State v. Ford

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Ford

923 N.E.2d 620, 124 Ohio St. 3d 1519

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Ford. Read the opinion of the Court — 128 Ohio St. 3d 398 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 24, 2010·No. 2010-0235·Published

Opinion

Licking App. No. 2008 CA 158, 2009-Ohio-6724. 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’ Judgment Entry filed January 22, 2010:

“Whether discharging a firearm at or into a habitation (R.C. 2923.161) and a firearm specification (R.C. 2929.14(D), R.C. 2941.145) are allied offenses of similar import as defined by R.C. 2941.25(A).”

O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., dissent.

The conflict case is State v. Elko, Cuyahoga App. No. 83641, 2004-Ohio-5209.

Motion for appointment of counsel is granted. Christopher Shook of Newark, Ohio, is appointed as counsel for appellant.

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

Licking App. No. 2008 CA 158, 2009-Ohio-6724. 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’ Judgment Entry filed January 22, 2010:

“Whether discharging a firearm at or into a habitation (R.C. 2923.161) and a firearm specification (R.C. 2929.14(D), R.C. 2941.145) are allied offenses of similar import as defined by R.C. 2941.25(A).”

O’Connor, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., dissent.

The conflict case is State v. Elko, Cuyahoga App. No. 83641, 2004-Ohio-5209.

Motion for appointment of counsel is granted. Christopher Shook of Newark, Ohio, is appointed as counsel for appellant.

State v. Ford, 923 N.E.2d 620, 124 Ohio St. 3d 1519 (Ohio 2010).

Pincite

923 N.E.2d 620 (State v. Ford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related