State v. Chamberlain

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Chamberlain

29 Ohio Law Rep. 44

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 9, 1964

Docket38621

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Ohio Law Rep. 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chamberlain-ohioctapp-1964.