Hughes v. Groves, 47 F.R.D. 52, 56 (W.D.Mo.1969). {¶36} The eighth assignment of error is overruled.