Skip to main content

State v. Hale

Citations

  • 2019 Ohio 3276

Syllabus

Double jeopardy plain error ineffective assistance of counsel conflict of interest prior representation of codefendant R.C. 2317.02(A)(1) attorney-client privilege voluntary disclosure of attorney-client communications waiver Prof.Cond.R. 1.6 Crim.R. 29(A) sufficiency of the evidence manifest weight of the evidence R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive sentence findings sentencing journal entry nunc pro tunc. Defendant's convictions did not violate double jeopardy. Because jeopardy did not attach until jury was empaneled and sworn, charges against defendant in prior case could be dismissed and he could be reindicted. Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's prior representation of codefendant on similar charges. Defendant did not show an actual conflict of interest or that the result of defendant's trial was adversely affected by any conflict of interest. Defendant chose to retain defense counsel after he successfully represented codefendant and knowingly and expressly waived any potential conflict of interest arising from defense counsel's successive representation of defendant and codefendant. Trial court did not err in allowing former defense counsel to testify regarding defendant's claim that former counsel told defendant to lie to police and the court in order to obtain plea deal. Defendant's prior testimony regarding his communications with his former attorneys waived attorney-client privilege. Defendant's convictions and guilty findings for murder, aggravated robbery, having a weapon while under a disability and perjury were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court made the requisite findings for imposing consecutive sentences at the sentencing hearing but failed to incorporate all of those findings in its sentencing journal entry. Case remanded for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc order correcting the consecutive-sentence findings made in its sentencing

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “He does not attack the evidence supporting any of the elements of the offense; rather, he argues that he proved that he acted in self- defense.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: E.A. Gallagher

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

46 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.