Volume 223 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

Self-Defense Burden of Production Miranda Warnings Custodial Interrogation Waiver Jury Instruction Plain Error Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Other Acts Inextricably Intertwined. Evidence of acts that are inextricably intertwined with the crime charged are not prohibited under Evid.R. 404(B). A defendant carries the burden of production in establishing the affirmative defense of self-defense. If this affirmative defense is successfully raised, the State then has the burden of persuasion. For statements given by a defendant during custodial interrogation to be admissible, the police must have complied with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The process of reviewing whether a defendant is in custody at the time challenged statements were made presents mixed questions of fact and law.

Criminal. Procedure on reopened appeal. App.R. 26(B)(9). Appellate court has no choice but to confirm prior judgment where, on reopened appeal allowed by App.R. 26(B), Appellant fails to argue that appellate counsel's assistance was ineffective as required by the two-part process described in App.R. 26(B)(9) and set forth in State v. Leyh, 166 Ohio St.3d 365, 2022-Ohio-292, 185 N.E.3d 1075, and State v. Calhoun, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29604, 2022-Ohio-4269.

Appellant appeals vandalism convictions. Appellant moved for a new trial based on claim of undisclosed restitution evidence. Trial court did not abuse discretion denying new trial. Undisclosed evidence did not demonstrate strong possibility of changed result. Appellant did not meet his burden to demonstrate the materiality of the evidence.

Trial court abuses its discretion in the denial of a petition for a certificate of qualification for employment where the trial court does not consider the statutory rebuttable presumption of eligibility under R.C. 2953.25(C)(5).

Marsy's Law Mootness Doctrine. Victim-appellant's appeal challenging the trial court's decision to exclude her from the courtroom during portions of defendant's trial is moot and none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply.

CIV.R. 12(B)(1) – JURISDICTION – DISMISSAL: Because appellee, Ohio Adult Parole Authority, is part of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction—a state agency—and is not an agency of a political subdivision of the state, R.C. 2506.01(A) did not give the trial court subject-matter jurisdiction to consider appellant's "appeal" from the parole board's decision denying him release on parole. Accordingly, trial court did not err in granting appellee's motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) and dismissing the civil action below. Judgment affirmed.

On petition for reinstatement.