 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Guenther, C.A.No. 06CA008914,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LORAIN COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of a post-conviction relief petition was improper, under R.C. § 2953.21(C), because required findings of fact and conclusions of law were not made, and the parts of the record believed to establish res judicata were not stated. A failure to rule on a motion to amend the petition was not error because the motion was implicitly denied.
|
|||||
| State v. Ortiz, Case No. 2006CA00080,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, STARK COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in imposing a mandatory fine on defendant pursuant to R.C. § 2929.18(A)(3) upon his second degree felony drug convictions, as the trial court did not comply with R.C. § 2929.19(B)(6) when it failed to consider defendant's present and future ability to pay the fine.
|
|||||
| State v. Phillips, CASE NO. 8-06-14,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, LOGAN COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court retained its jurisdiction to resentence defendant and resentencing was the proper method to correct his void sentence. It had failed to incorporate the notice about post-release control in its sentencing entry and thus, his sentence was rendered void under former R.C. § 2967.28. The prison term had not yet expired at resentencing.
|
|||||
| State v. Poppe, CASE NO. 2-06-23,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, AUGLAIZE COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Issue presented by defendant's appeal, whether trial court erred in imposing on remand a greater sentence for violation of community control than that originally imposed, was not ripe for review. Issue would not be ripe for review unless and until defendant violated his community control, and trial court imposed sentence after a sentencing hearing.
|
|||||
| State v. Rorie, Case No. 2006CA00181,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, STARK COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence to a maximum term of imprisonment upon remand for resentencing pursuant to Foster did not violate the ex post facto clause and it did not violate defendant's due process rights, as the Foster holding affected punishment rather than the criminal act, and defendant had sufficient notice of the possible consequences thereof.
|
|||||
| State v. Smith, Case No. 2006CA00057,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, STARK COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to counsel, under Crim. R. 44(C), as the trial court adequately covered the issues of possible defenses and circumstances in mitigation given defendant's statement that he had a strategy prepared.
|
|||||
| State v. Strunk, CASE NO. CA2006-04-046,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, WARREN COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge for failing to give an instruction on entrapment, under R.C. § 2901.05(A). Defendant's testimony at trial was not evidence of entrapment because his defense was based on the claims that he did not know that the furniture was stolen and that the money laundering was legitimate.
|
|||||
| State v. Williams, CASE NO. CA2006-04-014,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FAYETTE COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since, prior to the expiration of his sentence, defendant received proper notification of post-release control requirements which were incorporated into a judgment entry resentencing defendant to post-release control, the trial court's action in resentencing defendant to a mandatory term of post-release control was proper.
|
|||||
| Varner v. Varner, C. A. No. 06CA0024,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, WAYNE COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A failure to include day care costs when calculating child support was error, under R.C. §§ 3119.021 and 3119.022, and work a husband did on the marital home before the parties married was his separate property for which he was entitled to a credit, but he did not show the money he used to buy items for the home came solely from his separate funds.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
