State v. Caldwell, 2013 Ohio 1417

Caldwell was convicted of felonious assault with a firearm specification in Summit County and sentenced to seven years.
Trammell identified Caldwell and Suggs as the shooters at the hospital, but later testified that he was medicated and would not snitch on others.
Tomlinson testified he saw Caldwell and Suggs near Trammell’s house; he described the shooting and Caldwell holding a gun.
Haskins testified Caldwell and Suggs were at Trammell’s house around the time of the shooting and that Suggs admitted presence at the hospital.
Hammonds testified she saw the shooting; Suggs was present at the hospital, and there were inconsistent statements about phone calls.
The defense challenged several hearsay statements and argued ineffective assistance of counsel; the trial court admitted certain statements and the jury returned a guilty verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of hearsay statements	Caldwell argues the Tomlinson, Haskins, Hammonds, and officer testimony were inadmissible hearsay.	Caldwell contends these statements were improperly admitted and prejudicial.	Hearsay objections were forfeited on several points, but any error was harmless.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Caldwell claims counsel failed to object to hearsay, pursue fingerprint testing, involve voir dire, and challenge a juror.	Caldwell argues these omissions deprived him of a fair trial.	No prejudice shown; counsel's performance not deficient enough to undermine the trial.
Conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence	Caldwell asserts insufficient or inconsistent evidence links him to the shooting.	State contends the overall record supports the verdict beyond reasonable doubt.	Record supports the jury’s credibility determinations; weight not misapplied.
Hearing on motion for new trial	Caldwell sought a new-trial hearing to address ineffective assistance and other issues.	Court may deny without a hearing if no substantial grounds exist.	Court did not abuse discretion; no hearing required on the asserted grounds.
Confrontation rights regarding co-defendant's statements	Suggs's hospital statements were improperly admitted against Caldwell.	Caldwell preserved no plain error; confrontation rights not violated on direct appeal.	Assignment overruled; no plain error established.

State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (2006-Ohio-2815) (ineffective-assistance claims require prejudice as well as deficient performance)
State v. Spirko, 59 Ohio St.3d 1 (1991) (harmlessness of hearsay when witness testifies and is cross-examined)
State v. Holloway, 38 Ohio St.3d 239 (1988) (standard for ineffective assistance and prejudice in some contexts)
State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22 (2007-Ohio-4836) (voir dire and juror bias considerations in ineffective-assistance context)
State v. Dowdell, 2012-Ohio-1326 (9th Dist. No. 25930) (claims involving voir dire and post-conviction considerations addressed on direct appeal)
State v. Smith, 2009-Ohio-1497 (9th Dist. No. 24382) (trial tactics and standard for ineffective assistance without prejudice showing)
State v. Love, 2004-Ohio-1422 (9th Dist. No. 21654) (manifest weight review and appellate role as a thirteenth juror)