Fifth District analysis in Ohio

2025But here too, the Fifth District provides little explanation for why it has interpreted the statute in the way it has. {¶ 15} The Fifth District’s analysis points the reader to a pair of cases— Bloom, 2008-Ohio-4564, at ¶ 11 (5th Dist.), and State v. Horsley, 2006-Ohio-1208 (10th Dist.)—but those decisions also lack any analysis.

2023Licking No. 2020CA00050, 2021-Ohio-2190 .

2020Therefore, considering only the effect of R.C. 2947.23(C), the 11 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO appellate court created a per se rule, holding that trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to waive court costs at the time of a defendant’s sentencing hearing could never constitute prejudice in an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because the defendant is able to file a motion to waive court costs at any time after sentencing. {¶ 28} Similar to the Fifth District’s analysis, the Eighth District’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel analysis in Springer also focused on the prejudice prong: “As to Spr

2019Washington No. 17CA17, 2018-Ohio-4457 , 2018 WL 5780163 , ¶¶ 101-105 (rejecting the Fifth District's analysis in Kosto in favor of other Ohio Courts of Appeal that have concluded that an overdose is a "reasonably foreseeable consequence" of selling a controlled substance).

2015The Certified — Conflict Cases The Eighth District Opinion: Wyer {¶ 31} In Wyer, the defendant was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment in a county jail in California. 2003-Ohio-6926 , 2003 WL 22976573 , at ¶ 5, 13.

2015We consolidated the actions because they present the same legal question. 135 Ohio St.3d 1469 , 2013-Ohio-2512 , 989 N.E.2d 70 . {¶ 30} For the reasons below, we agree with the Fifth District’s analysis and hold that the term “penal or correctional institution of a party state,” as it is used in R.C. 2963.30, includes a county jail as well as a state prison or correctional facility.

2015We consolidated the actions because they present the same legal question. 135 Ohio St.3d 1469 , 2013-Ohio-2512 , 989 N.E.2d 70 . {¶ 30} For the reasons below, we agree with the Fifth District’s analysis and hold that the term “penal or correctional institution of a party state,” as it is used in R.C. 2963.30, includes a county jail as well as a state prison or correctional facility.

2006State v. Pimental, supra at ¶ 26-28, 33. {¶ 25} This court does not find it necessary strictly to follow the Fifth District's analysis because we recently held that "[t]he proscribed conduct [under R.C. 2925.03 (A)(1)] is the offer to sell, not the offering of a controlled substance." State v. Pimental, Cuyahoga App. No. 84034, 2005-Ohio-384 , ¶ 25 , citing State v. Scott, supra at 440 . {¶ 26} The trial court, therefore, did not err either in denying Elliott's motions for acquittal or in finding him guilty of drug trafficking.