If a hearing is granted pursuant to section 2953.21 of the Revised Code, the petitioner shall be permitted to attend the hearing. Testimony of the prisoner or other witnesses may be offered by deposition.
If the petitioner is in a state correctional institution, he may be returned for the hearing upon the warrant of the court of common pleas of the county where the hearing is to be held. The approval of the governor on the warrant shall not be required. The warrant shall be directed to the sheriff of the county in which the hearing is to be held. When a copy of the warrant is presented to the warden or other head of a state correctional institution, he shall deliver the convict to the sheriff, who shall convey him to the county. For removing and returning the convict, the sheriff shall receive the fees allowed for conveying convicts to the correctional institution.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: State v. Graggs, 2019-Ohio-361.
State v. Graggs, 2019-Ohio-361. “See also R.C. 2953.22(D).5 1. R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b) "but for the constitutional error.”
State v. Poffenbaugh, 237 N.E.2d 147 (Ohio Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2דUnder this section, should a judicial hearing be granted to the defendant, Section 2953.22, Bevised Code, provides the procedure and necessary process for the transportation of the defendant from the penal institution to the county where the hearing is to be held.”
State v. Leers, 617 N.E.2d 754 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1992). · cites it 2דOn January 22, 1992 he filed an application to expunge his record (R.C. 2953.22). On March 26, 1992 the court granted expungement and filed its journal entry on April 6, 1992.”
State v. Berk, 2024-Ohio-1218. “] The third assignment of error is the lower Court not holding a hearing as is required by Ohio R.C. 2953.22 when a defendant is proactive by requesting one.”
State v. Hooper, 2025-Ohio-1594. “Hooper requests that we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for a hearing pursuant to R.C. 2953.22. Standard of Review {¶10} “We review a decision to grant or deny a petition for postconviction relief, including the decision whether to afford the petitioner a…”
State v. Hough, 2011-Ohio-3690. · cites it 2דHis sole assignment of error reads: “[The] Trial Court erred in denying Appellant’s Post Conviction Petition through its Order of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, as to not ordering an evidentiary hearing, per R.C. §2953.22.” II. Law and Analysis {¶ 6} R.”
State v. DeJesus, 2026-Ohio-215. · cites it 2ד21(E) and section 2953.22 of the Ohio Revised Code.”
State v. Beatty-Jones, 2017-Ohio-2605. “R.C. 2953.22(A) allows untimely petitions to be entertained under certain conditions, but Appellant did not assert any such conditions.”
State v. Lawson, 230 N.E.2d 650 (Ohio 1967). · cites it 2ד*10 Although Section 2953.22, Revised Code, as now in effect, provides that it is not necessary that the prisoner be present at the hearing, a hearing certainly contemplates that each party have an opportunity to introduce evidence.”
Williams v. Warden Chillicothe Corr. Inst., No. 1:20-cv-00099 (S.D. Ohio June 2, 2022). “Moreover, the second petition was untimely and the trial court [is] therefore barred by Ohio Revised Code § 2953.22 from exercising jurisdiction over it.”
State v. Moore, 651 N.E.2d 1319 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1994). · cites it 2ד383, 131 Ohio Laws 684, 685 (prior version of R.C. 2953.22). If the court allowed the petitioner to attend the hearing, the court also was permitted to consider the testimony of all witnesses in the form of depositions.”
State v. Brown, 2024-Ohio-487. “21(C), R.C. 2953.22, and R.C. 2953.23(A) and (B).”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.22(A): 1 case
State v. Beatty-Jones, 2017-Ohio-2605. “R.C. 2953.22(A) allows untimely petitions to be entertained under certain conditions, but Appellant did not assert any such conditions.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.22(D): 1 case
State v. Graggs, 2019-Ohio-361. “See also R.C. 2953.22(D).5 1. R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b) "but for the constitutional error.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.