State v. Basford, 2017 Ohio 8565

On Jan. 19, 2016 two men broke into Aspen Ski and Board; surveillance video showed a Chevrolet Malibu and two males committing the break-in and theft.
The Malibu was linked to co-defendant Callista King; officers found Aspen Ski property in the car along with a loan application listing Basford as King’s boyfriend and giving a phone number tied to Basford.
Cellphone records placed the phone number linked to Basford near the crime scene around the time of the burglary and later near the location where King’s vehicle (with stolen goods) was found.
Investigators photographed shoes worn by Basford that matched the distinctive shoes seen on a suspect in the surveillance video; surveillance from a service station also showed three occupants in the vehicle shortly before the theft.
Basford was indicted on four counts (breaking and entering, theft, possessing criminal tools, criminal damaging), tried by jury, convicted on all counts, and sentenced to prison; he appealed raising prosecutor misconduct in opening, insufficiency/manifest weight, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Prosecutor’s opening comments and Facebook references amounted to prejudicial error	State: comments described investigation steps and were permissible; no prejudice	Basford: comments referenced his refusal to speak and inadmissible Facebook evidence, prejudicing jury	Court: no plain error; statements did not affect trial outcome or fairness; assignment overruled
2. Sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence linking Basford to the burglary	State: surveillance, shoe photos, cell records, loan application, vehicle with stolen goods suffice to prove identity and participation	Basford: evidence did not sufficiently or reliably link him to the break-in	Court: evidence (direct and circumstantial) was sufficient and verdict was not against manifest weight; assignment overruled
3. Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to opening/Facebook testimony and failing to move for acquittal	State: counsel’s failures were not prejudicial given sufficiency of other evidence; strategy presumption applies	Basford: counsel should have objected and moved for acquittal; errors deprived him of fair trial	Court: no Strickland prejudice shown; even excluding Facebook evidence, remaining evidence supports conviction; Crim.R.29 motion would not have succeeded; assignment overruled

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (plain‑error review framework explained)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (standards for manifest‑weight review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191 (discusses plain‑error prerequisites)