From this, defendant concludes that he would have had a better chance of acquittal if tried to a jury. However, defendant's conclusion is pure unsupported speculation. Without supporting evidence, the mere claim that a jury would have believed defendant falls far short of establishing a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. In his second assignment of error, defendant maintains that his conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence, or, in the alternative, that it stands against the manifest weight of the evidence. Sufficient evidence, and that which is considered to be the manifest weight of the evidence, are legal concepts which are both quantitatively and qualitatively different.
Sufficient evidence is evidence which is legally sufficient to support a verdict.
When reviewing a conviction challenged on the basis of the sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence must be construed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, and the reviewing court must determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. No. 93AP-387, unreported. Stated alternatively, the verdict of the trial court will not be disturbed unless the appellate court finds that reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion reached by the trier of fact. However, the test for reviewing the manifest weight of the evidence is different. Although a court of appeals may determine that a judgment of a trial court is sustained by sufficient evidence, that court may nevertheless conclude that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence.