State v. Allen
Citations
- 2018 Ohio 878
Syllabus
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's petition for postconviction relief. The state properly sought a direct indictment against appellant, so the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over appellant's case. The trial court's judgment entry is sufficient to constitute findings of fact and conclusions of law for purposes of R.C. 2953.21(D).
Judges: Mayle
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. CalhounOhio Supreme Court· 1999-09-01· cited 1,479×
- State v. SellardsOhio Supreme Court· 1985-06-05· cited 417×
- State v. JosephOhio Supreme Court· 1995-08-30· cited 255×
- State v. MapsonOhio Supreme Court· 1982-08-11· cited 159×
- State v. MbodjiOhio Supreme Court· 2011-06-21· cited 107×
- State ex rel. Kimbrough v. GreeneOhio Supreme Court· 2002-12-20· cited 74×
- State ex re. Kimbrough v. GreeneOhio Supreme Court· 2002-12-20· cited 65×
- State v. DaviesOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-02-08· cited 14×
- State v. StaatsOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-05-09· cited 12×
- State v. UnsworthOhio Court of Appeals· 2015-08-07· cited 6×
- State v. AllenOhio Court of Appeals· 2017-09-29· cited 6×
- State v. AllenOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-04-22· cited 4×
- Toledo v. EbraheimOhio Court of Appeals· 2015-09-30· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.