State v. Majid
Citations
- 2022 Ohio 189
Syllabus
Postconviction relief R.C. 2953.21(A)(1) de novo motion to correct sentence void voidable jurisdiction. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant's untimely petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21(A)(1). Under the Ohio Supreme Court's current jurisprudence, any sentencing error would be voidable, not void and defendant was limited to challenging his sentence via a direct appeal. Therefore, the trial court did not err by summarily denying defendant's motion to correct sentence.
Judges: S. Gallagher
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court· 1938-05-31· cited 10,545×
- Custis v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1994-05-23· cited 1,278×
- State v. ReynoldsOhio Supreme Court· 1997-06-25· cited 802×
- State v. Harper (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2020-05-14· cited 319×
- State v. Henderson (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2020-10-07· cited 274×
- State v. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2018-11-29· cited 208×
- State v. MajidOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-03-22· cited 19×
- State ex rel. Ogle v. Hocking Cty. Common Pleas Court (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2021-12-21· cited 12×
- State v. StansellOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-06-17· cited 10×
- State v. StewartOhio Court of Appeals· 2020-12-17· cited 4×
- State v. AliOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-12-09· 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.