No. C-010206, 2001 WL 1386188. 53 . See Cincinnati v. Howard, 179 Ohio App.3d 60, 2008-Ohio-5502, 900 N.E.2d 689. 54 . State v. Krebs (Nov. 20, 1991), 1st Dist. No. C-910135, 1991 WL 243622. 55 . State v. Ussery (Mar. 4, 1987), 1st Dist. No. C-860108, 1987 WL 7422. 56 . State v. Bybee (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 395, 731 N.E.2d 232. 57 . State v. Paulo, 1st Dist. No. C-050725, 2006-Ohio-4035, 2006 WL 2241698. 58 . State v. John hio-954, 926 N.E.2d 278. 63 . R.C. 2925.03(D)(2) and 2967.01(0). 64 . Strattman v. Studt (1969), 20 Ohio St.2d 95, 49 O.O.2d 428, 253 N.E.2d 749, paragraph six of the syllabus (quoted in Joseph at ¶ 20). 65 . Id. 66 . State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277, 2006-Ohio-905, 843 N.E.2d 164, ¶ 15 (quoted in Joseph at ¶ 20). 67 . Joseph at ¶ 18. 68 . See Simpkins at ¶ 20 (<HOLDING>); Purdy, supra. 69 . See Hernandez v. Kelly,
holding that a ruling of the trial court to which no error has been assigned becomes the law of the case and is not subject to review by the court of appeals holding that the sentence entered by the circuit court was illegal because the court had no authority to impose a sentence that exceeded the punishment fixed by the jury holding that a trial court is not required to reimpose the original sentence but has discretion to impose a new sentence within the statutory limits governing the offense for which she was convicted holding that no court has the authority to substitute a different sentence for that which is required by law holding that a states law is materially different from california law if application of the other states law leads to a different result