Legal Opinion

State v. Hawkins

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 14, 1996No. 95-1813PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reason stated in its entry. Further, we reject Hawkins’ unsupported assumption that fewer than three judges of the court of appeals decided to deny his application for reopening. The fact that only the presiding judge of the court of appeals signed the entry does not impeach the entry. App.R. 22(A) requires only “a journal entry signed by a judge of the court.” Hawkins has not contradicted the presumption of regularity accorded all judicial proceedings. State v. Sweet (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 375, 650 N.E.2d 450; Coleman v. McGettrick…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Coleman v. McGettrickOhio Supreme Court · 1965
  2. State v. SweetOhio Supreme Court · 1995

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. RobbOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Gaskins v. ShiplevyOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. State v. DemastryOhio Court of Appeals · 2003
  4. State v. RobbOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Gaskins v. ShiplevyOhio Supreme Court · 1996

6 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