State v. Diallo
Citations
- 2025 Ohio 5812
Syllabus
On reopened appeal, appellant did not establish that he was deprived of his right to a speedy trial as guaranteed under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. As a result, appellant failed to establish that his prior appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to present an assignment of error on direct appeal asserting a claim that his speedy trial rights were violated. Prior judgment confirmed.
Judges: Dorrian
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.
- Barker v. WingoSupreme Court· 1972-06-22· cited 12,108×
- State v. KingOhio Supreme Court· 1994-08-31· cited 342×
- State v. McBreenOhio Supreme Court· 1978-05-31· cited 149×
- State v. Leyh (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2022-02-08· cited 76×
- E. S. Preston Associates, Inc. v. PrestonOhio Supreme Court· 1986-05-14· cited 45×
- State v. WatsonOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-12-19· cited 21×
- State v. WilliamsOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-03-28· cited 14×
- State v. ClarkOhio Supreme Court· 2025-09-24· cited 11×
- State v. KeatonOhio Court of Appeals· 2017-08-01· cited 10×
- State v. SmithOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-06-08· cited 8×
- State v. DialloOhio Court of Appeals· 2025-03-18· cited 7×
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.