State v. Clayborn, 08ap-593 (4-14-2009)
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Dissent
{¶ 10} Being unable to agree with the majority that the tolling provision contained in App. R. 4(A) does not apply and that, as a result, Clayborn's notice of appeal must be dismissed as untimely, I respectfully dissent.
{¶ 11} During the combined plea and sentencing hearing the trial court conducted, Clayborn objected to the trial court's applying R.C. Chapter 2950, as amended by Am. Sub. S.B. No. 10 ("S.B. 10"). Clayborn contended the prior version of R.C. Chapter 2950, in effect when he committed the offense that formed the basis of his guilty plea, must be applied to his conviction. After…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Smith v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- State v. WilsonOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- State v. FergusonOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. HaydenOhio Supreme Court · 2002
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.