State v. Sibert

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Sibert

658 N.E.2d 772, 74 Ohio St. 3d 342

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided January 17, 1996·No. No. 95-1396·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reason stated above. On appeal, appellant alleges failure of trial counsel to present the issue of his mental competence. Apparently, the issue was not raised in the court of appeals; therefore, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. Zakany v. Zakany (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 192, 193, 9 OBR 505, 506-507, 459 N.E.2d 870, 872.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed for the reason stated above. On appeal, appellant alleges failure of trial counsel to present the issue of his mental competence. Apparently, the issue was not raised in the court of appeals; therefore, we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. Zakany v. Zakany (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 192, 193, 9 OBR 505, 506-507, 459 N.E.2d 870, 872.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

State v. Sibert, 658 N.E.2d 772, 74 Ohio St. 3d 342 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

658 N.E.2d 772 (State v. Sibert) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related