TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Withers

The State of Ohio v. Withers

State v. Withers, 337 N.E.2d 780 (Ohio 1975)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Ohio Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 19, 1975
Docket
No. 75-100
Judges
Brown, Browr, Celebrezze, Corrigan, Herbert, Neill, Stern
Citations
337 N.E.2d 78044 Ohio St. 2d 5373 Ohio Op. 2d 2801975 Ohio LEXIS 580

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

Appellant contends, in his first of four propositions of law, that “he was effectively denied the assistance of counsel” at the preliminary hearing, in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Based on the record before us, we agree with the courts below that nothing occurred at appellant’s preliminary hearing which was prejudicial to his rights. See State v. Childs (1968), 14 Ohio St. 2d 56 ; Chapman v. California (1967), 386 U. S. 18 ; Coleman v. Alabama (1970), 399 U. S. 1 .

In his second and third propositions of law, appellant *55 argues that the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting in evidence the pocket knife found in appellant’s possession, and by refusing to admit in evidence the transcript of the preliminary hearing.

In State v. Hymore (1967), 9 Ohio St. 2d 122, 128 , it is stated that, “the trial court has broad discretion in the admission and exclusion of evidence and unless it clearly abused its discretion and the defendant has been materially prejudiced thereby, this court should be slow to interfere.”

After a review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court herein with respect to the admissibility of the evidence.

Lastly, appellant contends that his mandatory sentence to' the reformatory by the trial court amounted to a denial of equal protection of the laws.

The record clearly shows that appellant was arrested January 19,1973, indicted on March 9th, and sentenced July 3, 1973. During that entire period, armed robbery was a non-probationary offense. 2 Hence, appellant was treated no differently than other persons convicted of armed robbery at that time, with respect to eligibility for probation. Appellant’s claim is, therefore, without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, CorrigaN, SterN, Celebrezze, W. BrowN and P. Browr, JJ., concur.

From September 5, 1972, until its repeal, effective January 1, 1974, R. C. 2901.13 provided:

“No person, while armed with a pistol, knife, or other dangerous weapon, by force or violation, or by putting in fear, shall steal from the person of another anything of value.

“Whoever violates this section is guilty of armed robbery * * * and he shall not have the benefit of probation.”

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 29 cases

View all citing references →
1983: 11989: 21990: 11991: 21995: 11996: 11997: 11998: 11999: 12000: 32002: 22003: 22004: 12005: 12006: 12010: 12013: 22014: 22016: 12018: 12026: 119832026peak 2000 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Walker v. Holland691 N.E.2d 719 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)
  2. State v. English602 N.E.2d 655 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)
  3. Silver v. Jewish Home of Cincinnati943 N.E.2d 577 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)
  4. Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. v. Mid-America Tire, Inc.681 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996)
  5. State v. Zamorski752 N.E.2d 288 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
  6. State v. Roten776 N.E.2d 551 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)

Most recent

  1. State v. Stargell2026 Ohio 3656
  2. Rieger v. Giant Eagle, Inc.2018 Ohio 1837, 103 N.E.3d 851
  3. Meyer v. Meyer2016 Ohio 5806
  4. State v. Christian2014 Ohio 2672
  5. State v. Wynn2014 Ohio 420
  6. Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Roberts2013 Ohio 5362

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) 19,172
Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (1970) 1,413
Ohio v. Hymore, 224 N.E.2d 126 (Ohio 1967) 540
State v. Childs, 236 N.E.2d 545 (Ohio 1968) 395

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list