State v. Bolling
Citations
- 2019 Ohio 227
Syllabus
The trial court did not err when it overruled appellant's motion for a de novo sentencing hearing and limited the scope of the resentencing hearing to the proper imposition of post-release control with regard to his convictions for four counts of rape. Appellant's remaining assignments of error are barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “Upon review, we conclude that Magwood, King, and Stansell do not apply in the instant case”
- “Upon review, we conclude that Magwood, King, and Stansell do not apply in the instant case”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Donovan
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. FischerOhio Supreme Court· 2010-12-23· cited 1,066×
- Magwood v. PattersonSupreme Court· 2010-06-24· cited 932×
- State v. LesterOhio Supreme Court· 2011-10-13· cited 501×
- State v. SingletonOhio Supreme Court· 2009-12-22· cited 346×
- State v. HoldcroftOhio Supreme Court· 2013-11-20· cited 230×
- Michael Stansell v.Sixth Circuit· 2016-07-01· cited 138×
- DeLawrence King v. Donald MorganSixth Circuit· 2015-12-01· cited 120×
- Askew v. BradshawSixth Circuit· 2016-02-02· cited 23×
- State v. HudsonOhio Court of Appeals· 2014-12-05· cited 7×
- State v. JohnstonOhio Court of Appeals· 2015-11-13· cited 4×
- State v. BollingOhio Court of Appeals· 2011-12-16· cited 1×
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.