State v. Pullom

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 2640

Syllabus

R.C. 2937.29; R.C. 2937.99; FAILURE TO APPEAR; RECKLESSLY; CRIM.R. 29 MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL AT CLOSE OF STATE'S CASE-IN-CHIEF; SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE; MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; ABUSE OF DISCRETION; FELONY SENTENCING; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12. To prove failure to appear, the State must show that the defendant-appellant was released on his own recognizance, and recklessly failed to appear as required by the court. The State presented sufficient evidence during its case-in-chief to support the defendant-appellant's failure-to-appear conviction, and the trial court did not err by denying the defendant-appellant's Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal. The defendant-appellant's failure-to-appear conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The defendant-appellant testified on direct examination that he was not notified of the hearing date. By voluntarily testifying on the subject of notice, the defendant-appellant waived the attorney-client privilege and opened the door for the State to cross-examine him on whether his trial counsel notified him of the hearing date. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to cross-examine the defendant-appellant accordingly. The defendant-appellant's sentence is not contrary to law because the sentence is within the permissible statutory range and the trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.