Skip to main content

State v. Wagner

Citations

  • 212 N.E.3d 1119
  • 2023 Ohio 1215

Syllabus

Plain error ineffective assistance of counsel comparable sentencing cumulative error abuse of discretion. Trial court did not commit plain error at sentencing where the record reflects that it reviewed all sentencing factors appropriately and made a record where required pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). Further, appellant failed to establish he was prejudiced when the trial court considered a videotape of the crime and testimony of the victim at a codefendant's trial where the record established that there was independent evidence presented supporting the trial court's ultimate findings. Trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel. Although the competency evaluation was not a part of the appellate record during appellant's first appeal, it was in the record before the trial court. Further, the parties stipulated to its contents. Counsel's decision to summarize the evaluation rather than submit it into the record was strategic, because the contents contained multiple factors unfavorable to appellant. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to or request a continuance of the sentencing hearing. There was adequate support for the trial court's decision in the record accordingly counsel was able to discuss the change with appellant and the likely effects. Although appellant alleges there was a witness that was unavailable at the hearing, appellant failed to raise that issue before the trial court and both appellant and trial counsel agreed on the record to proceed with the advanced date. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the trial court's reliance on evidence outside the record. Prosecutor summarized criminal conduct and content of video. Appellant was not prejudiced by the trial court's consideration of the victim's testimony. Trial court did not err in sentencing appellant more harshly than a codefendant. Codefendant pleaded guilty to less serious charges and appellant was identified as the primary aggressor.

Judges: Groves

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

35 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.