State v. Hatfield, 76-332
| Decision Date | 24 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-332,76-332 |
| Citation | 48 Ohio St.2d 118,357 N.E.2d 379,2 O.O.3d 273 |
| Parties | , 2 O.O.3d 273 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. HATFIELD, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
The defendant, Richard L. Hatfield, was arrested on September 28, 1974, in Ironton, Lawrence County, upon a warrant issued in Athens County. He was held without bail in Ironton pending the arrival of Athens police, and was then transported to Athens. During the journey by car to Athens, the defendant made several incriminating statements.
The defendant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the statements, as having been illegally obtained, and the Court of Common Pleas of Athens County sustained the motion, finding that the police had not complied with Crim.R. 4(E)(1), which requires that the defendant not be removed from the county where arrested until he has been given an opportunity to consult with an attorney and post bail.
The state filed a notice of appeal pursuant to Crim.R. 12(J) and App.R. 4(B), and the Court of Appeals reversed, with one judge dissenting.
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion for leave to appeal.
Michael Nolan, Pros. Atty., and Michael Ward, for appellee.
Jones & Ball, Claire M. Ball, Jr., and Gregory W. Black, Athens, for appellant.
In State v. Hughes (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 208, 324 N.E.2d 731, this court held that App.R. 4(B) is invalid insofar as it 'enlarges the statutory right of appeal provided by R.C. 2945.67 through 2945.70, and abridges the right of appellate courts to exercise their discretion in allowing appeals * * *.' In State v. Wallace (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 1, 330 N.E.2d 697, the court held that '(a) motion for leave to appeal by the state in a criminal case shall be governed by the procedural requirements of App.R. 5 and the time requirements of App.R. 4(B).'
The record in this case discloses that the only procedural steps taken by the prosecution to perfect its appeal were the filing of a notice of appeal and of a certification under Crim.R. 12(J). Under this court's holdings in Hughes and Wallace, this procedure was insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, and that court's judgment must accordingly be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fisher
...affidavits, parts of the record and a brief or memorandum of law to refute the claims of the movant. In State v. Hatfield (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 118, 2 O.O.3d 273, 357 N.E.2d 379, and State v. Keeton (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 379, 18 OBR 434, 481 N.E.2d 629, we reaffirmed our holding that the pr......
- State v. Strodes
-
State v. Emanuel Newell, 90-LW-3900
... ... act. Cleveland v. Dorchak (October 9, ... 1986), Cuyahoga App. No. 51046, unreported at 13 citing ... State v. Hatfield (1976), 48 Ohio St. 2d ... 118 and State v. Walker (1976), 47 Ohio St ... 2d 52 ... If we ... could address ... ...
-
State v. Weaver, 96-CA-04
...to appeal by the state in a criminal case shall be governed by the procedural requirements of App.R. 5. In State v. Hatfield (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 118, 2 O.O.3d 273, 357 N.E.2d 379, the state attempted to appeal a suppression order by filing only a notice of appeal and a Crim.R. 12(J) certi......