reviews claim in Ohio

2013Marton’s argument is unpersuasive. {¶17} This court reviews a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel under the two-prong analysis set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2013Marton’s argument is unpersuasive. {¶17} This court reviews a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel under the two-prong analysis set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2022Under manifest weight, Richards argues that the court lost its way in inferring from the evidence adduced at trial that his being unconscious was the result of a reckless action. 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶11} The state contends that “[b]y putting himself in a situation where he was rendered unconscious until administered Narcan—a reckless action—Richards did not ensure his duty of care and protection, and he created a substantial risk that his son would be in harm’s way.” {¶12} When this court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we ask “whether, after viewing

2022Under manifest weight, Richards argues that the court lost its way in inferring from the evidence adduced at trial that his being unconscious was the result of a reckless action. 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶11} The state contends that “[b]y putting himself in a situation where he was rendered unconscious until administered Narcan—a reckless action—Richards did not ensure his duty of care and protection, and he created a substantial risk that his son would be in harm’s way.” {¶12} When this court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we ask “whether, after viewing

2003Ineffective Assistance of Counsel {¶ 66} In his tenth assignment of error, Siller argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the issues he raised in his first, second, fourth, and ninth assignments of error. {¶ 67} This court reviews a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the two-part test set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 13 .

2003Ineffective Assistance of Counsel {¶ 21} In his second assignment of error, Mercer argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court's general unanimity instruction on the kidnapping charge and by failing to request a verdict form setting forth the various sections of kidnapping on which Mercer was indicted. {¶ 22} This court reviews a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the two-part test set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 13 .

2025That statute provides that an appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the 4. sentencing court for resentencing if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following: (a) That the record does not support the sentencing court’s findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant; (b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. {¶ 10} In Marshall, 2023-Ohio-3542 (6th Di

2024She challenges both the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence supporting her convictions, specifically contending that the evidence failed to establish that she intended to abandon her dogs. {¶21} In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether, “after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Cleaned up.) State v. Walker, 2016-Ohio-8295, ¶ 12 . {¶22} In contrast, when this court reviews

2022“It falls to the trier of fact to ‘ “resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” ’ ” State v. Jones, 166 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2021-Ohio-3311 , 182 N.E.3d 1161, ¶ 16 , quoting State v. McFarland, 162 Ohio St.3d 36 , 2020-Ohio-3343 , 164 N.E.3d 316, ¶ 24 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2022“It falls to the trier of fact to ‘ “resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” ’ ” State v. Jones, 166 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2021-Ohio-3311 , 182 N.E.3d 1161, ¶ 16 , quoting State v. McFarland, 162 Ohio St.3d 36 , 2020-Ohio-3343 , 164 N.E.3d 316, ¶ 24 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2022“It falls to the trier of fact to ‘ “resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” ’ ” State v. Jones, 166 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2021-Ohio-3311 , 182 N.E.3d 1161, ¶ 16 , quoting State v. McFarland, 162 Ohio St.3d 36 , 2020-Ohio-3343 , 164 N.E.3d 316, ¶ 24 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2022“It falls to the trier of fact to ‘ “resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” ’ ” State v. Jones, 166 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2021-Ohio-3311 , 182 N.E.3d 1161, ¶ 16 , quoting State v. McFarland, 162 Ohio St.3d 36 , 2020-Ohio-3343 , 164 N.E.3d 316, ¶ 24 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2022“It falls to the trier of fact to ‘ “resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” ’ ” State v. Jones, 166 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2021-Ohio-3311 , 182 N.E.3d 1161, ¶ 16 , quoting State v. McFarland, 162 Ohio St.3d 36 , 2020-Ohio-3343 , 164 N.E.3d 316, ¶ 24 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2022“It falls to the trier of fact to ‘ “resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.” ’ ” State v. Jones, 166 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2021-Ohio-3311 , 182 N.E.3d 1161, ¶ 16 , quoting State v. McFarland, 162 Ohio St.3d 36 , 2020-Ohio-3343 , 164 N.E.3d 316, ¶ 24 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

2022Sufficiency review “raises a question of law, the resolution of which does not allow the court to weigh the evidence.” State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 , 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983), paragraph two of the syllabus; see State v. Guthrie, 1st Dist.

2022Sufficiency review “raises a question of law, the resolution of which does not allow the court to weigh the evidence.” State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 , 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983), paragraph two of the syllabus; see State v. Guthrie, 1st Dist.

2020Weight and Sufficiency of the Evidence 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶19} Graber’s first and second assignments of error attack the weight and sufficiency of the evidence adduced to support his convictions. {¶20} When this court reviews a challenge to a conviction based upon the sufficiency of the evidence, the “ ‘relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 113 , 684 N.E.2d 668

2015“The relevant question is whether the prosecutors’ comments ‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ ” Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986), quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974).

2015“The relevant question is whether the prosecutors’ comments ‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ ” Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986), quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974).

2015“The relevant question is whether the prosecutors’ comments ‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ ” Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986), quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974).

2015“The relevant question is whether the prosecutors’ comments ‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ ” Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986), quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974).

2015Prosecutorial Misconduct {¶ 77} In proposition of law No. 4, Johnson claims that prosecutorial misconduct violated his right to due process and a fair trial. {¶ 78} When this court reviews a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the touchstone of our analysis “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982).

2015Prosecutorial Misconduct {¶ 77} In proposition of law No. 4, Johnson claims that prosecutorial misconduct violated his right to due process and a fair trial. {¶ 78} When this court reviews a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the touchstone of our analysis “is the fairness of the trial, not the culpability of the prosecutor.” Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982).

2008Accord State v. Graber , Stark App. No. 2002CA00014, 2003-Ohio-137 (Trial court did not err in refusing to permit cross-examination where DHS investigation indicated that allegations were unsubstantiated but did not indicate that they were absolutely false); State v. Black (1993), 85 Ohio App. 3d 771 , 778 , 621 N.E.2d 484 , citing Boggs , supra. {¶ 38} Defendant's second and third assignments of error are interrelated and state: {¶ 39} "Trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to meaningfully challenge the state's case through the adversarial system. {¶ 40} "Trial counsel was ineffective

2008Accord State v. Graber , Stark App. No. 2002CA00014, 2003-Ohio-137 (Trial court did not err in refusing to permit cross-examination where DHS investigation indicated that allegations were unsubstantiated but did not indicate that they were absolutely false); State v. Black (1993), 85 Ohio App. 3d 771 , 778 , 621 N.E.2d 484 , citing Boggs , supra. {¶ 38} Defendant's second and third assignments of error are interrelated and state: {¶ 39} "Trial counsel was ineffective when he failed to meaningfully challenge the state's case through the adversarial system. {¶ 40} "Trial counsel was ineffective

2007Id. {¶ 11} This court reviews a claim of insufficient evidence de novo.

2002State v. Fore, supra. {¶ 15} Furthermore, as to Jackson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, this court reviews a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the two-part test set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 .