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.
6 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2023 2 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. Delaneygreen2 sentences2005Even so, in State v. Delaney (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 231 , 233 , the Supreme Court of Ohio held that failing to object to a lack of a preliminary hearing waived any right to that hearing. {¶ 28} Ingram did not request a preliminary hearing, nor did he object when he did not have one. 2001See Delaney, 11 Ohio St.3d at 233-234 , 11 OBR at 546-548, 465 N.E.2d at 74-75 (which held that in a case where the defendant had written notice of the allegations and of the final hearing, the lack of a preliminary hearing was not prejudicial, and the defendant’s objection was untimely since it was made after a full revocation hearing). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Morrisgreen1 sentence2023Even if, arguendo, the issue was raised in appellant's "rebuttal motion," his constitutional rights were not violated by the lack of a preliminary hearing. {¶ 10} "The only purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine whether sufficient facts exist to warrant the court in binding the accused over to the grand jury and to set bail, and once an indictment has been returned by the grand jury, a preliminary hearing before a magistrate is no longer necessary." State v. Morris, 42 Ohio St.2d 307, 325-326 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fergusongreen1 sentence2019See id. | 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. Barfield
neutral
1 sentence2022Specifically, he contends that his pleas were made unknowingly and involuntarily due to trial counsel’s constitutional ineffectiveness by failing to challenge the lack of a preliminary hearing and the allegedly invalid indictment. {¶5} Under Crim.R. 32.1, a defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea post sentence must demonstrate that his motion should be granted to correct a “manifest injustice.” State v. Barfield, 2017-Ohio-8243 , 87 N.E.3d 233 , ¶ 4 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2022Specifically, he contends that his pleas were made unknowingly and involuntarily due to trial counsel’s constitutional ineffectiveness by failing to challenge the lack of a preliminary hearing and the allegedly invalid indictment. {¶5} Under Crim.R. 32.1, a defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea post sentence must demonstrate that his motion should be granted to correct a “manifest injustice.” State v. Barfield, 2017-Ohio-8243 , 87 N.E.3d 233 , ¶ 4 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph one of the syllabus. 2022Specifically, he contends that his pleas were made unknowingly and involuntarily due to trial counsel’s constitutional ineffectiveness by failing to challenge the lack of a preliminary hearing and the allegedly invalid indictment. {¶5} Under Crim.R. 32.1, a defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea post sentence must demonstrate that his motion should be granted to correct a “manifest injustice.” State v. Barfield, 2017-Ohio-8243 , 87 N.E.3d 233 , ¶ 4 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Pugh
green
1 sentence2003No. CA 91-33, citing State v. Pugh (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 153 (A defendant who was not accorded a timely preliminary hearing could subsequently be indicted for the same offense for which he was originally arrested.); State v. Hayslip (May 6, 1991), 12th Dist. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.