need hearing in Ohio

2024West at ¶ 38 (Citation omitted); accord Watters at ¶ 15 (adopting for purposes of a Crim.R. 32.1 motion the factors set forth in State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) for assessing affidavits submitted in support of a postconviction petition).

2022(Citation omitted) West at ¶ 38 ; accord Watters at ¶ 15 (adopting for purposes of a Crim.R. 32.1 motion the factors set forth in State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 , 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999) for assessing affidavits submitted in support of a postconviction petition). 4 Case Nos. 2022-A-0046, 2022-A-0047, 2022-A-0049 {¶11} Here, the trial judge who reviewed the motion to withdraw is the same judge who accepted Gaines’ guilty plea.

2026“The need for an inquiry by the trial judge into the circumstances surrounding a request to discharge appointed counsel and appoint substitute counsel will not be recognized where the defendant has not evidenced his dissatisfaction or wish to remove his appointed counsel.” United States v. Iles, 906 F.2d 1122, 1131 (6th Cir. 1990). {¶17} Having reviewed the record, even though not required to do so, this Court finds that the trial court conducted an inquiry of Attorney Dawson regarding his reasons for filing his request.

2024United States v. Iles, 906 F.2d 1122, 1131 (6th Cir. 1990).

2002See In re Baby Girl Baxter (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 229 , 232 ; see, also, In re Jane Doe (2001), 141 Ohio App.3d 20 , 26 (McMonagle, J. dissenting).

2001See In re Baby Girl Baxter (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 229 , 232 ; see, also, In re Jane Doe (2001), 141 Ohio App.3d 20 , 26 (McMonagle, J. dissenting).

2002See In re Baby Girl Baxter (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 229 , 232 ; see, also, In re Jane Doe (2001), 141 Ohio App.3d 20 , 26 (McMonagle, J. dissenting).

2001See In re Baby Girl Baxter (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 229 , 232 ; see, also, In re Jane Doe (2001), 141 Ohio App.3d 20 , 26 (McMonagle, J. dissenting).

1997See, e.g., CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 673 [ 113 S.Ct. 1732, 1742 , 123 L.Ed.2d 387, 402 ], n. 12 (1993). (‘We reject petitioner’s claim of implied “conflict” pre-emption * * * on the basis of the preceding analysis’).

1997See, e.g., CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 673 [ 113 S.Ct. 1732, 1742 , 123 L.Ed.2d 387, 402 ], n. 12 (1993). (‘We reject petitioner’s claim of implied “conflict” pre-emption * * * on the basis of the preceding analysis’).

2026Id. (“If an explanation of circumstances were necessary to establish the elements of the 9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS crime, the need for such a requirement would be even greater in felony cases—where the stakes are higher—than in misdemeanor cases.”). {¶26} Here, all the elements of the first-degree misdemeanor were met both by defense counsel’s affirmation and by the evidence introduced at the suppression hearing.

2024"If an explanation of circumstances were necessary to establish the elements of the crime, the need for such a requirement would be even greater in felony cases—where the stakes - 14 - Butler CA2023-10-112 are higher—than in misdemeanor cases." Id.

2026State v. Scott, 2025-Ohio-300, ¶ 27 (2d Dist.). {¶ 13} Trigg asserts that the trial court did not address any of the factors relevant to assessing the credibility of an affidavit accompanying a petition for postconviction relief.

2025See State v. Jenkins, 2018-Ohio-2397, ¶ 43-44 (8th Dist.); State v. Witherspoon, 2011-Ohio-704 , ¶ 22 (8th Dist.); see also State v. Winters, 2016-Ohio-928, ¶ 36 (8th Dist.).

2025See State v. Jenkins, 2018-Ohio-2397, ¶ 43-44 (8th Dist.); State v. Witherspoon, 2011-Ohio-704 , ¶ 22 (8th Dist.); see also State v. Winters, 2016-Ohio-928, ¶ 36 (8th Dist.).

2025The State argues that Jeffers’s “interpretation of the case law would have this intentional firing across someone else’s property not rise to the level of knowingly attempting to cause physical harm by means of a deadly weapon.” The State asserts that the instruction was not erroneous, but even if it were, the error was harmless because the amount of evidence presented by the State “discount[ed] the need for the instruction.” {¶ 52} “ ‘The purpose of jury instructions is to properly guide the jury’ in deciding questions of fact based on the applicable substantive law.” State v. Rac, 2019-Ohio-

2024West at ¶ 38 (Citation omitted); accord Watters at ¶ 15 (adopting for purposes of a Crim.R. 32.1 motion the factors set forth in State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) for assessing affidavits submitted in support of a postconviction petition).

2022No. C-180081, 2019-Ohio-3642, ¶ 35 (same effect); State v. Watters, 11th Dist.

2020See Walker, supra. The trial court did not err in finding as such and overruling the motion for post-conviction relief. {¶7} Having found no error in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allen County is affirmed.

2020See Walker, supra. The trial court did not err in finding as such and overruling the motion for post-conviction relief. {¶7} Having found no error in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allen County is affirmed.

2012The prohibition extend[ed], moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.” Id. at 628. {¶7} However, the Court also noted that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626 .

2012It further determined that the prohibition could not pass constitutional muster under “any of the standards of scrutiny [ever] applied [by the Supreme Court] to enumerated constitutional rights” because the ban extended to the home “where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.” Id. {¶19} Although the United States Supreme Court did not hold that the Second Amendment right to carry firearms for self-defense extends outside the home, my reading of Heller leads me to believe that the scope of the right described by Justice Scalia is not limited to one’s household.

2008See, In re B.M.R. , Miami App. No. 2005 CA 18, 2005-Ohio-5911 , ¶ 16 . {¶ 20} Given that A.D. stipulated to the report by Dr. Kimball, we cannot say that the juvenile court erred by dispensing with the hearing on competency.