State v. Fontes

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Fontes

706 N.E.2d 789, 85 Ohio St. 3d 1408, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 631

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 3, 1999

Docket99-23

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 706 N.E.2d 789 (State v. Fontes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Fontes, 706 N.E.2d 789, 85 Ohio St. 3d 1408, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 631 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Union App. No. 14-97-45. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed December 7,1998:

“Upon consideration of appellant’s motion to certify a conflict under Article IV, Section 3(B)(4) of the Ohio Constitution, the judges of this court find that the judgment in this case is in conflict with the judgments pronounced upon the same question by the Fourth District Court of Appeals in State v. Waszily (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 510 [664 N.E.2d 600]; the Eighth District Court of Appeals in State v. Lewis (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 518 [605 N.E.2d 451]; and the Tenth District Court of Appeals in State v. Flowers (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 313 [16 OBR 344, 475 N.E.2d 790].

“The issue upon which the conflict exists: Pursuant to R.C. 2911.11(A), must the purpose to commit a criminal offense be formed at or before the time of trespass in an occupied structure or may it evolve during the course of the trespass?”

Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

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

Union App. No. 14-97-45. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed December 7,1998:

“Upon consideration of appellant’s motion to certify a conflict under Article IV, Section 3(B)(4) of the Ohio Constitution, the judges of this court find that the judgment in this case is in conflict with the judgments pronounced upon the same question by the Fourth District Court of Appeals in State v. Waszily (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 510 [664 N.E.2d 600]; the Eighth District Court of Appeals in State v. Lewis (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 518 [605 N.E.2d 451]; and the Tenth District Court of Appeals in State v. Flowers (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 313 [16 OBR 344, 475 N.E.2d 790].

“The issue upon which the conflict exists: Pursuant to R.C. 2911.11(A), must the purpose to commit a criminal offense be formed at or before the time of trespass in an occupied structure or may it evolve during the course of the trespass?”

Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

706 N.E.2d 789, 85 Ohio St. 3d 1408, 1999 Ohio LEXIS 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fontes-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack