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.
10 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2025 1 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. Schleegreen2 sentences2014See State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2008-Ohio- 545, 882 N.E.2d 431 , ¶ 12. {¶6} But the postconviction statutes did not confer upon the common pleas court jurisdiction to entertain the motion on its merits, because the motion did not satisfy either the time restrictions of R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) or the jurisdictional requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A)(1). 2008R. 60(B) motion in the recent case of State v. Schlee , 117 Ohio St.3d 153 , 2008-Ohio-545 . {¶ 3} Clearly, Payne's motion was not filed within the time permitted for the filing of a petition for post-conviction relief. | 1 | 2 |
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Cloyesgreen1 sentence2025Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Cloyes, 2021-Ohio-3316, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.). {¶ 7} Upon review, Payne’s brief fails to substantially comply with the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure and this court’s Local Rules in several ways. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Szefcykgreen1 sentence2020As we stated in Payne III, “a convicted defendant is precluded under the doctrine of res judicata from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an appeal from that 6 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 appeal from that judgment.” Id. at ¶11, quoting State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 96 (1996). {¶21} As the Supreme Court of Ohio explained in Straley, supra, albeit in the context of a postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea where the app | 1 | 1 |
State v. Laniergreen2 sentences2014See State v. Harris, 122 Ohio St.3d 373 , 2009-Ohio-3323 , 911 N.E.2d 882 , paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Lanier, 192 Ohio App.3d 762 , 2011-Ohio-898 , 950 N.E.2d 600, ¶ 20-23 (1st Dist.). {¶10} Accordingly, I would overrule the state’s assignment of error and affirm the judgment granting Payne’s motion. 2014See State v. Harris, 122 Ohio St.3d 373 , 2009-Ohio-3323 , 911 N.E.2d 882 , paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Lanier, 192 Ohio App.3d 762 , 2011-Ohio-898 , 950 N.E.2d 600, ¶ 20-23 (1st Dist.). {¶10} Accordingly, I would overrule the state’s assignment of error and affirm the judgment granting Payne’s motion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Harris, 122 Ohio St.3d 373 , 2009-Ohio-3323 , 911 N.E.2d 882 , paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Lanier, 192 Ohio App.3d 762 , 2011-Ohio-898 , 950 N.E.2d 600, ¶ 20-23 (1st Dist.). {¶10} Accordingly, I would overrule the state’s assignment of error and affirm the judgment granting Payne’s motion. 2014See State v. Harris, 122 Ohio St.3d 373 , 2009-Ohio-3323 , 911 N.E.2d 882 , paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Lanier, 192 Ohio App.3d 762 , 2011-Ohio-898 , 950 N.E.2d 600, ¶ 20-23 (1st Dist.). {¶10} Accordingly, I would overrule the state’s assignment of error and affirm the judgment granting Payne’s motion. | 1 | 1 |
Payne v. Jeffreysgreen1 sentence2012See also Payne v. Jeffreys, 109 Ohio St.3d 239 , 2006-Ohio-2288 , ¶ 6 (noting that R.C. 2939.20 was satisfied where the words “a true bill” were preprinted on an indictment form and the grand jury foreperson subscribed his name under that endorsement.). {¶8} In this case, the trial court properly denied Payne’s motion to dismiss the indictment. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Olanored2 sentences2007C {¶ 21} Because Blakely was announced prior to Payne’s plea and sentence, and because we conclude that the error is not structural, in failing to make a Blakely objection, Payne forfeited the issue for appellate purposes. {¶ 22} At this point, we note that this case involves forfeiture rather than waiver. 2 The distinction between these two terms is critical. {¶ 23} Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a right, and waiver of a right “cannot form the basis of any claimed error under Crim.R. 52(B).” State v. McKee (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 292, 299 , 744 N.E.2d 737 , fn. 3 (Co 2007C {¶ 21} Because Blakely was announced prior to Payne’s plea and sentence, and because we conclude that the error is not structural, in failing to make a Blakely objection, Payne forfeited the issue for appellate purposes. {¶ 22} At this point, we note that this case involves forfeiture rather than waiver. 2 The distinction between these two terms is critical. {¶ 23} Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a right, and waiver of a right “cannot form the basis of any claimed error under Crim.R. 52(B).” State v. McKee (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 292, 299 , 744 N.E.2d 737 , fn. 3 (Co | 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. Hill
green
2 sentences2008However, a claim of plain error survives. {¶ 8} The Supreme Court of Ohio, following Washington v. Recuenco (2006), 548 U.S.___, 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 2553 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 , held that a Blakely type of error *Page 4 should be analyzed pursuant to Crim.R. 52, as a nonstructural constitutional error. 1 As Payne failed to establish that his sentence would have been different "absent the error," State v. Hill (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 191 , 203 , the court held that there was no plain error. {¶ 9} Finally, the court addressed Payne's claim that the use of the word "void" by the Foster court in describing 2007However, a claim of plain error survives. {¶ 8} The Supreme Court of Ohio, following Washington v. Recuenco (2006), ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2546 , held that a Blakely type of error should be analyzed pursuant to Crim.R. 52, as a nonstructural constitutional error. 1 As Payne failed to *Page 4 establish that his sentence would have been different "absent the error," State v Hill (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 191 , 203 , the court held that there was no plain error. {¶ 9} Finally, the court addressed Payne's claim that the use of the word "void" by the Foster court in describing his sentence requires th | 2 | 2007–2008 |
Washington v. Recuenco
green
2 sentences2008However, a claim of plain error survives. {¶ 8} The Supreme Court of Ohio, following Washington v. Recuenco (2006), 548 U.S.___, 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 2553 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 , held that a Blakely type of error *Page 4 should be analyzed pursuant to Crim.R. 52, as a nonstructural constitutional error. 1 As Payne failed to establish that his sentence would have been different "absent the error," State v. Hill (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 191 , 203 , the court held that there was no plain error. {¶ 9} Finally, the court addressed Payne's claim that the use of the word "void" by the Foster court in describing 2008However, a claim of plain error survives. {¶ 8} The Supreme Court of Ohio, following Washington v. Recuenco (2006), 548 U.S.___, 126 S.Ct. 2546 , 2553 , 165 L.Ed.2d 466 , held that a Blakely type of error *Page 4 should be analyzed pursuant to Crim.R. 52, as a nonstructural constitutional error. 1 As Payne failed to establish that his sentence would have been different "absent the error," State v. Hill (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 191 , 203 , the court held that there was no plain error. {¶ 9} Finally, the court addressed Payne's claim that the use of the word "void" by the Foster court in describing | 2 | 2007–2008 |
State v. Ketterer
green
2 sentences2020As we stated in Payne III, “a convicted defendant is precluded under the doctrine of res judicata from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an appeal from that 6 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 appeal from that judgment.” Id. at ¶11, quoting State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 96 (1996). {¶21} As the Supreme Court of Ohio explained in Straley, supra, albeit in the context of a postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea where the app 2020As we stated in Payne III, “a convicted defendant is precluded under the doctrine of res judicata from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an appeal from that 6 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 appeal from that judgment.” Id. at ¶11, quoting State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 96 (1996). {¶21} As the Supreme Court of Ohio explained in Straley, supra, albeit in the context of a postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea where the app | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Straley (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2020As we stated in Payne III, “a convicted defendant is precluded under the doctrine of res judicata from raising and litigating in any proceeding, except an appeal from that 6 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 appeal from that judgment.” Id. at ¶11, quoting State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 96 (1996). {¶21} As the Supreme Court of Ohio explained in Straley, supra, albeit in the context of a postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea where the app | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. McKee
green
2 sentences2007C {¶ 21} Because Blakely was announced prior to Payne’s plea and sentence, and because we conclude that the error is not structural, in failing to make a Blakely objection, Payne forfeited the issue for appellate purposes. {¶ 22} At this point, we note that this case involves forfeiture rather than waiver. 2 The distinction between these two terms is critical. {¶ 23} Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a right, and waiver of a right “cannot form the basis of any claimed error under Crim.R. 52(B).” State v. McKee (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 292, 299 , 744 N.E.2d 737 , fn. 3 (Co 2007C {¶ 21} Because Blakely was announced prior to Payne’s plea and sentence, and because we conclude that the error is not structural, in failing to make a Blakely objection, Payne forfeited the issue for appellate purposes. {¶ 22} At this point, we note that this case involves forfeiture rather than waiver. 2 The distinction between these two terms is critical. {¶ 23} Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a right, and waiver of a right “cannot form the basis of any claimed error under Crim.R. 52(B).” State v. McKee (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 292, 299 , 744 N.E.2d 737 , fn. 3 (Co | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Westfield Insurance v. Galatis
green
1 sentence2004Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 , 2003-Ohio-5849 , which is dispositive of Payne's claim for uninsured motorist coverage. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Ishmail
green
2 sentences1989“A reviewing court cannot add matter to the record before it, which was not part of the trial court’s proceedings, and then decide the appeal on the basis of the new matter. ” (Emphasis added.) State v. Ishmail (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 402 , 8 O.O. 3d 405, 377 N.E. 2d 500 , paragraph one of the syllabus. 1989“A reviewing court cannot add matter to the record before it, which was not part of the trial court’s proceedings, and then decide the appeal on the basis of the new matter. ” (Emphasis added.) State v. Ishmail (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 402 , 8 O.O. 3d 405, 377 N.E. 2d 500 , paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.