Legal Opinion

State v. Marbury

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided February 25, 2011No. 23823PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Fain, Judge.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Juarron Marbury, appeals from his conviction and sentence for sexual imposition. He argues that his statutory right to a speedy trial was violated. We conclude that Marbury was not denied his right to a speedy trial. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

I

{¶ 2} In September 2008, 20-year-old Marbury had sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl, S.B. As a result, Marbury was served with a summons and complaint charging him with one count of sexual imposition on October 10, 2008. On October 29, Marbury filed a motion to continue his…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. MincyOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. State v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 2002

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. KnottOhio Court of Appeals · 2024
  2. State v. RameyOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
  3. State v. VanscoyOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. State v. AllenOhio Court of Appeals · 2017
  5. State v. AllenOhio Court of Appeals · 2017

2 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