State v. Davis

Citations

• 2026 Ohio 1096

Syllabus

Appellant's convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence where multiple witnesses established that he shot the victim and then ordered his accomplice to shoot the victim a second time. There was no reasonable likelihood that the false testimony of the State's witness could have affected the judgment of the jury where the defense demonstrated the factual error through another witness. The State had provided sufficient evidence of appellant's prior conviction to support finding he is a repeat violent offender (\RVO\). The trial court engaged in unconstitutional fact-finding in imposing an RVO sentence when it made explicit findings under R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)(a)(iv) and (v) which the Ohio Supreme Court has excised from the statute as unconstitutional. Therefore, appellant must be resentenced without these findings.