|
| |
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 Courts -
Ohio - January 22, 2007
|
| |
State v. Hubbard, Case No. 2006CA00204,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, STARK COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a prosecution for having weapons while under disability under R.C. § 2923.13, evidence that police were told that man with gun was hiding in basement, that defendant was found in basement, and that defendant told officers that he did not reveal the location of gun because he had active warrant was sufficient to show that defendant possessed gun.
|
|
| |
|
| |
State v. Kenny, Case No. 06-COA-006,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, ASHLAND COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free
|
Overview: The trial court erred in its restitution order, pursuant to R.C. § 2929.18(A)(1), by failing to enter proper findings and a fixed amount. However, the trial court satisfied the requirements of R.C. § 2929.19(B)(6) and considered defendant's present and future ability to pay before imposing a financial sanction.
|
|
| |
|
| |
State v. Recker, CASE NUMBER 12-05-21, CASE NUMBER 12-05-22,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, PUTNAM COUNTY, January 22, 2007, DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY
View this case - free
|
Overview: The record failed to demonstrate that the jury ever found beyond a reasonable doubt that anybody was "present or likely to be present" as to the charge of complicity to burglary, under R.C. § 2911.12(A)(2), which amounted to plain error. However, there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction under R.C. § 2911.12(A)(3).
|
|
| |
State v. Sanchez, CASE NUMBER 4-06-31,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, DEFIANCE COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free
|
Overview: When defendant's case was remanded for resentencing, the trial court had no jurisdiction to consider his motion, on remand, to withdraw his no contest plea, under Crim. R. 32.1, because his conviction had been affirmed and res judicata barred his motion because it had not been raised in the initial trial court proceedings or on appeal therefrom.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
State v. Wentling, CASE NUMBER 16-06-03,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, WYANDOT COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free
|
Overview: Since the trial court considered the record, the information presented at the sentencing hearing, the presentence investigation report, and the victim impact statement when it sentenced defendant, as required by R.C. § 2929.19(B)(1), defendant's more than minimum, consecutive sentences were proper.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|