State v. Lux, 2012 Ohio 112

Lux was convicted of gross sexual imposition after a jury trial in the Miami County Court of Common Pleas, receiving one year in prison and court costs.
The victim, Brittany, was 12 years old on October 30, 2009, and testified Lux kissed her neck and touched her breasts and pubic area in Lux’s van while she and two friends were staying there.
Lux gave inconsistent accounts; police interviews included his statements admitting kissing Brittany and touching her, captured on videotape and presented at trial.
The jury heard Brittany’s trial testimony, Lux’s videotaped statements, and Lux’s own testimony; the court instructed on the elements of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) and the meaning of sexual contact with a minor.
Lux appealed raising three assignments of error: sufficiency/manifest weight of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and sentencing issues including sex-offender classification, court costs, and post-release control.
The appellate court ultimately affirmed the conviction and the sentence in part, sustaining some challenges and remanding only for potential correction of typographical errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency and weight of the evidence	Lux contends the evidence was legally insufficient and against the manifest weight.	Lux asserts the State failed to prove elements and that the verdict reflects a misweighing of the evidence.	Conviction supported by sufficient evidence; not against the manifest weight.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Lux claims counsel should have moved to suppress police statements.	Lux argues suppression motion would have been successful; counsel was deficient.	No ineffective assistance; statements were voluntary and Miranda issues notwithstanding.
Sentence validity: classification, costs, and post-release control	Lux argues (A) incorrect sex-offender classification, (B) improper court-costs imposition and notice, (C) improper post-release-control warnings.	Lux asserts clerical errors in classification form are harmless; costs can be imposed without ability-to-pay analysis; post-release control properly explained and required.	Classification and costs affirmed; lack of 2947.23(A)(1) notice deemed ripe and error but not remandable here; post-release-control provisions correctly described and applied; overall first assignment sustained in part and overruled in part.

State v. Wilson, 2009-Ohio-525 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22581) (sufficiency and manifest-weight standards apply; defer to trial credibility)
Thompkins, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio) (standard for testing elements of offense; cumulative review)
State v. Dennis, 79 Ohio St.3d 421 (1997) (Jackson v. Virginia standard for sufficiency; rational finder could convict)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency of evidence review standard)
State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426 (1997) ( Miranda warnings limited to custodial interrogations)
State v. Edwards, 49 Ohio St.2d 31 (1976) (voluntariness of waiver of rights)
State v. Sosnoskie, 2009-Ohio-2327 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22713) (Miranda timing and voluntariness considerations)
State v. Threatt, 2006-Ohio-905 (108 Ohio St.3d) (waiver of court-costs and appellate review standard)
State v. Murillo, 2008-Ohio-201 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21919) (court costs calculation is ministerial)
State v. Smith, 2011-Ohio-3740 (2011) (supplemental notice issues and sentencing notifications)
State v. Gabriel, 2010-Ohio-3151 (7th Dist. Mahoning No. 09 MA 108) (notice requirements for costs and post-release control)