State v. Hatfield

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Hatfield

357 N.E.2d 379, 48 Ohio St. 2d 118, 2 Ohio Op. 3d 273, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 718

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 24, 1976

DocketNo. 76-332

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 357 N.E.2d 379 (State v. Hatfield) 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. Hatfield, 357 N.E.2d 379, 48 Ohio St. 2d 118, 2 Ohio Op. 3d 273, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 718 (Ohio 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Gwiam.

In State v. Hughes (1975), 41 Ohio St. 2d 208, 324 N. E. 2d 731, this court held that App. R. 4(B) is invalid insofar as it “enlarges the statutory right of. appeal provided by R. C. 2945.67 through 2945.70, and abridges the right of appellate courts to exercise their discretion in allowing appeals * * In State v. Wallace (1975), 43 Ohio St. 2d 1, 330 N. E. 2d 697, the court held that “[a] motion for leave to appeal by the state in a criminal case shall be governed by the procedural requirements of App. R. 5 and the time requirements of App. R. 4(B).”

The record in this ease discloses that the only procedural steps taken by the prosecution to perfect its appeal were the filing of a notice of appeal and of a certification under Crim. R. 12(J). Under this court’s holdings in Hughes and Wallace, this procedure was insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, and that court’s judgment must accordingly be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

0’Neill, C. J., Corrigan, SteeN, W. Brown and P. BrowN, JJ., concur. Herbert and Celebrezze, JJ., dissent.

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

Per Gwiam.

In State v. Hughes (1975), 41 Ohio St. 2d 208, 324 N. E. 2d 731, this court held that App. R. 4(B) is invalid insofar as it “enlarges the statutory right of. appeal provided by R. C. 2945.67 through 2945.70, and abridges the right of appellate courts to exercise their discretion in allowing appeals * * In State v. Wallace (1975), 43 Ohio St. 2d 1, 330 N. E. 2d 697, the court held that “[a] motion for leave to appeal by the state in a criminal case shall be governed by the procedural requirements of App. R. 5 and the time requirements of App. R. 4(B).”

The record in this ease discloses that the only procedural steps taken by the prosecution to perfect its appeal were the filing of a notice of appeal and of a certification under Crim. R. 12(J). Under this court’s holdings in Hughes and Wallace, this procedure was insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, and that court’s judgment must accordingly be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

0’Neill, C. J., Corrigan, SteeN, W. Brown and P. BrowN, JJ., concur. Herbert and Celebrezze, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

357 N.E.2d 379, 48 Ohio St. 2d 118, 2 Ohio Op. 3d 273, 1976 Ohio LEXIS 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hatfield-ohio-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack