State v. Reynolds
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Fain, Judge.
{¶ 1} Appellant Billy Ray Reynolds appeals from his conviction and sentence for abusing harmful intoxicants, in violation of R.C. 2925.31. He contends that R.C. 2925.31 is unconstitutional because the statute is vague and overbroad, failing to clearly delineate what types of conduct will lead to criminal prosecution. He also argues that his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence and is against the manifest weight of the evidence. He finally claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to move for a directed verdict under Crim.R.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- State v. ThompkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. JenksOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. BradleyOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. DehassOhio Supreme Court · 1967
- Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. Rodgers, 2007-T-0003 (6-6-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
- State v. AhreshienOhio Court of Appeals · 2021
- State v. FuchsOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
- State v. JohnsonOhio Court of Appeals · 2023
- State v. KeetonOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.