Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2009Further, this Court has previously stated that "the decision on whether the motion warrants a hearing also lies within the trial court's discretion." State v. Smith (1986), 30 Ohio App.3d 138 , 139 . {¶ 46} "Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal, like most other claims in litigation, must be raised at the earliest opportunity to do so." State v. Walker (June 20, 2000), 8th Dist. 2004Likewise, "the decision on whether the motion warrants a hearing also lies within the trial court's discretion." State v. Smith (1986), 30 Ohio App.3d 138 , 139 . {¶ 26} As stated above, appellant must first prove that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence within the 120-day period provided by Crim.R. 33(B). | 1 | 10 |
State v. Broadygreen2 sentences1983While there is some suggestion that, generally and in the interests of justice, a hearing should be held on a new trial motion to ascertain its precise basis and nature, cf., State v. Broody (1974), 41 Ohio App. 2d 17, 23-24 [ 70 O.O.2d 18 ], the trial court’s ruling on the motion, and necessarily, also, its decision on whether the motion warrants a hearing, will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that the court abused its discretion. 1983While there is some suggestion that, generally and in the interests of justice, a hearing should be held on a new trial motion to ascertain its precise basis and nature, cf., State v. Broody (1974), 41 Ohio App. 2d 17, 23-24 [ 70 O.O.2d 18 ], the trial court’s ruling on the motion, and necessarily, also, its decision on whether the motion warrants a hearing, will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that the court abused its discretion. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Holmes, Unpublished Decision (3-22-2006)
green
2 sentences2017We disagree. {¶7} “A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” State v. Davis, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 12CA010256, 2013-Ohio-846, ¶ 6 . “‘Likewise, the decision on whether the motion warrants a hearing also lies within the trial court’s discretion.’” State v. 4 Holmes, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 05CA008711, 2006-Ohio-1310, ¶ 8 , quoting State v. Starling, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 01AP-1344, 2002-Ohio-3683 , ¶ 10. 2013No. 05CA008711, 2006-Ohio-1310, ¶ 8 , citing State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990), paragraph one of the syllabus. “‘Likewise, the decision on whether the motion warrants a hearing also lies within the trial court’s discretion.’” Holmes at ¶ 8, quoting State v. Starling, 10th Dist. | 3 | 2007–2017 |
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence2017We disagree. {¶7} “A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” State v. Davis, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 12CA010256, 2013-Ohio-846, ¶ 6 . “‘Likewise, the decision on whether the motion warrants a hearing also lies within the trial court’s discretion.’” State v. 4 Holmes, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 05CA008711, 2006-Ohio-1310, ¶ 8 , quoting State v. Starling, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 01AP-1344, 2002-Ohio-3683 , ¶ 10. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Schiebel
green
1 sentence2013No. 05CA008711, 2006-Ohio-1310, ¶ 8 , citing State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990), paragraph one of the syllabus. “‘Likewise, the decision on whether the motion warrants a hearing also lies within the trial court’s discretion.’” Holmes at ¶ 8, quoting State v. Starling, 10th Dist. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence2009No. 74773, at *6, citing State v. Williams (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 454 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Pinkerman
green
1 sentence2007No. 01CA17, 2002-Ohio-6130 , ¶ 29 citing State v. Pinkerman , 88 Ohio App.3d 158 , 160 . "`Likewise, the decision on whether the motion warrants a hearing also lies within the trial court's discretion.'" State v. Holmes , 9th Dist. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. LaMar
green
1 sentence2002State v. LaMar (1995), 95 Ohio St.3d 181 . {¶ 11} In the case sub judice, the appellant claims additional DNA swabs were taken during the initial examination of the victim and that the appellant was never given the results of those tests. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Mathis
green
1 sentence2002If it is made to appear by clear and convincing proof that the defendant was unavoidably prevented from the discovery of the evidence upon which he must rely, such motion shall be filed within seven days from an order of the court finding that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence within the one hundred twenty-day period." Clear and convincing proof "produces in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established." State v. Mathis (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 77 , 79 . {¶ 11} The record indicates the trial court never issued an or | 1 | 2002–2002 |