showing of plain error in Ohio

2018Erie No. E-13-052, 2015-Ohio-921 , ¶ 17; see also State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d 72, 93 , 656 N.E.2d 643 (1995) (“An issue is waived, absent a showing of plain error, if it is not raised at the trial level.”). {¶66} Even if we were to consider appellant’s argument that the state was not permitted to aggregate the amounts of the individual credit card transactions, we would find no error.

2018Erie No. E-13-052, 2015-Ohio-921 , ¶ 17; see also State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d 72, 93 , 656 N.E.2d 643 (1995) (“An issue is waived, absent a showing of plain error, if it is not raised at the trial level.”). {¶66} Even if we were to consider appellant’s argument that the state was not permitted to aggregate the amounts of the individual credit card transactions, we would find no error.

2025Nevertheless, it is well settled that “[a] sentence that fails to impose a mandatory provision is contrary to law.” State v. Dowdell, 2022-Ohio-2956, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 21 .

2017See State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-1 , 922 N.E.2d 923 , ¶ 31; see also Crim.R. 52(B). {¶67} We begin and end our analysis by examining whether the offenses were committed with a separate animus.

2014See State v. Wade, 53 Ohio St.2d 182, 188 , 373 N.E.2d 1244 (1978). {¶ 104} C.M. was not asked whether she understood the significance of taking an oath or lying under oath.

2014See State v. Wade, 53 Ohio St.2d 182, 188 , 373 N.E.2d 1244 (1978). {¶ 104} C.M. was not asked whether she understood the significance of taking an oath or lying under oath.

2013Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 121 (1997).

2007Addressing the applicability of the plain error doctrine to appeals of civil cases, the Supreme Court of Ohio in Goldfuss v. Davidson , 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 1997-Ohio-401 , 679 N.E.2d 1099 , stated: {¶ 16} "[I]n appeals of civil cases, the plain error doctrine is not favored and may be applied only in the extremely rare case involving exceptional circumstances where error, to which no objection was made at the trial court, seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself."

2014“In order to prevail on a showing of plain error, a defendant must prove three things: (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” State v. Rogers, 2013-Ohio-3235 , 994 N.E.2d 499 (8th Dist.) (Stewart, A.J., dissenting), citing Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 389 , 119 S.Ct. 2090 , 144 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999). {¶5} In this case, Buckway has not shown that an error occurred with specific citations as required by App.R. 16(A)(7).

2014“In order to prevail on a showing of plain error, a defendant must prove three things: (1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” State v. Rogers, 2013-Ohio-3235 , 994 N.E.2d 499 (8th Dist.) (Stewart, A.J., dissenting), citing Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 389 , 119 S.Ct. 2090 , 144 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999). {¶5} In this case, Buckway has not shown that an error occurred with specific citations as required by App.R. 16(A)(7).

2011Crim.R. 52(B), State v. Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12 , 444 N.E.2d 1332 .

2011Crim.R. 52(B), State v. Underwood (1983), 3 Ohio St.3d 12 , 444 N.E.2d 1332 .

2009Hairston , supra, at ¶ 9 , quoting United States v. Olano (1993), 507 U.S. 725 , 733 .

2009Hairston , supra, at ¶ 9.

2026See State v. Fitts, 2020-Ohio- 1154, ¶ 22 (6th Dist.) (“Because counsel for Fitts specifically stated that she had no 10. objection to the admission of the audio and video recordings, Fitts has waived the right to claim error.”); State v. Alley, 2024-Ohio-115, ¶ 40 (6th Dist.) (“By affirmatively stating no objection to the admission of the recordings at trial, appellant waived his appellate challenge to this admission.”).

2025Nevertheless, it is well settled that “[a] sentence that fails to impose a mandatory provision is contrary to law.” State v. Dowdell, 2022-Ohio-2956, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 21 .

2025The failure “to preserve an objection in the trial court constitutes a forfeiture of that issue.” State v. Klein, 2013-Ohio-3514, ¶ 16 (9th Dist.) See also State v. Payne, 2007-Ohio-4643 , ¶ 23; State v. Bowerman, 2014-Ohio-4264, ¶ 16 (9th Dist.). {¶73} “Where a party has forfeited an objection . . . , the objection may still be assigned as error on appeal if a showing of plain error is made.” State v. Feliciano, 2010-Ohio-2809 , ¶ 8 (9th Dist.).

2025The failure “to preserve an objection in the trial court constitutes a forfeiture of that issue.” State v. Klein, 2013-Ohio-3514, ¶ 16 (9th Dist.) See also State v. Payne, 2007-Ohio-4643 , ¶ 23; State v. Bowerman, 2014-Ohio-4264, ¶ 16 (9th Dist.). {¶73} “Where a party has forfeited an objection . . . , the objection may still be assigned as error on appeal if a showing of plain error is made.” State v. Feliciano, 2010-Ohio-2809 , ¶ 8 (9th Dist.).

2024See Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv).”); In re S.A., 2013-Ohio-3047, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.) (“Mother failed to object to the magistrate’s decision regarding the denial of her motion for continuance * * * as required by Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv). * * * Absent a showing of plain error, Mother’s argument has been waived for purposes of appeal since she failed to object below.”); In re C.B., 2011-Ohio-4537, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.) (Where mother failed to file objections to a combined magistrate’s decision and judge’s order of legal custody and protective supervision, mother’s arguments were waived for purposes of appeal, in t

2024See Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iv).”); In re S.A., 2013-Ohio-3047, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.) (“Mother failed to object to the magistrate’s decision regarding the denial of her motion for continuance * * * as required by Juv.R. 40(D)(3)(b)(iv). * * * Absent a showing of plain error, Mother’s argument has been waived for purposes of appeal since she failed to object below.”); In re C.B., 2011-Ohio-4537, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.) (Where mother failed to file objections to a combined magistrate’s decision and judge’s order of legal custody and protective supervision, mother’s arguments were waived for purposes of appeal, in t

2019(Citations omitted.) State v. McComb, 2017-Ohio-4010 , 91 N.E.3d 255, ¶ 51 (2d Dist.). {¶ 31} To make a showing of plain error, “the defendant must establish that an -12- error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that the error affected his * * * substantial rights.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Reddix, 8th Dist.

2019(Citations omitted.) State v. McComb, 2017-Ohio-4010 , 91 N.E.3d 255, ¶ 51 (2d Dist.). {¶ 31} To make a showing of plain error, “the defendant must establish that an -12- error occurred, that the error was obvious, and that the error affected his * * * substantial rights.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Reddix, 8th Dist.

2017See, e.g., State v. Thomas, 97 Ohio St.3d 309 , 2002-Ohio-6624 , 779 N.E.2d 1017, ¶ 60 . {¶ 132} It was not plain error for the prosecution to cite Martin’s statement that he could “accept the needle.” The statement was relevant to refute the defense presentation of mitigating circumstances.

2017See, e.g., State v. Thomas, 97 Ohio St.3d 309 , 2002-Ohio-6624 , 779 N.E.2d 1017, ¶ 60 . {¶ 132} It was not plain error for the prosecution to cite Martin’s statement that he could “accept the needle.” The statement was relevant to refute the defense presentation of mitigating circumstances.

2017See, e.g., State v. Thomas, 97 Ohio St.3d 309 , 2002-Ohio-6624 , 779 N.E.2d 1017, ¶ 60 . {¶ 132} It was not plain error for the prosecution to cite Martin’s statement that he could “accept the needle.” The statement was relevant to refute the defense presentation of mitigating circumstances.