State v. Ausberry

82 N.E.2d 751, 83 Ohio App. 514, 52 Ohio Law. Abs. 152
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 25, 1948
Docket943
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 82 N.E.2d 751 (State v. Ausberry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Ausberry, 82 N.E.2d 751, 83 Ohio App. 514, 52 Ohio Law. Abs. 152 (Ohio Ct. App. 1948).

Opinion

OPINION

By ROSS, J.:

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Juvenile Court of Butler County, Ohio, in which the *153 defendant was sentenced for violation of the provisions of §1639-45 GC.

'An examination of the record requires the conclusion that no error, prejudicial to the defendant-appellant intervened in the trial and conviction of the defendant-appellant.

In the judgment entry of the trial court containing the-sentence of the defendant-appellant, it is recited that the defendant-appellant was asked whether she had anything to-say why sentence should not be pronounced. The record contained in the Bill of Exceptions, however, shows that the defendant-appellant was sentenced in her absence, and no-claim is made that such was not the case. This being true, the mandatory provisions of §13451-1 GC, were ignored and the judgment and sentence of the trial court must be set aside, and the case remanded to the trial court for resentence of the defendant-appellant, but only for such purpose. Silsby, et al. v State of Ohio, 119 Oh St, 314.

It is to be noted that §13694 GC, repealed, is now §13451-1 GC, except that the latter section now includes cases where the defendant is found guilty by “the finding of the Court” as well as by the verdict of a jury.

The violation of the provisions of §1639-45 GC, constitutes, a misdemeanor. Stockum v State of Ohio, 106 Oh St, 249,

In certain cases, a defendant may be tried and sentenced in her absence. Sec. 13442-10 GC. However, this defendant-appellant did not request in writing to be so tried. No journal entry appears to such effect. Nor was the defendant-appellant “indicted.” She was tried upon an affidavit, charging a violation of §1639-45 GC. In any event, she did not escape or forfeit her recognizance after a jury was sworn. The provisions of §13442-10, GC, therefore have no application to the instant case.

The judgment and sentence of the Juvenile Court of Butler County of this defendant-appellant is, therefore, set aside, vacated, and reversed, and the case is remanded to-that Court solely and only for the purpose of sentencing such defendant-appellant, as in the discretion of such Court atf that time may seem proper and in conformity to law.

MATTHEWS, PJ, ROSS & HILDEBRANT, JJ, concur in syllabus, opinion & judgment.

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

Related

Goff v. Bagley
601 F.3d 445 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)
City of Columbus v. Herrell
247 N.E.2d 770 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1969)
State v. Baker
177 N.E.2d 348 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1960)
Mitts v. State
1959 OK CR 94 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1959)
State v. Walker
161 N.E.2d 521 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 N.E.2d 751, 83 Ohio App. 514, 52 Ohio Law. Abs. 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ausberry-ohioctapp-1948.