 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Myles, Appellate Case No. 21451,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, January 19, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant's counsel filed a "hybrid Anders" brief in order to raise a sentencing error and three potential assignments of error, such was not an Anders brief where counsel did not conclude the appeal was wholly frivolous because he asserted the sentencing error; the appellate court did not have a duty to conduct an independent review.
|
|||||
| State v. Paul, C.A. CASE NO. 06CA1681,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DARKE COUNTY, January 19, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a trial court's failure to make the required findings under R.C. § 2929.14(B) in order to impose a non-minimum term of imprisonment on defendant was error where the sentence was imposed pre-Foster, such error was moot where defendant's full sentence was served at the time that the appeal was decided.
|
|||||
| State v. Purser, C.A. CASE NO. 2006 CA 14,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, GREENE COUNTY, January 19, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly denied suppression of evidence seized from defendant's home after it determined that defendant's wife had voluntarily consented to a search of the home; the decision was based on a determination that a police detective and agency caseworker were more credible on the issue of the wife's consent than the wife.
|
|||||
| State v. Richards, APPEAL NO. C-050938,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY, January 19, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly denied suppression of identification evidence in defendant's robbery trial, as the testimony identifying defendant as the perpetrator was reliable under the totality of the circumstances where the victim identified defendant from a photograph and in a one-man showup, neither of which was unnecessarily suggestive.
|
|||||
| State v. Richardson, Court of Appeals No. L-06-1038,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LUCAS COUNTY, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a trial court relied on Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2929.11 and 2929.12 in imposing a greater-than-minimum term of imprisonment on defendant, and it relied on Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2929.14(D)(1) in imposing a mandatory and consecutive term of imprisonment for a firearm specification, there was no Foster violation.
|
|||||
| State v. Salazar, Court of Appeals No. S-06-020,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SANDUSKY COUNTY, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant had previously been convicted of violating a protection order that his ex-wife had obtained due to issues of domestic violence during their marriage, a sentence of imprisonment was properly imposed upon his second conviction, in violation of R.C. § 2919.27(A)(1) and (B)(3).
|
|||||
| State v. Theisler, CASE NO. 2005-T-0106,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, TRUMBULL COUNTY, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to establish the offense of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, under R.C. § 2923.32. Defendant was convicted of multiple offenses of drug trafficking, his conduct constituted a "pattern of corrupt activity," as defined by R.C. § 2923.31(E), and he participated in the affairs of an enterprise, a medical clinic.
|
|||||
| State v. Violet, C.A. CASE NO. 05CA0097,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, GREENE COUNTY, January 19, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for robbery, in violation of R.C. § 2911.02(A)(3), where a driver testified that upon giving defendant a ride, defendant restrained the driver against his seat, stuck something into his side which defendant indicated was a gun, and demanded the driver's money.
|
|||||
| State v. Williams, CASE NOS. 2005-L-213, and 2005-L-214,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LAKE COUNTY, January 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No need to appoint an investigator or medical expert was shown, and funds approved for a forensic expert did not have to be released until a bill was presented. The Sixth Amendment did not bar a psychologist's report at a sexual predator hearing, and R.C. § 2901.07, allowing collecting defendant's DNA in prison, did not offend the Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
