Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Ingels

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided February 28, 2018No. C–160864Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDeters, J.

{¶ 17} I concur with the majority in affirming the common pleas court's judgments overruling Ingels's 2016 motions. But I dissent from this court's order remanding for resentencing on the kidnapping offenses charged in counts one and three of the indictment in the case numbered B-9800321. I would not overrule our decision in State v. Ingles , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-100297, 2011-Ohio-2901 , 2011 WL 2436654 , but would, instead, follow the law of that case and affirm the dismissal of Ingels's 2016 motion on the ground that the claimed error did not render his sentences void. See State v. Ingl…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. InglesOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  2. State v. InglesOhio Court of Appeals · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API