Ashmore v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Ashmore v. State

249 N.E.2d 919, 19 Ohio St. 2d 181, 48 Ohio Op. 2d 207, 1969 Ohio LEXIS 354

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 30, 1969

DocketNo. 69-245

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 249 N.E.2d 919 (Ashmore v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ashmore v. State, 249 N.E.2d 919, 19 Ohio St. 2d 181, 48 Ohio Op. 2d 207, 1969 Ohio LEXIS 354 (Ohio 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petition filed herein, and the response thereto, indicate a failure of the state “to make a diligent, good-faith effort” to bring the petitioner before the Dayton Municipal Court for proceedings related to the detainer issued against him. A reasonable effort by the state to secure his presence is required by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967), 386 U. S. 213, 18 L. Ed. 2d , 87 S. Ct. 988, and Smith v. Hooey (1969), U. S. , 21 L. Ed. 2d 607. We are of the opinion that the reasons supporting those decisions, where a petitioner is currently under indictment by a jurisdiction other than the one in which he is incarcerated, apply with equal force to a petitioner against whom a detainer has been issued based upon a warrant for his arrest.

Writ allowed.

Taft, C. J., O’Neill, Schneider, Herbert and Duncan, JJ., concur.* Matthias, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The petition filed herein, and the response thereto, indicate a failure of the state “to make a diligent, good-faith effort” to bring the petitioner before the Dayton Municipal Court for proceedings related to the detainer issued against him. A reasonable effort by the state to secure his presence is required by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967), 386 U. S. 213, 18 L. Ed. 2d , 87 S. Ct. 988, and Smith v. Hooey (1969), U. S. , 21 L. Ed. 2d 607. We are of the opinion that the reasons supporting those decisions, where a petitioner is currently under indictment by a jurisdiction other than the one in which he is incarcerated, apply with equal force to a petitioner against whom a detainer has been issued based upon a warrant for his arrest.

Writ allowed.

Taft, C. J., O’Neill, Schneider, Herbert and Duncan, JJ., concur.* Matthias, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 N.E.2d 919, 19 Ohio St. 2d 181, 48 Ohio Op. 2d 207, 1969 Ohio LEXIS 354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashmore-v-state-ohio-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack