Published opinion, 21 May 2026 · source · PDF · 25 pages
11. Appellant’s cases to the contrary either do not support the propositions for which they are cited or are apparent fabrications (or very possibly hallucinated cases generated by one or more artificial intelligence services). In Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990), which actually exists, the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the record and held that under the totality of the circumstances the trial court had substantially complied with Crim.R.
Once again, that case did not feature a missing or destroyed plea transcript or the presumption of regularity. We agree with Shaker Heights that the remaining cases cited by appellant in support of this assignment of error appear to be fabrications or hallucinations. We therefore decline to consider any of the propositions for which he cites them.
Accordingly, there is no merit to appellant ’s argument “that the trial court erred or abused its discretion in denying his motion without explanation.” Said at ¶ 35. Notably, appellant again cites cases that either do not stand for the propositions for which he offers them or that appear to be fabricated or hallucinated. State v.
Neither case stands for either proposition. As noted above, the remaining cases appellant cites in support of his second assignment of error are either hallucinated or fabricated. We decline to address any associated statements of law.
Xie has no bearing on appellant’s right to a hearing on his postsentence motion. The two additional cases appellant cites appear to be hallucinations or fabrications. We decline to address the associated propositions of law.