Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Call v. Zimmers

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 28, 1999No. 98-2668PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Per curiam

Call asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his mandamus action. For the following reasons, Call’s assertion lacks merit.

First, Call was not entitled to a transcript because his transcript had already been filed in his direct appeal. State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 325, 326, 691 N.E.2d 275, 276. Only one copy of a transcript of a criminal trial need be provided to an indigent criminal defendant. State ex rel. Murr v. Thierry (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 45, 45-46, 517 N.E.2d 226, 227.

Second, although Call claimed that he needed the copy of the transcript to help him…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Grove v. NadelOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State ex rel. Murr v. ThierryOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  3. State ex rel. Jones v. Montgomery County Court of Common PleasOhio Supreme Court · 1996

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. State v. MorrisOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
  2. State ex rel. Call v. FragaleOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. State ex rel. Wilson v. SunderlandOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  4. State v. TaylorOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
  5. State v. BridgesOhio Court of Appeals · 2023

10 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