Legal Opinion

State v. Bistarkey

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 1996No. 94-2114PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.

We find that R.C. 2947.061’s language that its operation is [s]ubject to sections 2951.02 to 2951.09 of the Revised Code” plainly means that *9eligibility for probation under R.C. 2951.02 is a prerequisite to eligibility for shock probation under R.C. 2947.061. We therefore affirm the appellate court.

R.C. 2947.061(B), which allows a defendant to move for shock probation after serving six months of a sentence, read, at the time pertinent herein, in relevant part:

“Subject to sections 2951.02 to 2951.09 of the Revised Code * * *, the trial court may, upon the motion of the defendant, suspend the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State ex rel. Corrigan v. Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1976

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. SimonOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. State v. SimonOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. State v. EatonOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
  4. State v. MooreOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. State v. PowellOhio Court of Appeals · 2019

2 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