 |
|
 |
|
|
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 ex rel. Lynch v. Indus. Comm'n, No. 05AP-1233,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence supported the Ohio Industrial Commission's finding that the employee was engaged in sustained remunerative employment during the time that he was receiving PTD benefits, pursuant to R.C. § 4123.58, because he did not contest that he was convicted of and engaged in the illicit sale of drugs over a substantial period of time.
|
|||||
| State v. Berry, No. 87493,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant was proper, as the affidavit contained sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for issuance of the warrant for purposes of the Fourth Amendment; the information was not so stale as to render it invalid.
|
|||||
| State v. Brown, No. 87947,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not consider any irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent evidence in rendering its decision. The error, under Evid. R. 404(B) and/or 403, if any, in the admission of the evidence that defendant had been seen on other occasions carrying a gun was harmless as the testimony did not contribute to defendant's convictions.
|
|||||
| State v. Burnett, No. 87506,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was ample evidence that, pursuant to R.C. § 2923.03, defendant aided and abetted the principal offenders in the commission of the robbery that resulted in the murder of the victim. Defendant actively participated in planning and preparing to commit the crime and in disposing of the car and knife used in the commission of the crime.
|
|||||
| State v. Cortez, No. 87871,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made as the trial court failed to advise defendant of post-release control, under R.C. § 2943.032(E). Without an adequate explanation of post-release control from the trial court, defendant could not have fully understood the consequences of his plea, as required by Crim. R. 11(C).
|
|||||
| State v. Exline, No. 87945,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court complied with Crim. R. 11(C) where it informed defendant of the rights that he was waiving by entering a guilty plea, such that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered; the trial court did not have to advise defendant of his right to testify at trial or of his right to assert self-defense.
|
|||||
| State v. Halloman-Cross, No. 88159,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was nothing to suggest that defendant's plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. The trial court did not promise that defendant would be sentenced to the minimum term, but merely stated that the minimum term was the starting point. The trial court complied with Crim. R. 11(C) prior to accepting the plea.
|
|||||
| State v. Harris, No. 87914,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported the convictions for aggravated robbery and felonious assault, under R.C. §§ 2911.01 and 2903.11. The man who committed the robbery testified that defendant helped plan the robbery. She waited with him and returned to the victim's home with the man hiding in the back seat, where police discovered him.
|
|||||
| State v. Jolly, No. 87800,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's consecutive sentences were vacated because the sentences were imposed under S.B. 2, Gen. Assem. (Ohio), which the Ohio Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional. However, defendant's guilty plea was not rendered involuntary or unintelligent by virtue of the fact that the law had changed since the time that he entered the plea.
|
|||||
| State v. Lee, No. 87972,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for theft, in violation of R.C. § 2913.02(A), and of possession of criminal tools were supported by sufficient evidence where he was observed entering a department store with an empty bag, passing a table with sweaters that was thereafter empty, and then leaving the store with the unpaid sweaters in his bag.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
