State v. Heinz (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtO’Donnell, J.
{¶ 1} The state of Ohio appeals from a judgment of the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirming a standing order of Judge John Sutula that denied the Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney the opportunity to represent the state in a community control sanction violation and revocation hearing involving Joseph Heinz. The trial court concluded that the probation department represents the state in revocation proceedings, and the appellate court held that the state’s traditional role is adequately represented by the probation department.
{¶ 2} The prosecuting attorney has the authority to prosecute…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Gagnon v. ScarpelliSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Escoe v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- State v. SimpkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. TaltyOhio Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. AndersonOhio Supreme Court · 2015
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by78 opinions
- State v. Henderson (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
- State v. Jackson (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. Howard (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
- State v. MorrisOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
- State v. DuncanOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
73 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.