Legal Opinion
State v. Willan
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 11, 2013No. 2012-0216PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFrench, J.
{¶ 1} In this appeal, we consider the scope of the language in R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(a)1 requiring a mandatory ten-year prison term for an offender “guilty of corrupt activity with the most serious offense in the pattern of corrupt activity being a felony of the first degree.” We hold that this language is unambiguous and conclude that the court of appeals erred by restricting the meaning of “corrupt activity” to refer only to activity associated with the offenses .listed in R.C. 2929.14(D)(3)(a).
BACKGROUND
{¶ 2} In December 2008, a jury found cross-appellee, David Willan, guilty of 68 counts,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/sSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- State v. HairstonOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. AndersonOhio Supreme Court · 1991
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. WillanOhio Supreme Court · 2015
- State v. MooreOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
- State v. MontagueOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
- Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. v. MyersOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
- State v. WillanOhio Supreme Court · 2013
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.