Legal Opinion

Romito v. Maxwell

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 7, 1967No. 40656PublishedCited by 69 opinions

1Per curiam

It is petitioner’s contention that his burglary sentence in 1957 was vacated by the habitual criminal proceedings, that such sentence was not reimposed after the setting aside of the habitual criminal conviction, and that, therefore, there is no sentence upon which he can now be detained.

Section 2961.13, Revised Code, relating to habitual criminals, reads in part as follows:

“* * * If the accused pleads guilty to such indictment, or if the jury finds him guilty, or if the court finds him guilty after waiver of a jury, the court shall sentence him to the punishment prescribed in Section 2961.11…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Tari v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  2. In Re KnightOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  3. State v. WintersOhio Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Hill v. HillCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1945

3Cited by69 opinions

  1. State v. FischerOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  2. State v. BezakOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  3. State v. SimpkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  4. State v. SingletonOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  5. State v. BloomerOhio Supreme Court · 2009

64 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