Legal Opinion

State v. Gondor

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 26, 2006No. Nos. 2005-0329 and 2005-0336PublishedCited by 590 opinions

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

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. State v. BradleyOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  4. State v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  5. State v. CalhounOhio Supreme Court · 1999

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

3Cited by590 opinions

  1. State v. HunterOhio Supreme Court · 2011
  2. State v. PerezOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  3. State v. Apanovitch (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
  4. State v. Davis (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
  5. State v. HattonOhio Supreme Court · 2022

585 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