 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Houston, No. 06AP-662,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, February 1, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Resentencing of defendant under State v. Foster did not violate Ex Post Facto Clause. Foster did not judicially increase defendant's sentence and did not retroactively apply new statutory term to earlier committed crime. Further, at time defendant committed crimes, law did not afford him irrebuttable presumption of minimum and concurrent sentences.
|
|||||
| State v. Imburgia, No. 87917,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 1, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's Crim. R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. The trial court specifically advised defendant at least once during the plea hearing of the mandatory nature and length of his post-release control and several times that there was post-release control.
|
|||||
| State v. Morgan, No. 87793,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 1, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal challenging purported denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea was dismissed because defendant filed his notice of appeal before filing motion to withdraw, thus divesting trial court of jurisdiction to consider the motion. Further, since the trial court never ruled on motion, it was premature for appellate court to do so.
|
|||||
| State v. Parsons, No. 87971,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 1, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for forgery, under R.C. § 2913.31. The victim testified that she never signed the loan check for $ 23,500 and that the signature upon it was not hers. The creditor's president testified that when he presented the check to defendant, the victim had not signed the check.
|
|||||
| State v. Steele, Nos. 87893 & 87898,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 1, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in granting the motion in limine without stating its essential findings as required by Crim. R. 12(F). Although Crim. R. 12 allowed the trial court to rule on a motion without a full hearing, the trial court abused its discretion because it reversed its prior ruling without allowing the State to proceed with its evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. Walker, No. 87373,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 1, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of testimony from police regarding statements made by defendant's co-defendant was not violative of defendant's confrontation rights under U.S. Const. amend. VI, as it was not inculpatory of defendant and it was not used for the truth of the matter asserted; there was no Bruton violation, as the statements did not implicate defendant.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
