State v. Gondor
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.
{¶ 1} The question presented in these two cases, consolidated sua sponte, is whether the court of appeals applied the correct standard of review when it reviewed de novo the trial court’s judgment granting the appellants’ petitions for postconviction relief. We hold that the court of appeals should have applied an abuse-of-discretion standard rather than a de novo standard in reviewing the trial court’s decisions on the two postconviction petitions. We therefore reverse the judgments of the court of appeals. Because we also hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- State v. BradleyOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- State v. CalhounOhio Supreme Court · 1999
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by590 opinions
- State v. HunterOhio Supreme Court · 2011
- State v. PerezOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
- State v. Davis (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
- State v. HattonOhio Supreme Court · 2022
585 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.