State v. Tabbaa

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Tabbaa

787 N.E.2d 1227, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1561

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 7, 2003

Docket2003-0334

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 787 N.E.2d 1227 (State v. Tabbaa) 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. Tabbaa, 787 N.E.2d 1227, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1561 (Ohio 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Cuyahoga App. No. 81410, 151 Ohio App.3d 353, 2003-Ohio-299. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed February 7, 2003:

“Motion by appellant to certify a conflict is granted. This court’s decision in State v. Tabbaa, Cuyahoga App. No. 81410, 2003-Ohio-299, is in conflict with State v. Yuen, Franklin App. No. 01AP-1410, 2002-Ohio-5083. The following question is certified:

“In considering a case involving delay in filing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea pursuant to R.C. 2943.031, does the court have discretion to deny the motion by reading a timeliness requirement into R.C. 2943.031 (as the Ohio Supreme Court did in State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235, 2002-Ohio-3993, regarding a Crim.R. 32.1 motion), or, is the trial court without discretion and therefore required to set aside the guilty plea and conviction as the court held in State v. Yuen?"

F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents.

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

Cuyahoga App. No. 81410, 151 Ohio App.3d 353, 2003-Ohio-299. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed February 7, 2003:

“Motion by appellant to certify a conflict is granted. This court’s decision in State v. Tabbaa, Cuyahoga App. No. 81410, 2003-Ohio-299, is in conflict with State v. Yuen, Franklin App. No. 01AP-1410, 2002-Ohio-5083. The following question is certified:

“In considering a case involving delay in filing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea pursuant to R.C. 2943.031, does the court have discretion to deny the motion by reading a timeliness requirement into R.C. 2943.031 (as the Ohio Supreme Court did in State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235, 2002-Ohio-3993, regarding a Crim.R. 32.1 motion), or, is the trial court without discretion and therefore required to set aside the guilty plea and conviction as the court held in State v. Yuen?"

F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

787 N.E.2d 1227, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tabbaa-ohio-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack