State V. Little., 2009-1807
| Decision Date | 23 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | No.2008 CA 18,2009-1807,2008 CA 18 |
| Citation | 183 Ohio App.3d 680,2009 Ohio 4403 |
| Parties | State v. Little. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Miami App. No. 2008 CA 18, 183 Ohio App.3d 680, 2009-Ohio-4403. On March 10, 2010, the discretionary appeal was accepted in this case. On March 18, 2010, the Ohio Public Defender filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for failure of the prosecuting attorney to serve the Ohio Public Defender with a copy of the notice of appeal as required by S.Ct.Prac.R. 14.2(A)(3). The motion to dismiss was denied, but the Ohio Public Defender was granted 30 days in which to file a jurisdictional memorandum, and briefing was stayed. The jurisdictional memorandum of amicus curiae Ohio Public Defender was filed on May 11, 2010.
Upon further consideration, the March 10, 2010 order accepting the discretionary appeal is vacated, and the cause is dismissed.
Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents and would retain the appeal on Proposition of Law No. II.
Cupp, J., dissents and would retain the appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hobbs
... ... Little , 183 Ohio App.3d 680, 2009-Ohio-4403, 918 N.E.2d 230 (2nd Dist.), 56 (concluding that when probable cause for search warrant derived from evidence ... ...
-
Brown v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst., 1:17-cv-583
... ... Petitioner, ... an inmate in state custody at the Chillicothe Correctional ... Institution, has filed a pro se petition for a ... competent and credible evidence supports that finding ... State v. Little, 183 Ohio App.3d 680, 918 N.E.2d ... 230, 2009-Ohio-4403, at ¶ 15 (2nd Dist.); State v ... ...
-
State v. Hart
...451, 109 S.Ct. 693, 102 L.Ed.2d 835; Accord, State v. Wooley, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 16-COA-003, 2017-Ohio-576, ¶ 25, citing State v. Little, 183 Ohio App.3d 680, 2009-Ohio-4403, 918 N.E.2d 230, ¶ 22 (2nd Dist.), appeal dismissed, 125 Ohio St.3d 1458, 2010-Ohio-2753, 928 N.E.2d 735 and Unite......
-
State v. Chavez
...privacy is present when there is a subjective expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. State v. Little, 183 Ohio App.3d 680, 2009-Ohio-4403, 918 N.E.2d 230, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (Har......