State v. Brice, 2017 Ohio 974

Anthony Brice was indicted for nonsupport of dependents for failing to pay court-ordered child support during a 104-week period (July 1, 2013–July 1, 2015).
After multiple continuances, Brice waived a jury trial and requested another continuance on trial date claiming he had retained private counsel; the court denied the continuance and proceeded with a bench trial.
The state presented a juvenile-court child-support order, SETS payment records, testimony from a county official showing Brice missed 95 weeks of payments, and the mother’s testimony that she received only a few payments.
Brice testified he provided in-kind support and introduced receipts totaling about $4,720; cross-examination showed many receipts were not child-specific and he admitted weekly earnings during the period.
The trial court found Brice guilty, ordered a PSI, merged counts, and imposed five years community control with a condition requiring payment of $13,104.32 in total child-support arrearages (including amounts outside the indictment period).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of continuance was abuse of discretion	Trial court properly denied another continuance after multiple prior continuances and warning	Denial prejudiced right to fair trial and effective counsel	Court: No abuse of discretion; denial proper
Whether counsel was ineffective	Counsel’s performance fell within reasonable strategy; no prejudice shown	Counsel unprepared, failed to admit/offer exhibits, failed to object, failed to examine witness	Court: No ineffective assistance under Strickland; claims meritless
Sufficiency/weight of evidence for R.C. 2919.21(B) conviction	State proved order, missed payments (95 weeks), and elements beyond reasonable doubt	Brice argued in-kind support and receipts showed compliance	Court: Evidence sufficient and conviction not against manifest weight
Whether ordering full arrearage as community-control condition or inquiring into ability to pay was error	Ordering full arrearage is related to offense; juvenile court already determined ability to pay so no separate inquiry required	Ordering arrearage beyond indictment period and failing to inquire ability to pay was abusive/error	Court: Condition permissible and related to offense; no error in failing to re-evaluate ability to pay

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (standard for reviewing continuance denials)
AAAA Enters., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redev. Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (abuse-of-discretion definition)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (weight-of-the-evidence standard)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio application of Strickland)
State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St.3d 51 (criteria for probation/community-control conditions)
State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177 (review standard for community-control conditions)