Patterson motion in Ohio

2026Commrs. of Scioto Cty., 87 Ohio App.3d 704, 711 (4th Dist. 1993), and citing Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 1996-Ohio-336, ¶ 10 . {¶33} Civ.R. 56, which governs summary judgment proceedings, provides, in relevant part: Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

2025Id. {¶ 46} Patterson’s motion to suppress claimed that the State failed to show “that canine Ure exhibited a reliable, positive operative response to an odor it is trained to detect and that this canine team is sufficiently certified, well-trained, and reliable to support probable cause.” Patterson contended that the video of the sniff failed to show any response and that even if it did, Ure alerted to the trunk while the narcotics were packaged and located in a “seemingly airtight” compartment in the front of the vehicle.

2021No. 294). {¶12} However, on September 30, 2020, the trial court issued its judgment entry dismissing Patterson’s motion to correct a void judgment determining that, in light of the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480 , 2020-Ohio-2913 , a hearing was no longer necessary because Patterson’s motion was dismissed on the basis that it was now barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

2021No. 294). {¶12} However, on September 30, 2020, the trial court issued its judgment entry dismissing Patterson’s motion to correct a void judgment determining that, in light of the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480 , 2020-Ohio-2913 , a hearing was no longer necessary because Patterson’s motion was dismissed on the basis that it was now barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

2018Hamilton No. C-100096, 2011-Ohio-3144, ¶ 12 , quoting Youngblood. {¶29} The Facebook photographs depicting Peck would be at most potentially useful for Patterson’s defense.

2018Patterson, 2014-Ohio-4962 , ¶ 1-2 and 22; Decision, Order & Entry Overruling Def.’s Mot. to Withdraw Plea 9.

2014Cuyahoga No. 98360, 2012-Ohio-5894 , 984 N.E.2d 392 .

2007Id., State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136 . {¶ 40} In this assignment of error, which depends for its validity upon the validity of the previous assignment of error, Defendant argues that her trial counsel performed deficiently because he failed to renew Defendant Patterson's motion for a separate trial at the close of the State's case, after "other acts" committed by the co-defendants had been improperly admitted into evidence against Patterson in violation of Evid.R. 404(B). {¶ 41} In overruling the previous assignment of error, we concluded that the evidence concerning the thefts at O

2007Id., State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136 . {¶ 40} In this assignment of error, which depends for its validity upon the validity of the previous assignment of error, Defendant argues that her trial counsel performed deficiently because he failed to renew Defendant Patterson's motion for a separate trial at the close of the State's case, after "other acts" committed by the co-defendants had been improperly admitted into evidence against Patterson in violation of Evid.R. 404(B). {¶ 41} In overruling the previous assignment of error, we concluded that the evidence concerning the thefts at O

2005Sobiski v. Cuyahoga County Dept. of Children and Family Servs. , Cuyahoga App. No. 84086, 2004-Ohio-6108 . "[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson (1957), 355 U.S. 41 , 45-46 . {¶ 7} Additionally, appellant argues that, pursuant to Civ.R. 15(A), he should have been given leave to amend his complaint in order to cure any defects.

2004Bennett v. White , 93 Ohio St.3d 583 , 2001-Ohio-1615 , 757 N.E.2d 364 ; State ex rel.

2004Bennett v. White , 93 Ohio St.3d 583 , 2001-Ohio-1615 , 757 N.E.2d 364 ; State ex rel.

2004Bennett v. White , 93 Ohio St.3d 583 , 2001-Ohio-1615 , 757 N.E.2d 364 ; State ex rel.

2002In the case before us, as in State v. Patterson, supra, Belle's motion to dismiss could only properly challenge the sufficiency of the indictment.

2001The same conclusion was reached under similar circumstances in Patterson, supra. In Patterson, the trial court granted Patterson's motion to expunge.