State v. Hawkins

660 N.E.2d 454, 74 Ohio St. 3d 530
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 14, 1996·No. No. 95-1813·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reason stated in its entry. Further, we reject Hawkins’ unsupported assumption that fewer than three judges of the court of appeals decided to deny his application for reopening. The fact that only the presiding judge of the court of appeals signed the entry does not impeach the entry. App.R. 22(A) requires only “a journal entry signed by a judge of the court.” Hawkins has not contradicted the presumption of regularity accorded all judicial proceedings. State v. Sweet (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 375, 650 N.E.2d 450; Coleman v. McGettrick (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 177, 180, 31 O.O.2d 326, 328,207 N.E.2d 552, 554.

Judgment affirmed.

[532]*532Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur. Wright, J., dissents.

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

State v. Hawkins, 660 N.E.2d 454, 74 Ohio St. 3d 530 (Ohio 1996).

660 N.E.2d 454 (State v. Hawkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Weger
2023 Ohio 1194 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State v. Clinkscale
2009 Ohio 2746 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009)
State v. Brown, Unpublished Decision (8-25-2006)
2006 Ohio 4393 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)
State v. Demastry
799 N.E.2d 229 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2003)
State v. Robb
2000 Ohio 275 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)
Gaskins v. Shiplevy
1996 Ohio 387 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)
State v. Hawkins
1996 Ohio 24 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)