Echevarria v. Jackson

Trial court committed reversible error by selecting de facto termination date without providing its rationale, ordering a division of assets and liabilities in absence of competent, credible evidence, and failing to calculate the proportionate share of retirement benefits that accrued during the marriage. Moreover, trial court did not demonstrate how the award was equitable or that it considered the factors set forth in R.C. 3105.171(F). Judgment reversed and remanded.

Crim.R. 8(A) joinder of offenses Crim.R. 14 severance plain error other acts test simple and direct test Evid.R. 404(B) prejudice ineffective assistance of counsel futile act imposition of sentences on firearm specification having weapons while under disability R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(e). Defendant did not show that the trial court's failure to, sua sponte, sever offenses relating to three separate incidents for trial constituted an obvious error or that there was a reasonable probability that any alleged error resulted in prejudice, affecting the outcome of the trial. The offenses relating to the three incidents were charged together under Crim.R. 8(A) because they were of the \same or similar character\ and were \based on two or more acts or transactions connected together\ that were part of a \course of criminal conduct\ occurring in close proximity, in or around the same geographic area, over a relatively short period of time. Evidence of the other offenses may have been admissible other-acts evidence under Evid.R. 404(B) if the offenses related to each incident had been tried separately because defendant used the vehicle he stole in the first incident to facilitate his crimes in the second incident, there were a number of striking similarities between the manner in which the offenses in the three incidents were committed, suggestive of a modus operandi, and evidence offered in support of the kidnapping and rape charges in the second incident would have arguably been admissible to rebut defendant's claim of consent in the third incident (and vice versa). The evidence supporting each offense was simple and direct without significant overlap or conflation of proof, and the state presented substantial evidence supporting defendant's convictions. Defendant did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to request severance where defendant did not show a motion to sever, if filed, would have been successful and or that he was prejudiced by