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.
12 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2025 4 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. Stalnakergreen1 sentence2017Lake No. 2013-L-006, 2013-Ohio-3479, ¶12 (“the doctrine of res judicata bars a defendant from asserting the “merger” issue in a post-judgment motion for resentencing.”); State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 , 2013- Ohio-5014, ¶8 (challenges to merger issues and consecutive sentences must be brought on direct appeal). {¶10} Appellant’s assignments of error lack merit. {¶11} For the foregoing reason, the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tekulvegreen2 sentences2014(Other citation omitted.) “A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes a decision that is unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 , 2013-Ohio-966 , 986 N.E.2d 971, ¶ 34 . {¶ 11} The doctrine of res judicata bars a defendant from raising matters in a post-sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion that “ ‘ “could fairly [have] be[en] determined” in a direct appeal from his conviction, without resort to evidence outside the record.’ ” Wilson at ¶ 28, –5– quoting State v. Tekulve, 188 Ohio App.3d 792 , 2010-Ohio-3604 , 936 N.E.2d 1030, ¶ 5 (1s 2014(Other citation omitted.) “A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes a decision that is unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 , 2013-Ohio-966 , 986 N.E.2d 971, ¶ 34 . {¶ 11} The doctrine of res judicata bars a defendant from raising matters in a post-sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion that “ ‘ “could fairly [have] be[en] determined” in a direct appeal from his conviction, without resort to evidence outside the record.’ ” Wilson at ¶ 28, –5– quoting State v. Tekulve, 188 Ohio App.3d 792 , 2010-Ohio-3604 , 936 N.E.2d 1030, ¶ 5 (1s | 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. Perry
green
2 sentences2022The doctrine of res judicata bars a defendant “from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an appeal from [a final] judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial which resulted in that judgment of conviction or on an appeal from that judgment.” State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 180 , 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967). 2022The doctrine of res judicata bars a defendant “from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an appeal from [a final] judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial which resulted in that judgment of conviction or on an appeal from that judgment.” State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 180 , 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967). | 5 | 2009–2022 |
State v. Duling
green
2 sentences2021State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 161 , 679 N.E.2d 1131 (1997), citing State v. Duling, 21 Ohio St.2d 13 , 254 N.E.2d 670 (1970). 2021State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 161 , 679 N.E.2d 1131 (1997), citing State v. Duling, 21 Ohio St.2d 13 , 254 N.E.2d 670 (1970). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Reynolds
green
2 sentences2021State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 161 , 679 N.E.2d 1131 (1997), citing State v. Duling, 21 Ohio St.2d 13 , 254 N.E.2d 670 (1970). 2021State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 161 , 679 N.E.2d 1131 (1997), citing State v. Duling, 21 Ohio St.2d 13 , 254 N.E.2d 670 (1970). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Woodhouse, Unpublished Decision (11-19-2004)
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Holdcroft
green
1 sentence2017Lake No. 2013-L-006, 2013-Ohio-3479, ¶12 (“the doctrine of res judicata bars a defendant from asserting the “merger” issue in a post-judgment motion for resentencing.”); State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 , 2013- Ohio-5014, ¶8 (challenges to merger issues and consecutive sentences must be brought on direct appeal). {¶10} Appellant’s assignments of error lack merit. {¶11} For the foregoing reason, the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Darmond
green
2 sentences2014(Other citation omitted.) “A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes a decision that is unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 , 2013-Ohio-966 , 986 N.E.2d 971, ¶ 34 . {¶ 11} The doctrine of res judicata bars a defendant from raising matters in a post-sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion that “ ‘ “could fairly [have] be[en] determined” in a direct appeal from his conviction, without resort to evidence outside the record.’ ” Wilson at ¶ 28, –5– quoting State v. Tekulve, 188 Ohio App.3d 792 , 2010-Ohio-3604 , 936 N.E.2d 1030, ¶ 5 (1s 2014(Other citation omitted.) “A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes a decision that is unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 , 2013-Ohio-966 , 986 N.E.2d 971, ¶ 34 . {¶ 11} The doctrine of res judicata bars a defendant from raising matters in a post-sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion that “ ‘ “could fairly [have] be[en] determined” in a direct appeal from his conviction, without resort to evidence outside the record.’ ” Wilson at ¶ 28, –5– quoting State v. Tekulve, 188 Ohio App.3d 792 , 2010-Ohio-3604 , 936 N.E.2d 1030, ¶ 5 (1s | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn.
green
2 sentences2013Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn., 11 Ohio App.3d 158 , 463 N.E.2d 655 (1983). {¶9} The doctrine of res judicata bars a defendant from making claims in a motion to withdraw a guilty plea which he could have raised on direct appeal. 2013Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn., 11 Ohio App.3d 158 , 463 N.E.2d 655 (1983). {¶9} The doctrine of res judicata bars a defendant from making claims in a motion to withdraw a guilty plea which he could have raised on direct appeal. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Jones, 4-07-02 (10-22-2007)
green
1 sentence2009Jones , 2007-Ohio-5624 , at ¶ 1 9 , citing State v. Perry (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 175 , 180 ; see, also, State v. Deal , 3d Dist. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Calhoun
green
1 sentence2008State v. Calhoun , 86 Ohio St.3d 279 , 1999-Ohio-102 , at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 13} Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the doctrine of res judicata bars a defendant from raising any defenses or constitutional claims *Page 7 in a petition for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 that were raised or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Calhoun
green
1 sentence2008State v. Calhoun , 86 Ohio St.3d 279 , 1999-Ohio-102 , at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 13} Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the doctrine of res judicata bars a defendant from raising any defenses or constitutional claims *Page 7 in a petition for post-conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 that were raised or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.