 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Taylor, No. 87700,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence in trial on charge of having weapon while under disability under R.C. § 2923.13(A) was sufficient to show that defendant had, carried, or used firearm as victim testified that he saw defendant brandish gun and that defendant hit him in face with the butt of gun. Circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish that the gun was operable.
|
|||||
| State v. Thiam, No. 87981,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported the conviction for burglary, under R.C. § 2911.12(A)(4). The element of force was established as there was evidence that the front door was closed and locked and the back screen door was also locked, so that defendant had to exert some violence upon one of the doors to enter the house while the victim was inside.
|
|||||
| State v. Trewartha, No. 06AP-654,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The imposition of consecutive sentences for crimes committed prior to the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in State v. Foster did not violate defendant's due process rights or ex post facto principles because Foster did not judicially increase defendant's sentence, and it did not retroactively apply a new statutory term to an earlier committed crime.
|
|||||
| State v. Ward, Case No. 2005-CA-0092,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, RICHLAND COUNTY, January 25, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant failed to file timely notices of appeal under App. R. 3 and 4(A) from trial court orders that denied his motion to withdraw his plea and denied him jail time credit for a period where he was electronically monitored under house arrest, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the asserted errors; the appeal was dismissed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
