STATE OF OHIO v. BRIAN R. LIMING
CASE NO. CA2022-01-001
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLINTON COUNTY
8/14/2023
[Cite as State v. Liming, 2023-Ohio-2817.]
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CRI 21-500-047
Joseph Hada, for appellant.
S. POWELL, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Brian R. Liming, appeals his conviction in the Clinton County Court of Common Pleas after a jury found him guilty of one count of fourth-degree felony assault on a peace officer in violation of
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On February 10, 2021, the Clinton County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Liming with the two above-named felony offenses and accompanying three-year firearm specification.1 The charges arose on December 20, 2020, after Liming shot and severely injured Officer Kevin Behr of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (“ODNR“). This occurred shortly after Officer Behr had set up a decoy deer on the private property owned by Tim and Deb Trayer located in Clinton County, Ohio. Officer Behr set up this decoy deer on the Trayers’ property as part of a sting operation to catch unlicensed deer hunters illegally hunting on private properties near the intersection of Macedonia and Martinsville Roads located in Clinton County. There is no dispute that Officer Behr had the Trayers’ consent to enter onto their property, as well as set up a decoy deer on their property, as part of this sting operation.
{¶ 3} On November 8, 9, and 10, 2021, the matter proceeded to a three-day jury trial. During the trial, the jury heard testimony from eight witnesses offered by the state. This includes testimony from the victim in this case, Officer Behr. The following is a summary of the testimony and evidence elicited from those eight state witnesses.2 This summary also includes reference to the parties’ joint stipulation of facts. This includes the parties’ joint stipulation that, at the time of the shooting, Liming was under a federal firearm
Summary of Testimony and Evidence Offered by the State‘s Eight Witnesses
{¶ 4} On the afternoon of December 20, 2020, at approximately 3:30 p.m., Thomas Davis was driving his truck north on Martinsville Road with Liming and another man, Brian Achtermann, as his passengers. Thomas then turned left off Martinsville Road and began traveling west on Macedonia Road. Shortly after Thomas turned onto Macedonia Road, Achterman said, “Deer.” What Achterman saw, however, was not a deer. Rather, as noted above, it was a decoy deer that had been set up by Officer Behr approximately 10 minutes earlier. Officer Behr had set up this decoy deer as part of a sting operation to catch unlicensed deer hunters illegally hunting on private properties near the intersection of Macedonia and Martinsville Roads located in Clinton County.3 Such was the property where the shooting occurred in this case.
{¶ 5} Upon seeing the supposed deer, Liming and Achterman told Davis to keep driving until there was a turnaround. Davis, doing as he was told, kept driving west on Macedonia Road for about a half-mile. Davis then turned his truck around and made his way back to where the decoy deer was located. Davis stopped his truck near the edge of the woods where Achterman had spotted the alleged deer. Once Davis stopped his truck, Liming exited, carrying his shotgun, specifically, his Remington 1100 LT-20 semi-automatic 20-gauge shotgun loaded with Federal Ammunition 20-gauge sabot slugs. Liming also brought with him his Bering Optics Hogster VOx thermal optic scope, a device the record indicates has a purchase price of approximately $2,500.
My intentions were to pick my equipment up and run across the road because right across the road, there‘s a big weedy like area in the field. And my intentions were to just keep working my way out to that weedy area to look back across the road and be able to observe the roadway and the decoy, and then if I couldn‘t find suitable, a suitable area there, I was going to go on across that open field and try to get right along the base of—there‘s like a hill there or a rise, but my intentions were as soon as I got to my equipment, I was going to pick it up and run across the road.
{¶ 7} When Officer Behr got back to his equipment, however, he “heard noise,” he “heard gravel popping,” and “knew there was a vehicle and maybe somebody around [him].” Officer Behr then testified:
So as soon as I heard that, I got down on my hands and knees and picked up my radio, my portable radio, and I turned it on, and I told the officers there‘s somebody here, you know, let‘s be ready, there‘s somebody here.
Officer Behr then got down on the ground and tried to make himself into a ball, “as small as [he] could * * *.” Officer Behr, who there is no dispute was at that time clad in camouflage, testified that he then “felt like a sledge hammer hitting [him] in the lower buttocks as hard as somebody could hit with a sledge hammer,” followed by what “felt like molten hot steel
{¶ 8} There is no dispute that it was Liming who shot Officer Behr in the backside that afternoon. There is also generally no dispute that Liming shot Officer Behr from approximately 51 feet. There is further no dispute that Liming‘s shot, according to a detective with the Clinton County Sheriff‘s Office, Detective Robert Gates, “wasn‘t even close” and “not even anywhere [near]” to where the decoy deer was located. Liming‘s shot was instead described as being “extremely dangerous” given that Liming was aiming in the general direction of Macedonia Road where Davis was sitting in his truck. Asked to describe what he believed had happened just prior to Liming shooting Officer Behr, Lieutenant Eastes of the Clinton County Sheriff‘s Office testified, without objection, the following:
What I think happened is he took, he knew that there was a deer in there, and he went into the woods with his gun and his thermal optic, and he was scanning for a heat signature, and when he found one, he aimed at the heat signature and fired, which was obviously a decoy won‘t put off a heat signature because it‘s not alive, and a human, which was in the woods would put off a heat signature.
{¶ 9} Lieutenant Eastes was also asked if he had any concerns about how Liming claimed to have merely been shooting at the base of a tree when he discharged his shotgun. To this, Lieutenant Eastes testified, “Great concerns. Because he did not know where that bullet was traveling. He didn‘t know what was beyond that, beyond whichever tree he claims he was firing at.” Lieutenant Eastes further testified that Liming “firing indiscriminately into a wooded area” was “completely unsafe,” and “reckless” when considering “that he just fired it, you know, without aiming or knowing what was behind his shot into an area that he was unfamiliar with.” Lieutenant Eastes testified that this was due, at least in part, to there being “a large amount of honeysuckle and saplings and things in that area that were obstructing [his] view.” Lieutenant Eastes additionally testified that in his 30-years’
{¶ 10} Davis testified that shortly after Liming had exited from his truck he heard a shotgun blast followed by a man screaming. Upon coming out of his shock, Davis saw flashing lights and heard a siren coming from an approaching officer in an ODNR vehicle. Davis testified it was at that time when he “kind of stuck [his] arm out the window and was pointing at the woods * * *.” Davis testified that the approaching ODNR officer then “slowed down to look at [him],” but that he “just kept pointing at the woods.” Davis testified the ODNR officer then “heard the screaming as well.” Upon hearing this, the ODNR officer told Davis not to leave because he was a witness, so “he said stay put.” Thereafter, when asked how he felt during this time, Davis testified:
Very uncomfortable, nervous, scared. But like I said, when ODNR came flying around the corner, I mean it felt like it was a second or two after everything happened. I felt relieved at that point because, you know, there was somebody there that could go in the woods and take, you know, he—the, you know, the emergency vehicle was there pretty much at that point.
{¶ 11} Officer Jason Keller and Officer Roberts of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources were the first two officers to arrive at the scene where Officer Behr had been shot. Officer Keller testified that upon his arrival Officer Behr was in “a lot of pain” and that he kept saying, “he shot me, he shot me, I‘ve been shot, repeated that over and over.” Officer Keller testified that he then noticed “some blood in the butt region,” as well as “fecal matter, intestines, the smell was not pleasant, and we could see an entrance hole.” Seeing
{¶ 12} Liming did not stick around after shooting Officer Behr. Liming also did not call 9-1-1 to get help for Officer Behr. This holds true despite Officer Behr yelling out, “you shot me, stop shooting, call 9-1-1, help me, please.” Officer Behr testified that Liming instead yelled back “something in the nature of fuck you, you stupid motherfucker, or fuck you, you dumb motherfucker, something along that nature.” Liming then fled the scene by making his way through the woods and over towards a nearby fence, where he was seen by Officer Keller standing just inside the tree line. Liming then threw down his shotgun at the bottom of a honeysuckle bush, tossed off his thermal optics scope, and ran out of the woods towards Davis’ truck. Once there, Liming told Davis that “there was another person” in the woods and that “we needed to go.” Davis responded and told Liming, “the ODNR officer told me to stay put, I was a witness.” Davis then took his keys out of his truck and went to stand by his truck‘s tailgate. Davis testified he did this because:
I wasn‘t going anywhere, and I wanted to make sure that, I mean, everyone kind of knew that if my keys weren‘t in my truck and I was out of my truck. I mean, I wasn‘t trying to go anywhere, and I wasn‘t going to go anywhere.
{¶ 13} When his attempts to flee in Davis’ truck proved futile, Liming then took off
{¶ 14} Liming also told Sergeant Grillot, as well as several other ODNR officers who had since arrived to provide backup, that he did not have a gun when asked where the firearm he used to shoot Officer Behr was located. Sergeant Grillot testified that Liming then continued “with his story that somebody was out there that had shot, shot somebody, that, you know, we needed to go looking for them or something to that effect.” Liming‘s story eventually changed after he was handcuffed and placed in the back of Sergeant Grillot‘s cruiser. As Sergeant Grillot testified, “[a]t that point, he said it was an accident, that it was him that shot [Officer Behr]. He indicated what direction his gun was, said it was me, I‘m not trying to cause any trouble.”
{¶ 15} While this was happening, the investigation into the shooting of Officer Behr continued. This included another one of the officers on scene, Deputy Dewey Allen, locating the shotgun and thermal optics scope that Liming had thrown down into the woods after shooting Officer Behr. According to Deputy Allen, he was able to see Liming‘s shotgun and thermal optics scope given that they were “easily visible” from the road approximately 30 feet away. Officer Keller testified that he had also deployed his K-9 partner, Scout, to search for evidence. This too resulted in Scout locating Liming‘s shotgun and thermal optic scope.
{¶ 16} Similar to Lieutenant Eastes, Officer Keller further testified that he had never encountered someone who had hunted deer with a thermal optic scope like the one Liming had with him that day. Officer Keller was then asked whether, as a police officer, he would be concerned if he knew someone was using a thermal optic scope to hunt. To this, Officer Keller testified, “Yes, sir.” Specifically, Officer Keller testified that a hunter using a thermal optic scope would cause him concern because
somebody could approach from behind us or from a long distance off, we not being able to see them, but they could basically be looking through brush or across the field and see that heat signature and not properly identity their target or what‘s beyond their target and take a shot.
Officer Keller testified that this is in addition to the fact that “a lot of the deer that we recovered from this general region are close to the residences out in flat farm fields,” so “[w]ho knows where that bullet could have gone exactly.”
{¶ 17} Shortly after the shooting took place, another officer with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Officer Matthew Hunt, received a call from Liming on his cellphone. (Officer Hunt had previously programmed Liming‘s phone number into his cellphone after Liming had called him several times with questions about hunting or with information about a dead deer on the side of the road.) Describing this phone call, Officer Hunt testified:
I answered, I said, [Liming], because I knew it was him. He sounded like he was a little out of breath, and the first thing he said was, I was hunting in Clinton County, and he said something to the effect that there was a shot or somebody shot, and everybody started running, so I ran, and now I got a trooper pointing a gun at me. And I told him right there, I said, you need to do exactly what that trooper is telling you to do.
Officer Hunt testified that he was not sure if Liming had then dropped his phone or what, but he “couldn‘t directly hear what he was saying or what anyone else was saying, and that
{¶ 18} Officer Behr was ultimately flown via life flight helicopter to a nearby hospital for treatment. Officer Behr testified that once there he had “actually coded out,” that his “heart quit beating in one of the surgeries and they had to revive [him].” Officer Behr testified that this included hospital staff doing “resuscitation, CPR, and AED shock.” Describing his injuries, which also included PTSD, Officer Behr testified:
[M]y pelvis was shattered. My rectum and colon and most of my intestines were blown out and damaged. My spleen was damaged. * * * My liver was damaged. My kidneys were damaged from the slug itself, and then also from lack of blood from the times that I had low blood or no pulse. I was given or administered 22 units of blood total. My stomach was damaged.
My brain [was also damaged] from being shot because the slug didn‘t exit, it‘s like shooting a water bottle, and if you‘ve—we‘ve all seen what a water bottle gets shot, the cap always blows off. Well, the fluid shock and the energy from the slug entering my body just traveled up so it shook my brain pretty good. And then, the—all the time I did with low blood to the brain or no blood to the brain caused issues.
I‘ve got nerve damage on my right side of my leg and my arm from where the slug went through and damaged the nerves. Luckily it missed the main spinal cord by millimeters, but it did do damage to the nerves that are on my right side. I‘m trying to think what else. There‘s a lot.
{¶ 19} The injuries Officer Behr sustained required him to stay in the intensive care unit for 28 days, with 12 of those days being hooked up to a ventilator. Officer Behr testified that this also required him to be on “continuous dialysis because [his] kidneys quit working and were damaged from the shot for 11 days, then partial dialysis after that.” Officer Behr further testified that, at the time of trial, he had undergone a total of 14 surgeries, with more surgeries certain to come. This was in addition to Officer Behr testifying that:
It‘s been a struggle for me every day. Every day is an absolute struggle. It‘s the amount of pain, the frustration from not being able to do the things that I have to do, work and the things that I used to do, it‘s—to say that it‘s excruciating and challenging is
an understatement. * * *
The amount of just devastation that happened to me, I mean, I‘m permanently mutilated, but what‘s happened to my family is just excruciating. That‘s—that‘s what I struggle with the most is what happened to my family, you know, as a result of this situation.
Defense Counsel‘s Closing Argument and the State‘s Rebuttal
{¶ 20} After both parties rested their respective cases, the parties then presented their closing arguments to the jury. This included defense counsel noting that the assistant prosecuting attorney “didn‘t even mention” what it means for a person to act recklessly within his initial closing argument. Liming‘s defense counsel then stated:
Why didn‘t [the assistant prosecutor] bring that up [in his closing argument]? Is [the prosecutor] going to bring that up [in his rebuttal closing argument]? Is he going to talk with you about the word reckless as it means in a legal context? Holy moly, I hope so, that is what this case boils down to, the likelihood that someone else is there. That is what the term recklessness is all about in this context. And we know, we know as we talk into this discussion, we know that there is no one around because [Officer Behr] set the deer up right there.
{¶ 21} Projecting it onto a screen, Liming‘s defense counsel then read a portion of the trial court‘s final jury instructions on recklessness to the jury. Specifically, Liming‘s defense counsel stated:
Recklessness. This is in your instruction. * * * A person acts recklessly when with heedless indifference to the consequences, the person disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the person‘s conduct, I put that in a box, disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the person‘s conduct, which I have in a box, is likely to cause a certain result, which I also have in a box.
{¶ 22} This is in addition to Liming‘s defense counsel later telling the jury during his closing argument that:
Recklessness means it‘s likely that there‘s someone else
around because there is a substantial risk that firing your weapon is likely to hit a human being, then it has to be likely that there‘s another human being around. But there is not.
{¶ 23} As Liming‘s defense counsel apparently had hoped he would, the prosecutor did bring up the definition of recklessness in his rebuttal closing argument. This included the prosecutor beginning his rebuttal, without any objection from Liming, as follows:
Before I dive into my closing statement, there‘s one thing that I want to point out in regards to your jury instructions, and I‘m going to talk about it later. And I wanted to make sure that you knew that I had every intention of discussing recklessness despite Defense counsel‘s moral indignation with the fact that it hadn‘t been addressed yet.
I feel indignant because, and frankly, I was hoping he was going to leave it up. If you turn to your page [on] recklessness, you‘re going to see that Defense counsel spent an hour and a half talking about recklessness without ever pointing or directing your attention to the second prong, that being a person who acts recklessly with heedless indifference to the consequences when the person disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the person‘s conduct is likely to cause a certain result, and he stopped.
He printed that. He put it on his monitor, and he kept referring to it, and pointing to it, and directing your attention to it and hoping you wouldn‘t notice the or. Or likely to be of a certain nature.
You want to know why he spent an hour and a half without addressing or is likely to be of a certain nature because, as I‘m going to explain to you, it‘s that second prong that makes his client guilty every day of the week, and twice on Sundays. But we‘ll come back to that.
{¶ 24} Following these comments, the prosecutor then began his otherwise pre-planned remarks in rebuttal. This included the prosecutor, once again, providing the jury with the full definition of what it means for a person to act recklessly.
The Trial Court‘s Final Jury Instructions and the Jury‘s Guilty Verdicts
{¶ 25} Once the parties’ closing arguments concluded, the trial court provided its final instructions to the jury. This included the trial court instructing the jury on flight as
Testimony has been admitted indicating that the defendant left the scene of the alleged crime and attempted to conceal a crime. You are instructed that such conduct if true alone does not raise a presumption of guilt, but it may tend to indicate the defendant‘s awareness of guilt. If you find that the facts do not support that the defendant left the scene or if you find that some other motive prompted the defendant‘s conduct, or if you are unable to decide what the defendant‘s motivation was, then you should not consider this evidence for any purpose.
However, if you find that the facts support that the defendant engaged in such conduct and if you decide that the defendant was motivated by an awareness of guilt, you may, but are not required to, consider that evidence in deciding whether the defendant is guilty of the crimes charged. You alone will determine what weight, if any, to give to this evidence.
This also included the trial court instructing the jury that the evidence for which it could consider in determining Liming‘s guilt did not include “anything spoken by the attorneys except the stipulation of facts admitted into evidence.”
{¶ 26} After the trial court finished with its final jury instructions, the jury was excused from the courtroom to begin its deliberations. Approximately three hours and 15 minutes later, the jury returned to the courtroom with guilty verdicts finding Liming guilty of both fourth-degree felony assault on a peace officer, with the accompanying three-year firearm specification, and third-degree felony tampering with evidence. The trial court then ordered a presentence investigative report be completed and scheduled the matter for sentencing.
Liming‘s Post-Verdict Motions, Sentencing, and Appeal
{¶ 27} On November 24, 2021, Liming filed a joint motion for a new trial and motion for acquittal. Liming filed this joint motion pursuant to
The victim of the assault offense, a peace officer, suffered serious physical harm. Defendant admittedly was under a disability prohibiting defendant from possessing a firearm yet chose to disregard this disability, commit a criminal trespass, recklessly discharge the firearm causing serious physical harm to the victim who was in the act of enforcing the wildlife laws of the state of Ohio. Defendant then fled the scene of the crime, offered no assistance to the victim, and misled a law enforcement officer on the scene regarding the criminal act he had just committed.
The trial court also ordered Liming to pay court costs and notified Liming that he would be subject to an optional postrelease control term of up to two years upon his release from prison.
{¶ 28} On January 14, 2021, Liming filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court‘s judgment entry of sentence. Following several delays, which included this court granting Liming‘s motion to reopen his appeal pursuant to
Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 29} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY INSTRUCTING THE JURY AS TO THE “FLIGHT” INSTRUCTION AND BY FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY AS TO THE DEFENDANT‘S PROPOSED LIMITING INSTRUCTION AND AS TO THE LESSER
{¶ 30} In his second assignment of error, Liming argues the trial court made three errors in its instructions to the jury. After setting forth the appropriate standard of review, we will separately address each of those three alleged errors.
Jury Instructions Standard of Review
{¶ 31} “Jury instructions are matters which are left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Carreiro, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-12-236, 2013-Ohio-1103, ¶ 13. An abuse of discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the trial court‘s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State v. Boles, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2012-06-012, 2013-Ohio-5202, ¶ 14. However, although left to the trial court‘s sound discretion, the trial court must nevertheless “fully and completely give jury instructions which are relevant and necessary for the jury to weigh the evidence and discharge its duty as the fact-finder.” State v. Davis, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2015-05-015, 2016-Ohio-1166, ¶ 27. But, even then, “this court may not reverse a conviction based upon faulty jury instructions unless it is clear that the jury instructions constituted prejudicial error.” State v. Grimm, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2018-10-071, 2019-Ohio-2961, ¶ 26. “Therefore, when reviewing a trial court‘s jury instructions, this court must affirm a conviction if the trial court‘s jury instructions, when taken in their entirety, ‘fairly and correctly state the law applicable to the evidence presented at trial.‘” State v. Mott, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2022-10-067, 2023-Ohio-2268, ¶ 18, quoting Davis at ¶ 28.
Liming‘s First Argument and Analysis
{¶ 32} Liming initially argues the trial court erred by instructing the jury on flight as evidence of his consciousness of guilt. This is because, according to Liming, the “crime” for which he fled from the scene was neither of the two offenses for which he was being tried, assault and tampering with evidence. Liming instead argues that he fled from the
Liming‘s Second Argument and Analysis
{¶ 33} Liming next argues the trial court erred by failing to provide the jury with his proposed limiting instruction, “which was a correct statement of the law and was required to be given under
Liming‘s Third Argument and Analysis
{¶ 34} Liming lastly argues the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on negligent assault in violation of
Assignment of Error No. 4:
{¶ 35} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL BASED UPON ERRORS OF LAW THAT OCCURRED IN CLOSING ARGUMENT.
{¶ 36} In his fourth assignment of error, Liming argues the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial brought pursuant to
Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 37} THERE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION FOR TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RC 2921.12.
Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 38} THERE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTION IN VIOLATION OF RC 2903.13(B).
{¶ 39} In his first and third assignments of error, Liming argues the jury‘s verdicts finding him guilty of assault on a peace officer and tampering with evidence were not supported by sufficient evidence. We will separately address each of Liming‘s arguments after providing the necessary sufficient evidence standard of review.
Sufficient Evidence Standard of Review
{¶ 40} “A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence invokes a due process concern and raises the question whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support the
Assault on a Peace Officer in Violation of R.C. 2903.13(B) and (C)(6)
{¶ 41} Liming was found guilty of assault on a peace officer in violation of
{¶ 42} This also includes the fact that Liming‘s conduct was described as “completely unsafe” given Liming‘s failure to visually acquire his target not knowing what was behind his shot, as well as “extremely dangerous” given the fact that Liming was aiming in the general direction of Macedonia Road where Davis was sitting in his truck. Liming did this all while trespassing on private property that he was otherwise unfamiliar with. “A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, the person disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the person‘s conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is likely to be of a certain nature.”
Tampering with Evidence in Violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1)
{¶ 43} Liming was also found guilty of tampering with evidence in violation of
{¶ 44} The record instead indicates that, after shooting Officer Behr and then cursing at him after hearing Officer Behr ask for help, Liming fled through the woods and over towards a nearby fence. Once there, Liming then threw down his shotgun into the woods at the bottom of a honeysuckle bush, tossed off his thermal optics scope, and ran out of the woods towards Davis’ truck. The fact that Liming‘s attempts to conceal his shotgun were done haphazardly, and ultimately unsuccessfully, does not mean the state failed to prove he had tampered with that piece of evidence. The same is true as it relates to the thermal optics scope that Liming also tossed off before fleeing the scene. Therefore, because we also find there was overwhelming evidence to support the jury‘s verdict finding Liming guilty of tampering with evidence in violation of
Assignment of Error No. 5:
{¶ 45} ORIGINAL APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO PROPERLY FILE BRIEF.
{¶ 46} In his fifth assignment of error, Liming argues he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel when his original appellate counsel failed to file an appellate brief, thus prompting this court to dismiss his appeal. State v. Liming, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2022-01-001 (July 11, 2022) (Judgment Entry of Dismissal). However, given this court‘s decision to grant Liming‘s application to reopen his appeal, this court has already addressed
Conclusion
{¶ 47} For the reasons outlined above, and finding no merit to any of the five assignments of error raised by Liming herein, Liming‘s appeal challenging his conviction in this case is denied.
{¶ 48} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER and BYRNE, JJ., concur.