State v. Sands, 2016-Ohio-7150. “The statutes he cites – R.C. 2963.01, R.C. 2963.05, and R.C. 2963.”
Reed v. State Ex Rel. Ortiz, 1997-NMSC-055, 947 P.2d 86. · cites it 2ד*98 58 Further requirements in the extradition process are found in the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. 11 U.L.A. 97 (1995). Forty-eight states, including New Mexico and Ohio, have adopted the Uniform Act.”
State v. Hirsch, 717 N.E.2d 789 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1998). “Hirsch further argues that the state violated R.C. 2963.01 et seq., Ohio’s codification of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act.”
State v. Moss, 376 S.E.2d 569 (W. Va. 1988). “While the Detainer Agreement applies only to persons incarcerated, the Extradition Act applies to persons at liberty as well as to persons incarcerated.”
Bonds v. Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 687 N.E.2d 300 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1996). · cites it 2ד02, which provides: “Subject to sections 2963.01 to 2963.27, inclusive, of the Revised Code, the constitution of the United States and all acts of congress enacted in pursuance thereof, the governor shall have arrested and delivered to the executive authority of any other state…”
State v. Owens, 910 N.E.2d 1059 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2009). “They could have sentenced him by video conference, commenced formal extradition proceedings pursuant to R.C. 2963.01, or requested a waiver from Owens of his right to be physically present at the sentencing hearing.”
State v. Brown, 786 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2003). “See R.C. 2963.01 et seq. {¶ 28} Last, appellee could have requested a waiver from appellant of his right to be physically present at the sentencing hearing.”
In re Complaint in Habeas Corpus of Rowe, 423 N.E.2d 167 (Ohio 1981). “02 as follows: “Subject to sections 2963.01 to 2963.27, inclusive, of the Revised Code, the constitution of the United States and all acts of congress enacted in pursuance thereof, the governor shall have arrested and delivered to the executive authority of any other state of…”
State, Ex Rel. Gilpin v. Stokes, 483 N.E.2d 179 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1984). · cites it 2דOn December 15, 1983, the Ohio Governor issued his warrants pursuant to R.C. 2963.01 et seq. On February 28,1984, after evidentiary hearings, the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Ohio, denied the application for extradition and granted petitioners’ writs of habeas…”
State v. Scahel, 2016-Ohio-18. “See R.C. 2963.01 et seq. (Ohio), RCW 10.88 et seq.”
State v. Pete, 2023-Ohio-4406, 231 N.E.3d 77. “{¶27} The Owens Court recognized several methods the state and/or the trial court could have employed to sentence Owens, including video conference, formal extradition proceedings pursuant to R.C. 2963.01, or the execution of a waiver from Owens of his right to be physically…”
Hanson v. Smith, 587 N.E.2d 345 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1990). · cites it 2דSection 2963.01, et seq., the Ohio Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, sets forth the requirements for a demand of extradition to be recognized by the Governor of Ohio in R.”
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.