Perkins motion in Ohio

2026Id.

2019Portage No. 2013-P-0025, 2013-Ohio-5835, ¶10 , citing State v. Warner, 55 Ohio St.3d 31, 69 (1990). {¶25} Mr. Perkins claims that the trial court ordered restitution in the amount of $27,718 over Mr. Perkins’ objection “for incidents occurring on dates not listed in the indictment.” However, as Mr. Perkins accurately notes, “the documents and evidence supporting this claim were never introduced into evidence, and there was no evidence or mention of the amount of restitution that Mr. Perkins was conceding to be responsible for.” {¶26} Despite this lack of evidence, Mr. Perkins also claims “the

2014Montgomery No. 25344, 2013-Ohio-1924, ¶ 10 . {¶ 60} Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to apply a pre-sentence standard to Perkins’ motion to withdraw. {¶ 61} As we noted above, Crim.R. 32.1 allows post-sentence withdrawal of pleas only upon a showing of manifest injustice.

2011Therefore in addition to being barred by the doctrine of res judicata, Perkins’ claim fails because there was no state –8– action preventing Perkins from testifying. {¶ 23} In his second claim for relief, Perkins alleges that he was denied his due process and equal protection rights due to two instances of juror misconduct. “[U]nder Crim.R. 33(A), juror misconduct justifies a new trial only if it materially affected an accused’s substantial rights.” State v. Adams, 103 Ohio St.3d 508 , 2004-Ohio-5845 , at ¶45.

2010Perkins’s first assigned error is overruled. {¶ 41} Perkins’s second assigned error is as follows: {¶ 42} “The trial court abused its discretion and prejudicially erred in overruling Perkins’ motion to use grand jury transcripts at trial without permitting Perkins’ counsel to inspect the grand jury transcripts during the court’s in camera inspection.” {¶ 43} Perkins speculates that Mullins’s testimony in the second grand-jury proceeding was inconsistent with his “exculpatory” testimony in the first grand-jury proceeding, resulting in Perkins’s reindictment for felonious assault, and that he wa

2010Perkins’s first assigned error is overruled. {¶ 41} Perkins’s second assigned error is as follows: {¶ 42} “The trial court abused its discretion and prejudicially erred in overruling Perkins’ motion to use grand jury transcripts at trial without permitting Perkins’ counsel to inspect the grand jury transcripts during the court’s in camera inspection.” {¶ 43} Perkins speculates that Mullins’s testimony in the second grand-jury proceeding was inconsistent with his “exculpatory” testimony in the first grand-jury proceeding, resulting in Perkins’s reindictment for felonious assault, and that he wa

2003Also in that entry, the trial court stated that “[d]ue to [Perkins’s] failure to appear as previously ordered,” he was “cited in contempt and bond was set at $5,000, 10%.” Additionally, several days later the trial court responded to Perkins’s motion to order fines satisfied, and noted in its October 3, 2002 decision and order that it was overruling Perkins’s motion because he was “being held on a contempt citation for failure to appear, not for failure to pay his fines.” {¶ 28} We note that in Strongsville v. Waiwood (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 521 , 577 N.E.2d 63 , the Eighth District Court of Ap

2003Also in that entry, the trial court stated that “[d]ue to [Perkins’s] failure to appear as previously ordered,” he was “cited in contempt and bond was set at $5,000, 10%.” Additionally, several days later the trial court responded to Perkins’s motion to order fines satisfied, and noted in its October 3, 2002 decision and order that it was overruling Perkins’s motion because he was “being held on a contempt citation for failure to appear, not for failure to pay his fines.” {¶ 28} We note that in Strongsville v. Waiwood (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 521 , 577 N.E.2d 63 , the Eighth District Court of Ap

2001The trial court denied Perkins' motion, but granted Stapleton's motion with the following entry: The Ohio Supreme Court has stated that the moving party on a motion for summary judgment bears the initial burden "demonstrating that there are no genuine issues of material fact concerning an essential element of the opponent's case." Drecher [sic] v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996).

2001The burden then shifts to the non-moving party to set forth "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial and if the non-movant does not respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the nonmoving party." Id. at 293 ; Civ.R. 56(E)., Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant breached the express and implied warranties allegedly made to Plaintiff.