Legal Opinion

State v. Qualls

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 20, 2012No. 2011-0202PublishedCited by 233 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCupp, J.

{¶ 1} The defendant-appellant in this case was notified of postrelease control at his 2002 sentencing hearing, but the language indicating that notification had been made was inadvertently omitted from the sentencing entry that resulted from that hearing. When the omission came to light, the trial court, in 2010, corrected the sentencing entry through a nunc pro tunc entry that stated that the notification had been made and denied the defendant’s request for a new sentencing hearing. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s actions as a permissible use of a nunc pro tunc entry. For the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. State v. FischerOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  2. State v. LesterOhio Supreme Court · 2011
  3. State v. JordanOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  4. State v. BezakOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  5. State v. SimpkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2008

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by233 opinions

  1. State v. Bonnell (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  2. State v. Grimes (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2017
  3. State v. Bates (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2022
  4. State v. NobleOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  5. State v. ColemanOhio Court of Appeals · 2014

228 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