State v. Powell

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Myers

    172 Ohio St. 3d 1471 (Ohio 2024)

    The parties are to brief the issue as stated on the fifth page of the court of appeals’ May 15, 2023 entry: "Is a trial court’s decision on a motion for appointment of experts in a capital postconviction proceeding a provisional remedy pursuant to R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) and therefore a final order?" The conflict case is State v. Powell, 2019-Ohio-4286, 148 N.E.3d 51 (6th Disk.). Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2023-0838, State v. Myers, and briefing in case Nos. 2023-0751 and 2023-0838 consolidated.

  2. State v. Belton

    2023 Ohio 294 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)

    "Under Crim.R. 42(E), the trial court has the discretion to appoint experts for indigent defendants in postconviction reviews of capital cases." State v. Powell, 2019-Ohio-4286, 148 N.E.3d 51, ¶ 48 (6th Dist.). We review a trial court's order denying a request to appoint experts for indigent defendants in postconviction reviews of capital cases for abuse of discretion.

  3. State v. Fitzpatrick

    2022 Ohio 4381 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)

    It is important to remember that the term "provisional remedy" applies to a proceeding, not an individual order. See id. at 447-448; State v. Powell, 2019-Ohio-4286, 148 N.E.3d 51, ¶ 35 (6th Dist); Carter, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106690, 2018-Ohio-4115, at ¶ 18.

  4. State v. Fuller

    2022 Ohio 618 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)

    As the court explained, "postconviction relief issues arise after a criminal defendant's substantial rights have been addressed, and are often not final appealable orders, absent statutory language designating them as such." State v. Powell, 2019-Ohio-4286, 148 N.E.3d 51 (6th Dist), ¶ 28, citing State v. Carter, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106690, 2018-Ohio-4115, ¶ 14. See also State v. Cunningham, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 85342, 2005-Ohio-3840, ¶ 10.