Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

57 Ohio St. 3d 50

State v. Mateo

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 16, 1991

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1991-01-16

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1991-01-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably 121 Ohio App. 3d 451 - State v. Nievas (1997), 87 Ohio App. 3d 157 - State v. Powell (1993)

26 state decisions

1201991200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Douglas, J.,

¶1concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with the judgment of the majority and the majority’s reasoning as found in Part II of the opinion. Thus, I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals as to appellee’s convictions and sentence and find the cross-appeal not well-taken.

¶2I respectfully dissent from the judgment and reasoning of the majority as found in Part I of the opinion. R.C. 2925.13(D) requires that a motion be made to the common pleas court if forfeiture is sought. The record reflects, and counsel for appellant/ cross-appellee conceded at oral argument, that no motion had been made to the trial court. Thus, the dictates of the statute have simply not been met. I would, therefore, affirm the judgment of the court of appeals (although for a different reason than given by the court of appeals) and thereby find the appeal also not well-taken.

/57/ohiost3d/50 · .json · Public domain