State v. Van Johnson

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Van Johnson

587 N.E.2d 298, 63 Ohio St. 3d 306, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 456

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 25, 1992·No. No. 91-1413·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

This cause is reversed on the authority of State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204. However, the defendant-appellee may file for [307] delayed reconsideration of his ineffectiveness-of-counsel claim in the Montgomery County Court of Appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Holmes, Douglas and Resnick, JJ., concur. Sweeney, J., dissents based on his dissent in State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 67-68, 584 N.E.2d 1204, 1210. Wright and H. Brown, JJ., dissent.

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

This cause is reversed on the authority of State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204. However, the defendant-appellee may file for [307] delayed reconsideration of his ineffectiveness-of-counsel claim in the Montgomery County Court of Appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Holmes, Douglas and Resnick, JJ., concur. Sweeney, J., dissents based on his dissent in State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 67-68, 584 N.E.2d 1204, 1210. Wright and H. Brown, JJ., dissent.

State v. Van Johnson, 587 N.E.2d 298, 63 Ohio St. 3d 306, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 456 (Ohio 1992).

Pincite

587 N.E.2d 298 (State v. Van Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related