shall conduct hearing in Ohio

2022Summit No. 24967, 2010-Ohio-3006 , ¶ 11, citing State v. Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295 , 2007–Ohio–4163, ¶ 8. {¶16} R.C. 2323.42(A) provides for the filing of a good faith motion by a medical malpractice defendant: Upon the motion of any defendant in a civil action based upon a medical claim, dental claim, optometric claim, or chiropractic claim, the court shall conduct a hearing regarding the existence or nonexistence of a reasonable good faith basis upon which the particular claim is asserted against the moving defendant.

2022The Ohio Supreme Court has interpreted R.C. 2152.84(A) to stand for the following: “Thus, every child classified after an R.C. 2152.83(B)(2) hearing — whether the court decides to classify the juvenile at disposition or after release from a secure facility — will receive at the completion of his or her disposition a hearing regarding whether the classification continues to be appropriate.” In re I.A., 140 Ohio St.3d 203 , 2014-Ohio-3155 , 16 N.E.3d 653, ¶ 17 .

2022The Ohio Supreme Court has interpreted R.C. 2152.84(A) to stand for the following: “Thus, every child classified after an R.C. 2152.83(B)(2) hearing — whether the court decides to classify the juvenile at disposition or after release from a secure facility — will receive at the completion of his or her disposition a hearing regarding whether the classification continues to be appropriate.” In re I.A., 140 Ohio St.3d 203 , 2014-Ohio-3155 , 16 N.E.3d 653, ¶ 17 .

2020Montgomery No. 25298, 2013-Ohio-1825, ¶ 13 , citing State v. Rice, 180 Ohio App.3d 599 , 2009-Ohio-162 , 906 N.E.2d 506 (2d Dist.).

2020Montgomery No. 25298, 2013-Ohio-1825, ¶ 13 , citing State v. Rice, 180 Ohio App.3d 599 , 2009-Ohio-162 , 906 N.E.2d 506 (2d Dist.).

2020Montgomery No. 25298, 2013-Ohio-1825, ¶ 13 , citing State v. Rice, 180 Ohio App.3d 599 , 2009-Ohio-162 , 906 N.E.2d 506 (2d Dist.).

2018Brown v. Levin, 119 Ohio St.3d 335 , 2008- Ohio-4081, 894 N.E.2d 35, ¶ 28 .

2018Brown v. Levin, 119 Ohio St.3d 335 , 2008- Ohio-4081, 894 N.E.2d 35, ¶ 28 .

2017Montgomery No. 25261, 2013-Ohio-2350 , 2013 WL 2566930 , ¶ 10, citing State v. Massien , 125 Ohio St.3d 204 , 2010-Ohio-1864 , 926 N.E.2d 1282 , ¶ 9. {¶ 8} R.C. 2951.041(A)(1) provides that "[T]he court may reject an offender's [ILC] request without a hearing." However, "[i]f the court elects to consider an offender's request, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the offender is eligible ... for [ILC] ..." "If the court schedules a hearing, the court shall order an assessment of the offender for the purpose of determining the offender's eligibility for [ILC] and recommending

2017Montgomery No. 25261, 2013-Ohio-2350 , 2013 WL 2566930 , ¶ 10, citing State v. Massien , 125 Ohio St.3d 204 , 2010-Ohio-1864 , 926 N.E.2d 1282 , ¶ 9. {¶ 8} R.C. 2951.041(A)(1) provides that "[T]he court may reject an offender's [ILC] request without a hearing." However, "[i]f the court elects to consider an offender's request, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the offender is eligible ... for [ILC] ..." "If the court schedules a hearing, the court shall order an assessment of the offender for the purpose of determining the offender's eligibility for [ILC] and recommending

2017Montgomery No. 25261, 2013-Ohio-2350 , 2013 WL 2566930 , ¶ 10, citing State v. Massien , 125 Ohio St.3d 204 , 2010-Ohio-1864 , 926 N.E.2d 1282 , ¶ 9. {¶ 8} R.C. 2951.041(A)(1) provides that "[T]he court may reject an offender's [ILC] request without a hearing." However, "[i]f the court elects to consider an offender's request, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the offender is eligible ... for [ILC] ..." "If the court schedules a hearing, the court shall order an assessment of the offender for the purpose of determining the offender's eligibility for [ILC] and recommending

2016In re D.C.J., 8th Dist Cuyahoga Nos. 97681 and 97776, 2012-Ohio-4154, ¶ 67 . {¶15} Therefore, in accordance with Cuyahoga C.P.

2016Geauga No. 2013-G-3175, 2014-Ohio-4880, ¶ 18 . {¶23} Juv.R. 17(B)(4) provides in pertinent part: (e) Upon motion for Guardian ad litem fees to be paid by the parties, the Court shall conduct a hearing to determine 1) the amount of time the Guardian ad litem has expended to represent the best interests of the child; 2) whether the time and services rendered were reasonable and necessary in the Guardian ad litem’s representation of the best interests of the child; 3) whether the Guardian ad litem’s hourly rate is commensurate with customary fees in this locality; and 4) the amount each party sha

2013State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 , 2006- Ohio-160, ¶ 130. {¶ 6} While Crawford argues the trial court should have conducted a hearing before denying his request, R.C. 2951.041(A)(1) specifically states that "the court may reject an offender's request without a hearing." The only time a hearing is required by the statute is "if -2- Fayette CA2012-10-034 the court elects to consider an offender's request," at which time, "the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the offender is eligible under this section for intervention in lieu of conviction and shall stay all criminal proceed

2008At the hearing, counsel may be heard on oral argument, briefs may be submitted, and evidence may be introduced if the court has granted a request for the presentation of additional evidence." {¶ 22} In Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Bd. v. Central Cadillac Co. (1984), 14 Ohio St. 3d 64 , 471 N.E.2d 488 , the Ohio Supreme Court addressed whether R.C. 119.12 requires the common pleas court to conduct an oral hearing on an appeal from an agency adjudication.

2008At the hearing, counsel may be heard on oral argument, briefs may be submitted, and evidence may be introduced if the court has granted a request for the presentation of additional evidence." {¶ 22} In Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Bd. v. Central Cadillac Co. (1984), 14 Ohio St. 3d 64 , 471 N.E.2d 488 , the Ohio Supreme Court addressed whether R.C. 119.12 requires the common pleas court to conduct an oral hearing on an appeal from an agency adjudication.

2008R.C. 2151.415 (D)(2). {¶ 7} "Temporary custody is terminated upon the passing of the sunset date, when no motion is filed pursuant to R.C. 2151.415(A)." In re Young Children (1996) 76 Ohio St.3d 632 , 637 , 669 N.E.2d 1140 (plurality).

2008R.C. 2151.415 (D)(2). {¶ 7} "Temporary custody is terminated upon the passing of the sunset date, when no motion is filed pursuant to R.C. 2151.415(A)." In re Young Children (1996) 76 Ohio St.3d 632 , 637 , 669 N.E.2d 1140 (plurality).

2008R.C. 2151.415 (D)(2) provides that, upon the *Page 6 failure of the agency to move for a second extension "prior to the expiration of the extension period, the court shall conduct a hearing * * * and issue an appropriate order of disposition." The juvenile court did not issue such an order until August 14, 2007. {¶ 8} Nonetheless, a parent "is not entitled to immediate custody of [the child] because of the sunset provision contained in R.C. 2151.353(F)." Holloway v. Clermont County Dep't of Human Servs. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 128 , 130 , 684 N.E.2d 1217 (emphasis added).

2008R.C. 2151.415 (D)(2) provides that, upon the *Page 6 failure of the agency to move for a second extension "prior to the expiration of the extension period, the court shall conduct a hearing * * * and issue an appropriate order of disposition." The juvenile court did not issue such an order until August 14, 2007. {¶ 8} Nonetheless, a parent "is not entitled to immediate custody of [the child] because of the sunset provision contained in R.C. 2151.353(F)." Holloway v. Clermont County Dep't of Human Servs. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 128 , 130 , 684 N.E.2d 1217 (emphasis added).

2008The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to three years of imprisonment in Case No. 495207, plus lesser concurrent terms 1 in the other matters. {¶ 5} Defendant now appeals and assigns two errors for our review. {¶ 6} Defendant's first assignment of error states: {¶ 7} "The trial court committed reversible error by failing to conduct the mandatory competency hearing once the issue has been raised prior to trial." {¶ 8} Pursuant to R.C. 2945.37 , {¶ 9} "(C) The court shall conduct the hearing required or authorized under division (B) of this section within thirty days after the issue is

2008The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to three years of imprisonment in Case No. 495207, plus lesser concurrent terms 1 in the other matters. {¶ 5} Defendant now appeals and assigns two errors for our review. {¶ 6} Defendant's first assignment of error states: {¶ 7} "The trial court committed reversible error by failing to conduct the mandatory competency hearing once the issue has been raised prior to trial." {¶ 8} Pursuant to R.C. 2945.37 , {¶ 9} "(C) The court shall conduct the hearing required or authorized under division (B) of this section within thirty days after the issue is

2007Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 . {¶ 15} R.C. 2705.05 provides in relevant part: "In all contempt proceedings, the court shall conduct a hearing.

2007Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 . {¶ 15} R.C. 2705.05 provides in relevant part: "In all contempt proceedings, the court shall conduct a hearing.

2005R.C. 2950.09 (C)(1)(a) provides that if a person was convicted of a violent sexual offense prior to 1997, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction "shall notify the court that sentenced the offender of this fact, and the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the offender is a sexual predator." Only when this section is inapplicable does the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction proceed under R.C. 2950.09 (C)(1)(b) and make a recommendation that the offender be adjudicated a sexual predator. {¶ 7} In State v. Austin, supra at ¶ 4 , the court held that the tri

2004Eppinger, 91 Ohio St.3d at 166 .

2003See In re Guardianship of Reynolds (1956), 103 Ohio App. 102 , 106-107 ; Horn v. Childers (1959), 116 Ohio App. 175 , 181 ; In re Koenigshoff (1954), 99 Ohio App. 39 .

2003State v. Bekesz (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 436 , 441 , 599 N.E.2d 803 .

2003State v. Bekesz (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 436 , 441 , 599 N.E.2d 803 .

2003See In re Guardianship of Reynolds (1956), 103 Ohio App. 102 , 106-107 ; Horn v. Childers (1959), 116 Ohio App. 175 , 181 ; In re Koenigshoff (1954), 99 Ohio App. 39 .

2002Pembaur v. Leis (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 89 ; Wise v. Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Bd. (1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 562 , 565 ; and In re Ghali (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 460 , 466 . {¶ 13} R.C. 2705.03 states, in pertinent part, that: {¶ 14} "* * * [A] charge in writing shall be filed with the clerk of the court, an entry thereof made upon the journal, and an opportunity given to the accused to be heard, by himself or counsel. * * *" {¶ 15} Additionally, R.C. 2705.05 (A) states, in pertinent part, that: {¶ 16} "In all contempt proceedings, the court shall conduct a hearing.

2002Pembaur v. Leis (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 89 ; Wise v. Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Bd. (1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 562 , 565 ; and In re Ghali (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 460 , 466 . {¶ 13} R.C. 2705.03 states, in pertinent part, that: {¶ 14} "* * * [A] charge in writing shall be filed with the clerk of the court, an entry thereof made upon the journal, and an opportunity given to the accused to be heard, by himself or counsel. * * *" {¶ 15} Additionally, R.C. 2705.05 (A) states, in pertinent part, that: {¶ 16} "In all contempt proceedings, the court shall conduct a hearing.

2002Pembaur v. Leis (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 89 ; Wise v. Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Bd. (1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 562 , 565 ; and In re Ghali (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 460 , 466 . {¶ 13} R.C. 2705.03 states, in pertinent part, that: {¶ 14} "* * * [A] charge in writing shall be filed with the clerk of the court, an entry thereof made upon the journal, and an opportunity given to the accused to be heard, by himself or counsel. * * *" {¶ 15} Additionally, R.C. 2705.05 (A) states, in pertinent part, that: {¶ 16} "In all contempt proceedings, the court shall conduct a hearing.