State v. Williams

Citations

• 2024 Ohio 5092

Syllabus

Ineffective assistance of counsel; restitution; R.C. 2929.19(B)(5); Marsy's Law; sufficiency. Appellant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence. Sufficiency tests the adequacy of the evidence. Where the victim testified defining the items that were stolen, that testimony itself was sufficient, if believed, to establish the element of the value of the items stolen. Appellant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to counsel's failure to object to the introduction of evidence in violation of the best evidence rule, because the victim's testimony was sufficient to establish the fact. The best evidence rule did not apply, and the admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to counsel's failure to object to the amount of restitution and the failure to consider his ability to pay. The amount of restitution was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, additionally, counsel's may not have objected to avoid the imposition of a greater fine based on the testimony presented at trial. Secondly, Marsy's Law supersedes consideration of a defendant's ability to pay, accordingly, counsel did not err when he failed to object.