 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Hardin, Court of Appeals No. L-06-1194,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LUCAS COUNTY, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's substantial cognitive progress from rehabilitation following head trauma suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident supported a determination after a follow-up competency evaluation under R.C. § 2945.38(B)(1) that he was competent to stand trial.
|
|||||
| State v. Henson, APPEAL NO. C-060320,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY, February 23, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred when it provided a jury in defendant's criminal trial with the victim's written statement, based on the jury's request, as the statement was a recorded recollection under Evid. R. 803(5) that was only admissible upon the offer of either party; the judge had acted outside of defendant's presence.
|
|||||
| State v. Johnson, CASE NO. 2005-L-211,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LAKE COUNTY, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Totality of circumstances revealed that defendant was fully aware of the effect of his Alford plea. Trial judge complied with Crim. R. 11(C), and although defendant contended that the judge's explanation of Alford plea confused defendant, the judge explained plea to defendant, and defendant, whose counsel was present, indicated that he understood.
|
|||||
| State v. Johnson, CASE NO. 2005-L-208,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LAKE COUNTY, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since defendant had already been released upon completion of his sentence and without supervision, court could not grant relief requested by defendant because, on appeal, defendant challenged only his sentence; thus, defendant's sole assignment of error was moot.
|
|||||
| State v. McDade, Court of Appeals Nos. OT-06-001, OT-06-004,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, OTTAWA COUNTY, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's reliance on the seriousness factor under R.C. § 2929.12(B)(6) for purposes of determining the sentence to impose on defendants for child endangerment, in violation of R.C. § 2919.22(B)(6), was error, as the fact that defendants were related to the children did not make their actions in running a methamphetamine lab more serious.
|
|||||
| State v. Miller, Court of Appeals No. L-06-1235,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LUCAS COUNTY, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's denial of an inmate's motion to vacate and correct his sentence was proper, as the motion was a postconviction matter which was untimely filed under R.C. § 2953.21(A)(1)(b)(2) and it lacked merit, as Foster was inapplicable where the inmate's matter was not pending on appeal when that decision was issued.
|
|||||
| State v. Poley, C.A. CASE NO. 21301,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, February 23, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for violating Centerville, Ohio, Municipal Code § 434.03(a), assured clear distance ordinance, was supported by victim's testimony that defendant's car struck her car from behind as she slowed to stop because of heavy traffic and defendant's admission that victim's car was in front of his car in same lane prior to the rear-end collision.
|
|||||
| State v. Schmuhl, Court of Appeals No. L-06-1061,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LUCAS COUNTY, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the evidence supported a determination that defendant did not adequately warn traffic heading in an eastbound direction of his presence while backing up a passenger van with a trailered boat, he was properly convicted of improper backing, in violation of R.C. § 4511.38; the traffic violation was a strict liability offense.
|
|||||
| State v. Sok, APPEAL NO. C-060033,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY, February 23, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant's counsel may have misadvised him that his guilty plea to a weapons offense would not result in defendant's deportation, denial of defendant's plea withdrawal request was proper where the trial court properly advised defendant under R.C. § 2943.031(A) after the attorney's comments and defendant indicated that he understood.
|
|||||
| State v. Sparks, C.A. CASE NO. 2006 CA 37,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, GREENE COUNTY, February 23, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officers had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under U.S. Const. amend. IV to justify defendant's detention in light of report that vehicle in which defendant was passenger had been involved in possible abduction of female, fact that only female in vehicle had fresh blood on her, and fact that another occupant of the vehicle had new injury.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
