Ohio Court of Appeals· 9/6/2019
State v. Smith
Citations
- 2019 Ohio 3591
Syllabus
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for leave to file motion for new trial and his motion for new trial. The trial court reasonably found that appellant's motions, which were based on alleged illegal hybrid representation while his case was pending before the trial court, were untimely. Judgment affirmed.
Judges: Froelich
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Blakemore v. BlakemoreOhio Supreme Court· 1983-07-06· cited 14,330×
- McKaskle v. WigginsSupreme Court· 1984-01-23· cited 2,288×
- State v. ThompsonOhio Supreme Court· 1987-10-07· cited 525×
- Parren v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1987-04-06· cited 135×
- State v. MetcalfOhio Court of Appeals· 2015-08-28· cited 17×
- State v. LenoirOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-07-15· cited 17×
- State v. HilerOhio Court of Appeals· 2017-09-15· cited 16×
- State v. MorrisOhio Court of Appeals· 2017-03-31· cited 15×
- State v. HarwellOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-02-22· cited 12×
- State v. WarrenOhio Court of Appeals· 2017-03-10· cited 11×
- State v. TubbsOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-03-04· cited 6×
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.