State v. Calo
Citations
- 2023 Ohio 1289
Syllabus
Postconviction relief recast irregular motion jurisdiction. Affirmed. Without establishing that the trial court maintained continuing jurisdiction to review the motion filed 35 years after the final entry of conviction, which must be construed as a belated or successive petition for postconviction relief, based on the arguments presented, the trial court had no authority to do anything but deny the motion for the want of jurisdiction.
Judges: S. Gallagher
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Peretz v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1991-06-27· cited 631×
- State v. SimpkinsOhio Supreme Court· 2008-03-20· cited 401×
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. ZaleskiOhio Supreme Court· 2006-11-22· cited 371×
- State v. Harper (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2020-05-14· cited 319×
- State v. SchleeOhio Supreme Court· 2008-02-20· cited 247×
- United States v. BascaroEleventh Circuit· 1984-10-01· cited 237×
- State v. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2018-11-29· cited 208×
- State v. Gilbert (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2014-10-21· cited 42×
- State v. GambleOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-05-27· cited 32×
- State ex rel. Dobson v. Handwork (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2020-03-26· cited 12×
- State v. DixOhio Court of Appeals· 2014-07-31· cited 8×
- State v. FordOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-10-31· cited 4×
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.