State v. Qualls

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Qualls

2011 Ohio 1049, 128 Ohio St. 3d 1424

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Qualls. Read the opinion of the Court — 131 Ohio St. 3d 499 →

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 16, 2011·No. 2011-0202·Published

Opinion

Meigs App. No. 10CA8, 2010-Ohio-5316. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties shall brief the issue stated at page 6 of the court of appeals’ Entry filed January 13, 2011:

“If a defendant is notified about postrelease control at the sentencing hearing, but that notification is inadvertently omitted from the sentencing entry, can that omission be corrected with a nunc pro tunc entry?”

Pfeifer and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.

The conflict case is State v. Lee, Lucas App. No. L-09-1279, 2010-Ohio-1704.

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

Meigs App. No. 10CA8, 2010-Ohio-5316. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties shall brief the issue stated at page 6 of the court of appeals’ Entry filed January 13, 2011:

“If a defendant is notified about postrelease control at the sentencing hearing, but that notification is inadvertently omitted from the sentencing entry, can that omission be corrected with a nunc pro tunc entry?”

Pfeifer and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.

The conflict case is State v. Lee, Lucas App. No. L-09-1279, 2010-Ohio-1704.

State v. Qualls, 2011 Ohio 1049, 128 Ohio St. 3d 1424 (Ohio 2011).

Pincite

2011 Ohio 1049 (State v. Qualls) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related