LexisNexis
  

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.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
State v. Johnson, CASE NUMBER 12-06-11, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, PUTNAM COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free  

Overview: At trial on charge of failure to stop after accident under R.C. § 4549.021, evidence showed that defendant was the driver of car that struck parked truck. One eyewitness testified that she saw defendant driving the offending car right after collision, and second eyewitness testified that he saw someone matching defendant's description driving car.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
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.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
State v. Payne, No. 86280, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Released
View this case - free  

Overview: The App. R. 26(B)(5) application to reopen was denied as it was not found that appellate counsel was ineffective or that the inmate was prejudiced by appellate counsel's conduct. The inmate failed to demonstrate that he had a reasonable probability of being successful on direct appeal if his appellate counsel had raised the issues complained of.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
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).

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
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.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
State v. Sullivan, Case No. 05-COA-059, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, ASHLAND COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free  

Overview: Defendant's prison term imposed upon his conviction for aggravated possession of drugs was reversed because his sentence was based on a statute that the Supreme Court of Ohio had declared unconstitutional in State v. Foster. Defendant was entitled to re-sentencing.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
State v. Watts, CASE NO. CA2005-08-364, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, BUTLER COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free  

Overview: Denial of defendant's motion to suppress was not error. All of the statements that he made to the detectives before he was placed under formal arrest were not the product of custodial interrogation, and the detectives were not required to issue Miranda warnings to defendant before he made those statements in order for them to be deemed admissible.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
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.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Village of Granville v. Pumphrey, Case No. 2006CA00054, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LICKING COUNTY, January 22, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free  

Overview: The motion to suppress was properly granted because there was no evidence demonstrating that the specific requirement of Ohio Admin. Code § 3701-53-04(A)(1) that the blood alcohol instrument be checked to detect radio frequency interference using a hand-held radio normally used by the law enforcement agency had been met.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Back to Top
  

  www.lexisnexis.com |  About LexisNexis |  Terms & Conditions |  Customer Support |  Sitemap |  Contact Us
  CopyrightŠ 2008  LexisNexis®  All rights reserved.