State v. Alspaugh
Citations
- 2018 Ohio 801
Syllabus
The trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion requesting she be appointed new counsel where the record indicates appellant was adequately represented by her appointed counsel at all times relevant. This includes appellant's appointed counsel negotiating an advantageous plea deal that ultimately resulted in appellant being sentenced to a reduced sentence of five years in prison. The trial court also did not err by sentencing appellant to serve five years in prison for involuntary manslaughter when considering the serious nature of the charges appellant faced that resulted in the loss of a person's life.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- whether a substitute for return constituted a return within the meaning of 11 U.S. C. sec. 523(a)(1)(B) (2000)
- if Commissioner’s determination based on erroneous legal interpretation, determination may be set aside as abuse of discretion
- whether a substitute for return constituted a return within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. sec. 523(a)(1)(B) (2000)
- determination based on erroneous legal interpretation may be set aside as abuse of discretion
- “If [the Commissioner’s] determination [is] based on erroneous views of the law . . . , then we must reject [his] views and find that there was an abuse of discretion.”
- challenge to appropriateness of collection reviewed for abuse of discretion
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: S. Powell
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.