State v. Richmond, 2011 Ohio 6807

Richmond was convicted of Assault and Domestic Violence following a jury trial in the Xenia Municipal Court; the two convictions were merged for sentencing.
The victim, Nicole Keeton, is the mother of Richmond's children and testified she was hit in the head with a cell phone by Richmond; she initially made statements to others shortly after the injury.
Keeton recanted at trial, claiming she was intoxicated and that Richmond did not hit her; Keeton admitted she would do anything to protect Richmond.
Multiple witnesses testified that Keeton told them Richmond had hit her, describing her injuries and the event shortly after it occurred; Keeton testified differently on direct examination.
The trial court sentenced Richmond to 180 days in jail and a $500 fine; the court stated the offenses merged for sentencing but did not specify which offense seated the sentence due to the State not electing the surviving conviction.
On appeal, Richmond challenged weight of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to merge convictions, and the sentence as an abuse of discretion; the court affirmed but remanded to identify the specific election of the surviving conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence?	Richmond	Richmond	Not against weight; credible evidence supports conviction
Was trial counsel ineffective?	Richmond	Richmond	No ineffective assistance; voir dire and strategic choices were reasonable
Should the Assault and Domestic Violence convictions have merged into a single conviction?	Richmond	Richmond	Convictions merged for sentencing; remanded to elect surviving conviction
Is the sentence of 180 days and $500 not an abuse of discretion?	Richmond	Richmond	Sentence not unreasonable given injury and criminal history; remand to confirm election

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (weights and credibility in appellate review)
State v. Robinson, 162 Ohio St. (Ohio 1991) (weight-of-evidence standard and thirteenth juror concept)
State v. Lawson, Montgomery No. 16288 (Ohio 1997) (credibility determinations deferential to the factfinder)
State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (Ohio 2010) (allied offenses; merging for sentencing; election requirement)
State v. Warren, 125 Ohio App.3d 298 (Ohio App. 1998) (punishment for going to trial vs. plea-bargained sentence)
State v. Scalf, 126 Ohio App.3d 614 (Ohio App. 1998) (retaliation concerns in sentencing after rejecting plea)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (ineffective-assistance standard)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1982) (manifest weight concept and appellate review)
State v. Justice, 92 Ohio App.3d 740 (Ohio App. 1994) (impeachment of witnesses by prior inconsistent statements)