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.
8 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Voorhiesgreen2 sentences2016Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345 , 2008–Ohio–4479, 894 N.E.2d 44 , ¶ 10–11 (“allied-offense claims are non-jurisdictional,” and, thus, barred by the doctrine of res judicata where they were raised, or could have been raised, on direct appeal); see also State v. Simons, 2d Dist. 2016Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345 , 2008–Ohio–4479, 894 N.E.2d 44 , ¶ 10–11 (“allied-offense claims are non-jurisdictional,” and, thus, barred by the doctrine of res judicata where they were raised, or could have been raised, on direct appeal); see also State v. Simons, 2d Dist. | 5 | 8 |
State v. Reynoldsgreen1 sentence2014State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158, 160 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ali v. State
green
2 sentences2013Further, as the State argues in its brief, Defendant cannot rely on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Johnson because “[a] new judicial ruling may be applied only to cases that are pending on the announcement date. * * * The new judicial ruling may not be applied retroactively to a conviction that has become final, i.e., where the accused has exhausted all of his appellate remedies.” (Citations omitted.) Ali v. State, 104 Ohio St.3d 328 , 2004-Ohio-6592 , 819 –9– N.E.2d 687, ¶ 6. 2012Since Defendant’s sentence, assuming his allied offense argument had merit, would be voidable, he is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from challenging his sentence on those grounds collaterally through his “Motion to Correct Void Judgment or Sentence.” Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345 , 2008-Ohio-4479 , 894 N.E.2d 44, ¶ 10-11 (“allied-offense claims are nonjurisdictional,” and, thus, barred by the doctrine of res judicata where they were raised, or could have been raised, on direct appeal). {¶ 11} Further, as the State argues in its brief, Defendant cannot rely on the Supreme Court’ | 2 | 2012–2013 |
State v. Simons
green
1 sentence2016Champaign No. 2013 CA 5, 2013-Ohio-3654, ¶ 41-42 . {¶ 21} Berryman’s sole assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 22} Berryman’s sole assignment of error having been overruled, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. -9- .......... | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Parson
green
1 sentence2014No. 24641, 2012-Ohio-730, ¶ 10 , citing Smith v. Voorhies, 119 Ohio St.3d 345 , 2008-Ohio-4479 , 894 N.E.2d 44 , ¶ 10-11 for the proposition that “‘allied- offense claims are nonjurisdictional,’ and thus, barred by the doctrine of res judicata where they were raised, or could have been raised, on direct appeal.” {¶24} Here, Dillard did not raise the issue of merger in his first, or even in his second, direct appeal. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.