State v. Harris

Citations

• 2020 Ohio 5425

Syllabus

App.R. 26(B), application to reopen, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, sexual offenses against minors, the right to testify, bench trial, DNA evidence, expert witnesses may not vouch for the truthfulness of other witnesses, duty to investigate, trial strategy and tactics in calling witnesses, speedy trial, unreasonable continuances, defendant's objections to continuances, recusal of judge, improper judicial assignment, Sup.R. 36, and hybrid representation. This court denied the defendant's App.R. 26(B) application to reopen. The trial judge had no duty to determine whether the defendant waived his right to testify. A defendant's silence waives his right to testify. Defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial. Defendant did not show that his attorney's requests for continuances were unreasonable, and the attorney's continuances control over the defendant's objections. Defendant did not show that the trial judge harbored animus against him. Defendant waived any irregularities in judicial assignment. Trial judge had no duty to rule on defendant's pro se motions, when the defendant is represented by counsel. Ohio does not permit hybrid representation. DNA evidence was relevant. In a bench trial, the judge is presumed to rule on the proper evidence.