From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Tate

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County
Dec 15, 1999
Appeal No. C-980996. Trial No. B-9302811 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 15, 1999)

Opinion

Appeal No. C-980996. Trial No. B-9302811.

December 15, 1999.


JUDGMENT ENTRY.

This appeal, considered on the accelerated calendar under App.R. 11.1(E) and Loc.R. 12, is not controlling authority except as provided in S.Ct.R.Rep.Op. 2(G)(1).

The assignments of error are overruled. The substance of Tate's "motion to amend sentence" fits the criteria for a petition for postconviction relief set forth in R.C. 2953.21(A)(1). Tate has filed other postconviction motions that were overruled. Tate has failed to demonstrate any of the factors set forth in R.C. 2953.23(A) that would allow the trial court to consider a successive petition for postconviction relief. See State v. Hill (1998), 129 Ohio App.3d 658, 718 N.E.2d 978; State v. Gibbs (Dec. 11, 1998), Hamilton App. Nos. C-971087 and C-971089, unreported; State v. Moore (Sept. 4, 1998), Hamilton App. No. C-971038, unreported.

Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Further, a certified copy of this Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate, which shall be sent to the trial court under App.R. 27. Costs shall be taxed under App.R. 24.

Hildebrandt, P.J., Painter and Shannon, JJ. Raymond E. Shannon, retired, of the First Appellate District, sitting by assignment.


Summaries of

State v. Tate

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County
Dec 15, 1999
Appeal No. C-980996. Trial No. B-9302811 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 15, 1999)
Case details for

State v. Tate

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. BARZELL TATE, Defendant-Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County

Date published: Dec 15, 1999

Citations

Appeal No. C-980996. Trial No. B-9302811 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 15, 1999)