Ellis claim in Ohio

1992We also held that such person bears the burden of proving his innocence by a preponderance of the evidence, id. at paragraph three of the syllabus, and we affirmed the court of appeals' decision remanding the case to the court of common pleas for a hearing on Ellis's claim.

1992We also held that such person bears the burden of proving his innocence by a preponderance of the evidence, id. at paragraph three of the syllabus, and we affirmed the court of appeals’ decision remanding the case to the court of common pleas for a hearing on Ellis’s claim.

2023In his first Assignment of Error, Ellis argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial. [Cite as State v. Ellis, 2023-Ohio-4692 .] Based on this procedural history, the application of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Ellis’s argument on appeal, we are without jurisdiction to review the March 13, 2023 judgment entry. {¶35} The trial court's March 13, 2023 ruling on the motion for new trial is void for lack of jurisdiction.

2020Bennett, 60 Ohio St.3d at 111 , quoting Diehl, 37 Ohio St. at 475.

2014Id. at 694 . {¶58} Within this assigned error, Ellis contends he received ineffective assistance when his counsel failed to object to Tipton’s alleged hearsay testimony, failed to object numerous times throughout the trial, failed to impeach certain testimony, and failed to explain the ramification of waiving a jury. {¶59} In addressing Ellis’s claim that counsel failed to explain the ramification of waiving a jury, we note matters pertaining to discussions Ellis had with his trial attorneys are not properly raised in a direct appeal because they are not part of the record.

2013Ellis argues that, under State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , the trial court improperly used the fact that he was selling drugs to enhance his prison sentence. {¶ 13} Foster provides that, “The trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the authorized statutory range, and the court is not required to make any findings or give its reasons for imposing maximum or more than minimum sentences.” State v. Lewis, 2d Dist.

2013Ellis argues that, under State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , the trial court improperly used the fact that he was selling drugs to enhance his prison sentence. {¶ 13} Foster provides that, “The trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the authorized statutory range, and the court is not required to make any findings or give its reasons for imposing maximum or more than minimum sentences.” State v. Lewis, 2d Dist.