State v. Carroll, Unpublished Decision (9-28-2007)
Opinion
{¶ 2} Appellant also timely filed a direct appeal of his conviction. Our decision in the direct appeal, State v. Carroll, 6th Dist. No. L-05-1362, 2007-Ohio-____, reversed appellant's convictions on the grounds that appellant was denied a fair trial in violation of due process.
{¶ 3} Upon review, we find that appellant's petition for postconviction relief asserts identical grounds to those he asserted in his direct appeal of the trial court's decision denying his motion for a new trial.
{¶ 4} Accordingly, this petition is rendered moot by the disposition of appellant's direct appeal and the instant appeal must be dismissed.
{¶ 5} This appeal is ordered dismissed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24. Judgment for the clerk's expense incurred in preparation of the record, fees allowed by law, and the fee for filing the appeal is awarded to Lucas County.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4. *Page 3
*Page 1Peter M. Handwork, J., Arlene Singer, J., William J. Skow, J., CONCUR.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2007 Ohio 5314 (State v. Carroll, Unpublished Decision (9-28-2007)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.