Legal Opinion

Kirklin v. Enlow

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 16, 2000No. 00-280PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

Kirklin asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his prohibition action because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him after it failed to comply with R.C. 2945.06. For the following reasons, Kirklin’s claim lacks merit.

An alleged violation of R.C. 2945.06 is not cognizable in an extraordinary writ action and may be remedied only in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction. State ex rel. Collins v. Leonard (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 477, 478, 687 N.E.2d 443, *456443-444; Jackson v. Rose (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 51, 679 N.E.2d 684; State v. Pless (1996), 74 Ohio…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. PlessOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Jackson v. RoseOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State ex rel. Jackson v. CallahanOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State ex rel. Collins v. LeonardOhio Supreme Court · 1997

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Pratts v. HurleyOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. State ex rel. Key v. SpicerOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Ohio v. MontgomeryOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. State ex rel. Key v. SpicerOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  5. State v. KirklinOhio Court of Appeals · 2013

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API