State v. McClendon

2011 Ohio 954, 128 Ohio St. 3d 354
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 8, 2011·No. 2010-1950·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is not accepted.

{¶ 2} The discretionary cross-appeal is accepted.

{¶ 3} 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 *355 remanded to the court of appeals for application of our decision in State v. Johnson.

Mathias H. Heck Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Carley J. Ingram, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee and cross-appellant. Kyle McClendon, pro se. O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Lanzinger and McGee Brown, JJ., dissent and would not accept the cross-appeal.

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

State v. McClendon, 2011 Ohio 954, 128 Ohio St. 3d 354 (Ohio 2011).

2011 Ohio 954 (State v. McClendon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Miller
2022 Ohio 213 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
State v. Koch
2019 Ohio 4099 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
State v. Crowe
2019 Ohio 3986 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
State v. Helms
2013 Ohio 5530 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)
State v. Beatty-Jones
2011 Ohio 3719 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)
State v. Harding
2011 Ohio 2823 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)