Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
Β§

Chapman v. State

412 So. 2d 1276 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Chapman v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Davis v. J&J Concrete

    2019 Ohio 1407 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)

    The Supreme Court [of Ohio] has held that: the qualification or competency of a witness to testify as an expert or to give his opinion on a particular subject rests with the trial court, and, on appeal, its rulings with respect to such matters will ordinarily not be reversed unless there is a clear showing that the court abused its discretion." Midwest Materials, Inc. v. Aetna Freight Lines, Inc., 11th Dist. Lake No. 9-021, 1982 WL 5659, at *1 (Sept. 24, 1982), citing Ohio Turnpike Commission v. Ellis, 164 Ohio St. 377 (1955). {ΒΆ34} As noted earlier, "an abuse of discretion is the trial court's 'failure to exercise sound, reasonable, and legal decision-making.'"

  2. Bland v. State

    565 So. 2d 1240 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that the defendant was allowed to withdraw plea where the defendant entered into a plea agreement with the State in which the State agreed to recommend a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment, split to serve one year in confinement followed by probation and to run coterminously with another sentence the defendant was then serving, but the trial court rejected the recommended sentence and sentenced the defendant to 15 years' imprisonment split to serve one year in confinement followed by probation with the one-year-confinement portion to run consecutively to the sentence the defendant was currently serving

    Tiner v. State, supra. The fact that a defendant who has knowingly and intelligently pleaded guilty later becomes dissatisfied with the sentence he received does not, alone, constitute a ground for invalidating the guilty plea. Chapman v. State, 412 So.2d 1276 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982)."