State v. Thompson
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 5011
Syllabus
The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a nunc pro tunc entry because defendant sought a substantive legal change to the underlying decision, and a court may only issue a nunc pro tunc decision to correct a clerical mistake. Additionally, res judicata barred appellate review of the substantive legal change defendant sought as defendant could have raised the issue on direct appeal.
Judges: Jamison
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.
- State v. SzefcykOhio Supreme Court· 1996-11-13· cited 645×
- State v. MillerOhio Supreme Court· 2010-11-30· cited 171×
- State v. Jackson (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2014-09-02· cited 141×
- State ex rel. McKinney v. Schmenk (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2017-12-27· cited 50×
- State v. BarberOhio Court of Appeals· 2017-12-26· cited 18×
- State v. MitchellOhio Court of Appeals· 2020-06-22· cited 18×
- State v. BradenOhio Court of Appeals· 2018-05-08· cited 16×
- State v. AndersonOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-03-17· cited 7×
- State v. HoughOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-08-19· cited 7×
- State v. ThompsonOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-03-15· cited 6×
- State v. CastileOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-08-15· 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.