State v. Wisby, 2013 Ohio 1307

Wisby was convicted of violating a protective order issued September 15, 2010, which prohibited contact with Mullis and approaching within 500 feet.
Wisby initially received a bench trial on remand after this court previously reversed for lack of jury trial; the remand followed Wisby’s appeal from the bench trial.
Evidence showed Wisby was present at the protection-order hearing, was served with the order, and knew its terms.
On the night of the alleged violation, Mullis testified Wisby yelled to have the kids while within 500 feet; Dyer corroborated via sight and sound of a van.
Wisby testified he did not know Mullis was attending Regency Beauty Institute and claimed he did not contact Mullis; the jury credited Mullis and Dyer over Wisby and his grandfather.
The trial court sentenced Wisby after a jury trial to jail time, community control, and a fine; on remand, a different judge sentenced him more severely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency/weight of evidence	State	Wisby	Not against weight; evidence suffices
Vindictiveness on remand sentencing	State	Wisby	No presumption of vindictiveness; no clear vindictiveness shown
Effective assistance of counsel	State	Wisby	No ineffective assistance; strategy-based decisions sustained

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishes weight vs. sufficiency)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (directed-specified appellate standard for sufficiency)
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. Supreme Court 1969) (vindictiveness rule in remanding sentencing)
McCullough, 475 U.S. 134 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (no presumption of vindictiveness when same judge differs)
Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972) (vindictiveness and presumption considerations)
Wasman v. United States, 468 U.S. 559 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (vindictiveness standard guidance)
Lombardi, Inc. v. Smithfield, 11 A.3d 1180 (Del. 2010) (weighting of equitable factors in remedy)