State v. Hlinovsky, 2011 Ohio 6421

Hlinovsky was charged with operating a vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration (felony OVI specification) after a late-night stop on U.S. Route 40; the vehicle had two occupants, Beeman and Hlinovsky, with Beeman allegedly driving per defense; the stop followed observations of extremely slow driving and the vehicle's headlights being turned off; the officer detected signs of intoxication and Hlinovsky admitted drinking earlier; Hlinovsky moved to suppress, challenge the indictment and seek physical-control alternative; the jury found him guilty as charged with the felony OVI specification; sentencing imposed a five-year term plus additional penalties and a related escape conviction was noted

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence	Hlinovsky	Hlinovsky	Not merited; evidence supported the verdict
Whether the trial court erred by not instructing on physical control	Hlinovsky	Hlinovsky	Not plain error; evidence did not support acquittal on OVI and physical-control instruction unnecessary
Whether prosecutorial misconduct deprived a fair trial	Hlinovsky	Hlinovsky	Not a reversible error; context showed trial was fair despite improper remarks
Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance	Hlinovsky	Hlinovsky	Not satisfied; decisions were strategic or not prejudicial
Whether suppression motion was properly overruled	Hlinovsky	Hlinovsky	Consensual initial encounter and community caretaking validated the stop; suppression denied

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (weight of evidence framework; deference to jury credibility)
State v. Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205 (1988) (lesser-included-offense analysis (Deem test))
State v. Evans, 2009-Ohio-2974 (2009) (clarified Deem test for lesser-included offenses)
State v. Fears, 86 Ohio St.3d 329 (1999) (standard for prosecutorial misconduct review)