Legal Opinion

State v. Peterson, 08 Ma 102 (3-24-2009)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided March 24, 2009No. 08 MA 102PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

{¶ 1} This timely appeal comes for consideration upon the record in the trial court and the parties' briefs. Pro-se Appellant, Thomas Peterson, appeals the decision of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas that granted the State's motion for summary judgment and denied Peterson's petition for post-conviction relief as untimely.

{¶ 2} On appeal, Peterson argues that he was denied due process because the court did not allow him adequate time to respond before ruling on the State's motion for summary judgment. Additionally, Peterson claims ineffective assistance of counsel, and asks…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. State v. CalhounOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. State v. ColeOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  3. State v. ReynoldsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State v. CalhounOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State v. ReynoldsOhio Supreme Court · 1997

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. ClayOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
  2. State v. ReeseOhio Court of Appeals · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API