State v. Chamberlain

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Chamberlain

29 Ohio Law Rep. 44

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Chamberlain. Read the opinion of the Court — 94 Ohio Law. Abs. 221 →

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided December 9, 1964·No. 38621·Published

Opinion

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Richland County. Griffith, Judge.

In a criminal case, where there has been no pronouncement of sentence, an order of the trial court overruling defendant’s motion for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty is interlocutory in nature, does not amount to a judgment and is not a final appealable order.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Richland County. Griffith, Judge.

In a criminal case, where there has been no pronouncement of sentence, an order of the trial court overruling defendant’s motion for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty is interlocutory in nature, does not amount to a judgment and is not a final appealable order.

Judgment affirmed.

Taft, C. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Herbert and Gibson, JJ., concur.

State v. Chamberlain, 29 Ohio Law Rep. 44 (Ohio Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

29 Ohio Law Rep. 44 (State v. Chamberlain) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.