Legal Opinion

State v. Huber

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 25, 2010No. 07-CA-122PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Brogan, Judge.

{¶ 1} This case comes before us following our decision under App.R. 26(B) to reopen Joseph Huber’s direct appeal.

{¶ 2} In 2007, a jury found Huber guilty of possessing 26 fentanyl patches in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A). The jury also found that Huber possessed between five and 50 times the bulk amount of this drug. Because fentanyl is a schedule II controlled substance, see R.C. 3719.41, SCHEDULE II, (B)(9), Huber was guilty of aggravated drug possession under R.C. 2925.11(C)(1). And, because of the amount the jury found that he possessed, the offense was a second-degree felony…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. SkorvanekOhio Court of Appeals · 2009
  2. State v. CobbOhio Court of Appeals · 2003
  3. State v. MontgomeryOhio Court of Appeals · 1984
  4. State v. Huber, 07-Ca-122 (4-3-2009)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. Pountney (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
  2. State v. KozicOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  3. State v. ParraOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. State v. HuberOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  5. State v. DiloOhio Court of Appeals · 2018

1 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