From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Meadows

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 4, 1992
585 N.E.2d 830 (Ohio 1992)

Opinion

No. 91-1080

Submitted February 11, 1992 —

Decided March 4, 1992.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, Nos. C-900391 and C-900491.

Arthur M. Ney, Jr., Prosecuting Attorney, and Leonard Kirschner, for appellee.

Randall M. Dana, Ohio Public Defender, and Wendie A. Gerus, for appellant.


The cause is affirmed on the authority of State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204. However, defendant-appellant may file for delayed reconsideration of his ineffectiveness-of-counsel claim in the Hamilton County Court of Appeals.

MOYER, C.J., HOLMES, DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., concur.

SWEENEY, J., dissents based on his dissent in State v. Murnahan (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 60, 584 N.E.2d 1204.

WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., dissent.


Summaries of

State v. Meadows

Supreme Court of Ohio
Mar 4, 1992
585 N.E.2d 830 (Ohio 1992)
Case details for

State v. Meadows

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. MEADOWS, APPELLANT

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Mar 4, 1992

Citations

585 N.E.2d 830 (Ohio 1992)
585 N.E.2d 830

Citing Cases

State v. McGlone

"Where the time period for reconsideration in the court of appeals and direct appeal to the Supreme Court has…