State v. Ingels
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Cunningham, Presiding Judge.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Earl Ingels presents on appeal four assignments of error that, distilled to their essence, challenge the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court's judgments overruling his "Motion[s] to Set Aside a Void Violent Sexual Predator Sanction." We remand for resentencing on the kidnapping offenses charged in counts one and three of the indictment in the case numbered B-9800321, because those sentences are void when R.C. Chapter 2971 did not confer upon the trial court the authority to enhance the sentences based on specifications that Ingels was a…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- State v. FischerOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. PayneOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. ZaleskiOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. BeasleyOhio Supreme Court · 1984
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. IngelsOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
- Ingels v. Warden North Central Correctional InstitutionDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2022
- State v. IngelsOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
- State v. IngelsOhio Court of Appeals · 2018