State v. Cherif

2011 Ohio 956, 128 Ohio St. 3d 356
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 8, 2011·No. 2010-2188·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 2} The portion of the judgment of the court of appeals addressing appellant’s second assignment of error below is vacated on the authority of State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of our decision in State v. Johnson.

Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. O’Connor, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton and McGee Brown, JJ., dissent and would not accept the discretionary appeal.

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

State v. Cherif, 2011 Ohio 956, 128 Ohio St. 3d 356 (Ohio 2011).

2011 Ohio 956 (State v. Cherif) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Helms
2013 Ohio 5530 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)