Ohio Court of Appeals· 10/7/2022
State v. Hayden
Citations
- 2022 Ohio 3574
Syllabus
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's Crim.R. 33 motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial where his motion was barred by res judicata and he failed to submit clear and convincing proof that he had been unavoidably prevented from filing his motion for a new trial within the required time limits. Judgment affirmed.
Judges: Lewis
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Blakemore v. BlakemoreOhio Supreme Court· 1983-07-06· cited 14,330×
- State v. PerryOhio Supreme Court· 1967-05-03· cited 2,571×
- Nolan v. NolanOhio Supreme Court· 1984-05-02· cited 893×
- State v. SzefcykOhio Supreme Court· 1996-11-13· cited 645×
- State v. Bethel (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2022-03-22· cited 161×
- State v. DavisOhio Supreme Court· 2011-10-04· cited 81×
- State v. CollinsOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-08-23· cited 44×
- State v. HaydenOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-12-28· cited 7×
- State v. QuinnOhio Court of Appeals· 2018-12-28· cited 7×
- State v. HaydenOhio Court of Appeals· 2015-08-14· 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.