explanation analysis in Ohio

2023For a full explanation of her analysis, see State v. Delvallie, 2022- Ohio-470, 185 N.E.3d 536 (8th Dist.) (Laster Mays, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

2023For a full explanation of her analysis, see State v. Delvallie, 2022-Ohio-470 , 185 N.E.3d 356 (8th Dist.).

2014Groce, 2012-Ohio-5171, at ¶ 16 ; Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).

2014Groce, 2012-Ohio-5171, at ¶ 16 ; Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).

1999The purpose of an explanation requirement is “to inform the parties and potentially a reviewing court of the basis for the commission’s decision.” Yellow Freight at 142, 642 N.E.2d at 380 .

1999The purpose of an explanation requirement is “to inform the parties and potentially a reviewing court of the basis for the commission’s decision.” Yellow Freight at 142, 642 N.E.2d at 380 .

2023Comm., 85 Ohio St.3d 674 , 675-676, 710 N.E.2d 1126 (1999) (determining that the explanation requirement applicable to the Industrial Commission’s decisions as set forth in Noll likewise applies to the bureau’s orders).

2023Comm., 85 Ohio St.3d 674 , 675-676, 710 N.E.2d 1126 (1999) (determining that the explanation requirement applicable to the Industrial Commission’s decisions as set forth in Noll likewise applies to the bureau’s orders).

2020Id. at 97-98 . {¶12} The United States Supreme Court in Flowers recently reiterated the importance of the Batson procedure in “eradicat[ing] racial discrimination from the jury selection process,” thereby “protect[ing] the rights of [criminal] defendants and jurors” and “enhanc[ing] public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system.” Flowers, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. at 2242 , 204 L.Ed.2d 638 .

2020Id. at 97-98 . {¶12} The United States Supreme Court in Flowers recently reiterated the importance of the Batson procedure in “eradicat[ing] racial discrimination from the jury selection process,” thereby “protect[ing] the rights of [criminal] defendants and jurors” and “enhanc[ing] public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system.” Flowers, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. at 2242 , 204 L.Ed.2d 638 .

2020Id. at 97-98 . {¶12} The United States Supreme Court in Flowers recently reiterated the importance of the Batson procedure in “eradicat[ing] racial discrimination from the jury selection process,” thereby “protect[ing] the rights of [criminal] defendants and jurors” and “enhanc[ing] public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system.” Flowers, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. at 2242 , 204 L.Ed.2d 638 .

2017Summit No. 25735, 2011-Ohio-5776 , 2011 WL 5377953 , the Ninth Appellate District applied Special Prosecutors to hold that, after Crangle's conviction had been affirmed on direct appeal, the common pleas court had no jurisdiction to entertain his Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that the trial court had not complied with the statutory mandates concerning postrelease control.

2015Montgomery No. 19971, 2004-Ohio-3103 , -4- *3.

2014Groce, 2012-Ohio-5171, at ¶ 16 ; Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).

2012No. 07CA11, 2008-Ohio-3155 .

2011First Assignment of Error {¶ 3} “THE CONVICTION IN THIS CASE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND THE COURT FAILED TO APPLY THE CORRECT PRINCIPLES OF LAW CONCERNING DUE CARE AND PROXIMATE RESULT.” {¶ 4} On a plea of no contest to a misdemeanor offense, R.C. 2937.07 provides that a court may find the defendant guilty or not guilty based on “the explanation of the circumstances of the offense.”2 The explanation requirement “contemplates some explanation of the facts surrounding the offense [so] that the trial court does not make a finding of guilty in a perfunctory fashion.” State v. Bue

2011The statute gives “[a] defendant who pleads no contest [] a substantive right to be acquitted where the state’s statement of facts fails to establish all of the elements of the offense.” State v. Gilbo (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 332 , 337 citing Bowers, 150.

2011First Assignment of Error {¶ 3} “THE CONVICTION IN THIS CASE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND THE COURT FAILED TO APPLY THE CORRECT PRINCIPLES OF LAW CONCERNING DUE CARE AND PROXIMATE RESULT.” {¶ 4} On a plea of no contest to a misdemeanor offense, R.C. 2937.07 provides that a court may find the defendant guilty or not guilty based on “the explanation of the circumstances of the offense.”2 The explanation requirement “contemplates some explanation of the facts surrounding the offense [so] that the trial court does not make a finding of guilty in a perfunctory fashion.” State v. Bue

2007Patrick , 39 III.Dec. at 453, 404 N.E. 2d at 1044 .

2004(E.D.Va.1995), 892 F.Supp. 756, 761 , the court gave this explanation of the requirement of fit: “The distinction between ‘scientific validity’ and ‘fit’ is not always clear and the two inquiries may overlap in a particular case.

2000In Grava v. Parkman Twp . (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379 , this court adopted an expansive view of claim preclusion, holding at the syllabus that `[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.' In addition, `an existing final judgment or decree between the parties to litigation is conclusive as to all claims which were or might have been litigated in a first lawsuit.' Rogers v. Whitehall (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 67 , 69 ; Natl.

2000In Holzemer v. Urbanski (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 129 , the Supreme Court of Ohio provided the following explanation and analysis of the doctrine's current application: "Thus, in the accepted terminology of today, the type of res judicata at issue in this case is referred to as claim preclusion.

2000In Grava v. Parkman Twp . (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379 , this court adopted an expansive view of claim preclusion, holding at the syllabus that `[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.' In addition, `an existing final judgment or decree between the parties to litigation is conclusive as to all claims which were or might have been litigated in a first lawsuit.' Rogers v. Whitehall (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 67 , 69 ; Natl.

1999In Lathrop v. City of Toledo (1966), 5 Ohio St.2d 165 , the Ohio Supreme Court set forth the following explanation for this rule of law: "We think there is no hardship in requiring [private contractors], and all other parties who undertake to deal with a municipal body in respect of public improvements, to investigate the subject, and ascertain at their peril whether the preliminary steps leading up to contract, and prescribed by statute, have been taken.

1969(Emphasis supplied.) Thus it appears that the general rule in Ohio closely parallels the holding in Witherspoon , including the explanation of the principle vouchsafed by footnote 9 in the latter case. *127 The Pruett opinion does not reveal the context of the voir dire involved in that case hut concludes that unlike the situation in Witherspoon : “ * * * there is absolutely nothing in [Pruett] * * * to indicate any effort either by state legislation or by court action to exclude prospective jurors from the jury simply because of their opposition to the death penalty.” State v. Pruett, supra,