State v. Lee
Citations
- 2025 Ohio 5761
Syllabus
Pro se litigant; motion to continue trial; presentence motion to withdraw plea; abuse of discretion. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the pro se defendant's motion to continue the trial. The defendant's grounds for a continuance amounted to nothing more than a delay tactic. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant's presentence motion to withdraw his plea. The grounds for the defendant's request merely showed a change of heart.
Judges: Ryan
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Ungar v. SarafiteSupreme Court· 1964-05-04· cited 1,845×
- State v. XieOhio Supreme Court· 1992-02-12· cited 1,682×
- State v. UngerOhio Supreme Court· 1981-07-01· cited 1,145×
- Johnson v. Abdullah (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2021-09-22· cited 666×
- State v. BarnesOhio Supreme Court· 2022-12-15· cited 67×
- State v. WestleyOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-08-09· cited 29×
- Morgan v. Ohio State Univ. College of DentistryOhio Court of Appeals· 2014-05-01· cited 24×
- State v. WilderOhio Court of Appeals· 2025-08-28· cited 5×
- Lee v. JacksonOhio Court of Appeals· 2017-10-24· cited 4×
- Brim v. BrimOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-07-28· cited 3×
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.