State v. Velliquette

17 Citing cases

  1. Cases Held for the Decision in State v. Maddox

    2022 Ohio 1352 (Ohio 2022)

    • 2020-1243. State v. Velliquette, 2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414 (6th Dist.). • 2021-0001.

  2. State v. Velliquette

    2022 Ohio 2747 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)

    {¶ 1} This matter is before the court on remand from the Ohio Supreme Court, following reversal of our determination that the challenge to indefinite sentencing under R.C. 2967.271 (the "Reagan Tokes Law") is not ripe for review. See State v. Velliquette, 2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414, ¶ 10, motion to certify allowed, 161 Ohio St.3d 1415, 2021-Ohio-120, 161 N.E.3d 708, ¶ 10, and rev'd and remanded sub nom. In re Cases Held for the Decision in State v. Maddox, 2022-Ohio-1352, ¶ 10.

  3. State v. Wright

    2022 Ohio 1537 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)

    "However, if a defendant challenges the validity of the waiver, the state bears the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the waiver was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made." State v. Velliquette, 2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414, ¶ 19 (6th Dist), citing Wesson at ¶ 34. {¶ 74} The determination of whether a defendant's waiver satisfies the Miranda standard involves a two-step analysis:

  4. State v. Eitzman

    2022 Ohio 574 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)

    We are aware that the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh Districts found that separation of powers arguments and due process arguments that question the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law are not yet ripe for review. See State v. Ramey, 4th Dist. Washington Nos. 20CA1 and 20CA2, 2020-Ohio-6733, ¶ 22; State v. Downard, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2019-0079, 2020-Ohio-4227, ¶ 5, 12-13; State v. Velliquette, 2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414, ¶ 30 (6th Dist.); State v. Lavean, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2020-L-045, 2021-Ohio-1456, ¶ 12. We are also aware that, on December 28, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted a case to determine whether the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law is ripe for review.

  5. State v. Thompson

    2021 Ohio 4027 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)

    State v. Velliquette, 2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414, ¶ 30 (6th Dist.).

  6. State v. Brown

    2021 Ohio 4034 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)

    ignments of error raising constitutional challenges to the Reagan Tokes Law as not ripe for review. See State v. Leak, 2021-Ohio-3139, ___ N.E.3d ___ (6th Dist); State v. Wheeler, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-21-019, 2021-Ohio-3062; State v. Cook, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1205, 2021-Ohio-2619; State v. Figley, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1167, 2021-Ohio-2622; State v. Stenson, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1074, 2021-Ohio-2256; State v. Zambrano, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1224, 2021-Ohio-1906; State v. Shepard, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1070, 2021-Ohio-1844; State v. Perry, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-20-025, 2021-Ohio-1748; State v. Savage, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1073, 2021-Ohio-1549; State v. Bothuel, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1053, 2021-Ohio-875; State v. Acosta, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-20-1068, L-20-1069, 2021-Ohio-757; State v. Sawyer, 2020-Ohio-6980, 165 N.E.3d 844 (6th Dist.); State v. Montgomery, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1202, 2020-Ohio-5552; State v. Velliquette, 2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414 (6th Dist.). {¶ 64} Consistent with the foregoing decisions, we find that appellant's second assignment of error is not ripe for review and is hereby dismissed.

  7. State v. Hodges

    2021 Ohio 3853 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)

    Thus, we have dismissed such assignments of error as not ripe for review. See, e.g., State v. Maddox, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1167, 2020-Ohio-4702; State v. Velliquette, 2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414 (6th Dist); State v. Acosta, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-20-1068, L-20-1069, 2021-Ohio-757; State v. Wheeler, 6th Dist.

  8. State v. Soto

    2021 Ohio 3859 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)

    In support, we cited to: 3 State v. Stenson, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1074, 2021-Ohio-2256, ¶ 14, citing State v. Maddox, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1253, 2020-Ohio-4702; State v. Velliquette, 160 N.E.3d 414, 2020-Ohio-4855 (6th Dist.); State v. Montgomery, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1202, 2020-Ohio-5552; State v. Sawyer, 165 N.E.3d 844, 2020-Ohio-6980 (6th Dist.); State v. Acosta, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-20-1068, L-20-1069, 2021-Ohio-757; State v. Bothuel, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1053, 2021-Ohio-875; State v. Savage, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1073, 2021-Ohio-1549; State v. Perry, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-20-025, 2021-Ohio-1748; State v. Shepard, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1070, 2021-Ohio-1844; State v. Zambrano, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1224, 2021-Ohio-1906. Id.

  9. State v. Leak

    2021 Ohio 3139 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)

    Thus, we have dismissed such assignments of error as not ripe for review. See, e.g., State v. Maddox, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1167, 2020-Ohio-4702; State v. Velliquette, 2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414 (6th Dist); State v. Acosta, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-20-1068, L-20-1069, 2021-Ohio-757. Appellant's first assignment of error is dismissed as not ripe for review.

  10. State v. Wheeler

    2021 Ohio 3062 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)

    Thus, we have dismissed any such assignments of error as not ripe for review. See State v. Cook, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1205, 2021-Ohio-2619; State v. Figley, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1167, 2021-Ohio-2622; State v. Stenson, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1074, 2021-Ohio-2256; State v. Zambrano, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1224, 2021-Ohio-1906; State v. Shepard, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1070, 2021-Ohio-1844; State v. Perry, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-20-025, 2021-Ohio-1748; State v. Savage, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1073, 2021-Ohio-1549; State v. Acosta, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-20-1068, L-20-1069, 2021-Ohio-757; State v. Sawyer, 2020-Ohio-6980, 165 N.E.3d 844 (6th Dist.); State v. Montgomery, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1202, 2020-Ohio-5552; State v. Velliquette, 2020-Ohio-4855, 160 N.E.3d 414 (6th Dist.). {¶ 7} Accordingly, appellant's first assignment of error is dismissed as not ripe for review.