State v. Rosa, 2012 Ohio 1042

Appellant Alfredo Rosa and wife Diana engaged in sexual activity with a 15-year-old family friend, K.G., in 2008.
Notes created by the trio documented sexual invitations; notes were discovered by K.G.’s mother.
Confrontation occurred at the Rosas’ home, with admissions that there had been kissing and touching and a plan to wait until K.G. turned 18.
Rosa and Diana were indicted on 12 counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor; Diana was tried separately, Rosa with all counts.
Appellant was convicted on all counts, sentenced to eight years, and classified as a Tier II sex offender; Diaz appealed after delayed appeal grant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of counsel claims	Rosa argues counsel performed deficiently in several respects	Rosa contends counsel’s strategy was flawed and prejudicial	Overruled (no deficient performance established)
Court costs assessment process	Costs were improperly imposed in the judgment entry	Costs should be assessed in open court	Remanded to properly assess costs in open court
Spousal competency hearing	Brown requires a spousal competency inquiry	Diana did not testify; no necessity for a competency hearing	Overruled
Cumulative error	Errors collectively deprived Rosa of a fair trial	No substantial cumulative impact	Overruled

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes prejudice and deficient performance standard for ineffective assistance)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (two-step inquiry for ineffective assistance; prejudice required)
State v. Lytle, 2 O.O.3d 495 (1976) (Ohio 1976) (origin of the Strickland-style prejudice analysis in Ohio)
United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1981) (relevance to harmless error and prejudice analysis)
State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (Ohio 2006) (trial strategy not per se ineffective assistance)