Ohio Court of Appeals· 11/25/2024

State v. Francis

Citations

2024 Ohio 5547

Syllabus

Appellant was not deprived of his \constitutional right\ to hybrid representation, as the record reflects that appellant made no such request in the trial court. Moreover, as the Ohio Supreme Court has held, there is no constitutional right to hybrid representation. WITH CONCURRING OPINION IN JUDGMENT ONLY.

Judges: Piper

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

State v. Wood
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2025-06-30

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

McKaskle v. Wiggins
Supreme Court· 1984-01-23· cited 2,288×
State v. Thompson
Ohio Supreme Court· 1987-10-07· cited 525×
United States v. Sean Lamont Cromer
Sixth Circuit· 2004-11-30· cited 436×
State v. Obermiller (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court· 2016-04-20· cited 165×
State v. McAlpin
Ohio Supreme Court· 2022-05-12· cited 139×
State v. Hackett (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court· 2020-12-17· cited 108×
Officemax, Inc. v. United States
Sixth Circuit· 2005-11-02· cited 100×
Clagg v. Baycliffs Corp.
Ohio Supreme Court· 1998-07-01· cited 22×
State v. Wilson
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2020-05-15· cited 21×
State v. Fuell
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2021-05-10· cited 20×
State v. Tutt
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2021-01-19· cited 9×
State v. Downing
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2024-02-05· cited 8×
State v. Chisenhall
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2024-05-20· cited 8×
State v. Walton
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2021-11-08· cited 5×
State v. Terrell
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2022-12-02· cited 4×
State ex rel. One Person One Vote v. LaRose
Ohio Supreme Court· 2023-06-16· cited 2×

Other cases with this name

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.