State v. Walter
Citations
- 2017 Ohio 466
Syllabus
Nunc pro tunc res judicata. Appellant was not denied dues process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry after the appellate court significantly altered the judgment of conviction because the trial court properly prepared a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect this court's decision. Additionally, we find that there was no need to resentence appellant because the term of imprisonment for aggravated burglary ran concurrent with the other terms of imprisonment. Appellant is not entitled to a new trial under the due process protections afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment because appellant's claims are barred by res judicata.
Judges: Laster Mays
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. AaronsOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-10-14· cited 13×
- State v. WalterOhio Court of Appeals· 2020-12-17· cited 5×
- State v. ClausingOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-05-26· cited 5×
- State v. YancyOhio Court of Appeals· 2025-11-13· cited 3×
- State v. WalterOhio Court of Appeals· 2018-11-01· cited 2×
- State v. GreeneOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-07-25· cited 1×
- State v. WalterOhio Supreme Court· 2017-07-05
- State v. EvansOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-07-28
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State ex rel. Fogle v. SteinerOhio Supreme Court· 1995-12-06· cited 292×
- State ex rel. Litty v. LeskovyanskyOhio Supreme Court· 1996-11-13· cited 165×
- Lenard v. MillerOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-10-24· cited 13×
- State v. SantiagoOhio Court of Appeals· 2011-06-23· cited 5×
- State v. ShearerOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-10-13· 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.