 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Holdcroft, CASE NUMBER 16-06-07,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, WYANDOT COUNTY, February 12, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's denial of an inmate's motion to vacate or set aside and modify his sentence was proper, as it was untimely under R.C. § 2953.21(A)(2) and the exceptions under R.C. § 2953.23 were inapplicable; there was no merit to the claim, as arson and aggravated arson were not allied offenses of similar import under R.C. § 2941.25(A).
|
|||||
| State v. Horger, Case No. 2006CA00294,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, STARK COUNTY, February 12, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred when it ordered the State to produce the child victim's grand jury testimony, pursuant to Crim. R. 6(E), because it had not yet held an in camera inspection of the grand jury testimony by the trial court. Thus, the relinquishment of the transcript to defendant was premature.
|
|||||
| State v. McKinney, CASE NUMBER 14-06-23,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, UNION COUNTY, February 12, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for domestic violence, in violation of R.C. § 2919.25(A), violated the Defense of Marriage Amendment, Ohio Const. art. XV, § 11, as his criminal conduct was directed at the woman with whom he cohabitated, although they were not married, and the relationship in R.C. § 2919.25(A) approximated marriage.
|
|||||
| State v. Moyer, CASE NO. 06-CO-24,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COLUMBIANA COUNTY, February 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's nonminimum sentence was reversed because the trial court's imposition of the sentence was based on R.C. § 2929.14(B), which the Ohio Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional in State v. Foster as violative of the Sixth Amendment, in that the statute required judicial finding of facts not proven to a jury or admitted by the defendant.
|
|||||
| State v. Roberson, Case No. 2006CA00155,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, STARK COUNTY, February 12, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's contention that trial court's action in conducting resentencing hearing to re-advise him of his post-release control obligations, which had not been journalized in original sentencing entry, violated his rights under due process and double jeopardy provisions of state constitution was rejected for the reasons set forth in State v. Rich.
|
|||||
| State v. Runyon, CASE NO. CA2005-06-157,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, BUTLER COUNTY, February 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's repeat violent offender specification sentence, under R.C. § 2929.14(D)(2)(b), was reversed because the statute unconstitutionally required judicial fact-finding, but his conviction in another state for second degree robbery was equal to a first or second degree felony in Ohio, supporting a finding that he was a repeat violent offender.
|
|||||
| State v. Sarver, CASE NO. 05-CO-53,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COLUMBIANA COUNTY, February 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since defendant and the trial court were aware that the culpable mental state of recklessness, R.C. § 2901.22(C), was an element of child endangering, R.C. § 2919.22(B)(3), the indictment was implicitly amended to include the recklessness element and defendant was not prejudiced by the omission of the element of recklessness from the indictment.
|
|||||
| State v. Scarbro, C. A. No. 06CA008951,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LORAIN COUNTY, February 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Crim. R. 32.1, as defendant was represented by competent counsel, he had a full hearing before entering his plea, and he did not offer a reasonable and legitimate reason for the plea withdrawal.
|
|||||
| State v. Schroyer, CASE NO. CA 2006-08-064,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CLERMONT COUNTY, February 12, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's motion for correction of an unlawful sentence was properly classified as a petition for postconviction relief, and as it was a successive petition of that nature, it was properly denied because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
