State v. Braswell, 2018 Ohio 3208

Anthony Braswell was indicted for second-degree felony burglary after S.L. (his ex‑girlfriend) reported forced entry to her home on March 25, 2016 and the theft of electronics. An eyewitness (A.G.) said she saw Braswell exiting the house minutes after S.L. left.
S.L. found a damaged front door and missing items; an Xbox power cord was found on the lawn. Officer James and Detective Waddell investigated; S.L. later reported additional attempted entry the next day.
Braswell allegedly called S.L. repeatedly after the incident, at one point apologizing and implying responsibility; S.L.’s grandmother (F.F.) corroborated hearing an apologetic call in Braswell’s voice.
A jury convicted Braswell of burglary (R.C. 2911.12(A)(2)). The trial court sentenced him to 48 months imprisonment for the burglary and an additional 12 months for a community‑control violation to be served consecutively, total 60 months.
On appeal Braswell challenged (1) sufficiency/manifest weight of the evidence, (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel (multiple alleged errors), and (3) the imposition of consecutive sentences.

Issue	Braswell's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for burglary	State failed to prove Braswell entered by force or committed theft; lack of physical evidence tying him to scene	Eyewitness (A.G.) placed Braswell leaving the home, damaged door, admissions and motive suffice	Conviction supported by legally sufficient evidence; affirmed
Manifest weight of the evidence	Testimony inconsistent; 911 record gap; timeline implausible; witness credibility questionable	Jury weighed credibility; confession‑calls, eyewitness ID, and corroborating facts support verdict	Not against manifest weight; jury did not lose its way; affirmed
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Multiple claimed errors (unpreparedness, poor voir dire, failure to subpoena/object/impeach, opening door to bad acts, not moving for mistrial, cumulative errors)	Counsel’s actions fell within reasonable trial strategy; objections were made and court instructed jury; no prejudice shown	No deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; claim rejected
Consecutive sentences	Consecutive terms not justified; record does not show danger to public or required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	Trial court made required statutory findings, including that offender was on community control (subsection (a))	Consecutive sentences upheld; appellate review finds record supports statutory findings

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (standard for manifest‑weight review)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (trial court must make and incorporate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences)