State v. Bishop

92 N.E.3d 877, 2018 Ohio 723, 152 Ohio St. 3d 1404
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 28, 2018·No. 2017–1715·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

On review of an order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are ordered to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals' entry filed December 5, 2017. "Whether a criminal defendant on PRC for a prior felony must be advised, during his plea hearing in a new felony case, of the trial court's ability under R.C. 2929.141 to terminate his existing PRC and to impose a consecutive prison sentence for the PRC violation."

The conflict cases are State v. Dotson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101911, 2015-Ohio-2392, and State v. Hicks, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 09CA09090088, 2010-Ohio-2985.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2017-1716, State v. Bishop and briefing in Nos. 2017-1715 and 2017-1716 consolidated. The parties shall file two originals of each of the briefs permitted under S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.04 and include both case numbers on the cover page of the briefs. The parties shall otherwise comply with the requirements of S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.01 through 16.04.

It is ordered by the court that the clerk shall issue an order for the transmittal of the record from the court of appeals for Williams County.

DeGenaro, J., not participating.

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

State v. Bishop, 92 N.E.3d 877, 2018 Ohio 723, 152 Ohio St. 3d 1404 (Ohio 2018).

92 N.E.3d 877 (State v. Bishop) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Mull
2024 Ohio 370 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State v. Crook
2022 Ohio 896 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)