State v. Warrington, 2016 Ohio 244

John Warrington was indicted on one count of domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25(A)) after an alleged physical altercation with his adult daughter who lived with him and his wife.
Case proceeded to jury trial; Warrington and his wife testified for the defense asserting self-defense.
Jury convicted Warrington; trial court sentenced him. He timely appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals, Medina County.
On appeal Warrington raised two assignments of error: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel’s courtroom confrontations and failure to object or move to exclude certain evidence, and (2) prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument and improper questioning amounting to plain error.
The appellate court found Warrington’s briefs lacked record citations and legal development for many claims and declined to construct arguments on his behalf.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Warrington)	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective under Strickland	Counsel provided objectively reasonable representation; any tactical choices are presumed reasonable	Counsel was deficient for excessive confrontations with prosecutor, failing to object to improper questioning and failing to move to exclude portions of a police report/witness statement	Overruled — Warrington failed to identify record citations or develop legal argument; no prejudice shown
Whether prosecutor committed plain error in closing argument	Closing remarks were within permissible latitude and did not affect substantial rights	Prosecutor improperly attacked defense counsel/defense theory, referenced evidence not in record (telephone system), and called Warrington "a drunk," requiring reversal under plain error	Overruled — appellant failed to cite record or show obvious error affecting outcome; references to telephone issues grounded in trial testimony; no reversible plain error

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio adoption of Strickland standard)
State v. Frazier, 73 Ohio St.3d 323 (test for prosecutorial misconduct in closing: impropriety and prejudice to substantial rights)
State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13 (part of authorities on prosecutorial argument review)
State v. Loza, 71 Ohio St.3d 61 (parties have latitude in closing; propriety reviewed under trial court discretion)
State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (plain-error standard and requirement to show reasonable probability that error affected trial outcome)