State v. Sanchez

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Sanchez

2000 Ohio 261, 88 Ohio St. 3d 16

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 8, 2000

Docket1999-0998

StatusPublished

This text of 2000 Ohio 261 (State v. Sanchez) 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. Sanchez, 2000 Ohio 261, 88 Ohio St. 3d 16 (Ohio 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 88 Ohio St.3d 16.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. SANCHEZ, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Sanchez, 2000-Ohio-261.] Motion for reconsideration granted on Proposition of Law No. II—Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on authority of State v. Dye. (No. 99-998—Submitted December 14, 1999—Decided February 9, 2000.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ashtabula County, No. 98-A-0006. ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. __________________ Thomas L. Sartini, Ashtabula County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ariana E. Tarighati, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. __________________ {¶ 1} The motion to reconsider the court’s refusal to grant jurisdiction is granted on Proposition of Law No. II. {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of State v. Dye (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 323, 695 N.E.2d 763. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 88 Ohio St.3d 16.]

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. SANCHEZ, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Sanchez, 2000-Ohio-261.] Motion for reconsideration granted on Proposition of Law No. II—Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on authority of State v. Dye. (No. 99-998—Submitted December 14, 1999—Decided February 9, 2000.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ashtabula County, No. 98-A-0006. ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. __________________ Thomas L. Sartini, Ashtabula County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ariana E. Tarighati, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. __________________ {¶ 1} The motion to reconsider the court’s refusal to grant jurisdiction is granted on Proposition of Law No. II. {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of State v. Dye (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 323, 695 N.E.2d 763. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2000 Ohio 261, 88 Ohio St. 3d 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sanchez-ohio-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack