a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2019 Dayton DUI.
All Rights Reserved.

9:00 - 17:00

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

Facebook

Twitter

Search
OVI Menu
 

DUI Court Process Tag

Dayton DUI Attorney Charles Rowland > Posts tagged "DUI Court Process" (Page 27)

Ohio OVI Law: State v. Larrick (11th District)

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="180" caption="Image via Wikipedia"][/caption]State v. Larrick, 2010-Ohio-2288, 2009-P-0054 (OHCA11)This case involved a discrepancy between the testimony of the Trooper at trial and the evidence recorded by the cruiser camera.  Travis S. appeals from the judgment of the Portage County Municipal Court, Ravenna Division, overruling his motion to suppress regarding a traffic stop, which led to his conviction for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol.  The Court reviewed the tape and did not see a marked lanes violation.  Below are some relevant portions of the decision. "[W]e note that Trooper Ganley testified that...

Continue reading

Ohio OVI Law: State v. Urso, (11th District)

State v. Urso, 2010-Ohio-2151This a bond case coming out of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas.  The defendant appeals an order  granting the state's motion to deny him pretrial bail, pursuant to R.C. 2937.222..  The Court denied bond based on the fact that D had 14 prior OVI convictions: 1982 (agg. veh. homicide), ''83, 83, ''85, ''89,''90,''90,''96,''96,''97,''00,''03,''03,''06 (felony), and the current case, along with the fact that he hadn''t had a valid license since 1979 and many other factors.   The Court of Appeals found the trial court's decision was justified in denying bond. ...

Continue reading

Ohio OVI Law: State v. Shuck

State v. Shuck, 2010-Ohio-2058, 09CA12 (OHCA4) Defendant-Appellant, Joshua M. , appeals the decision of the Marietta Municipal Court denying his motion to suppress the results of his breath alcohol concentration ("BAC") test.  The ultimate issue in his appeal is the difference between a motion to suppress and a motion in limine.  The court ruled, "The determination of whether a motion is a 'motion to suppress' or a 'motion in limine' does not depend on what it is labeled. It depends on the type of relief it seeks to obtain." State v. Massie, 2nd Dist. No. 2007...

Continue reading

Ohio DUI Law: State v. Buitrago

State v. Buitrago, 2010-Ohio-1984, 93380 (OHCA8) Defendant-appellant, Mitchell ,  lost control of the car, struck the center median, and spun to a stop. Both of the passengers in his car were injured.  He was convicted of two counts of aggravated vehicular assault (one count for each person).  He argues that he should only be sentenced on one count of aggravated vehicular assault because his action arose out of one course of conduct.The 8th District Court of Appeals held that since there are two victims there are two seperate crimes that are not of similar import.  Defendant can...

Continue reading

OVI LAW: “show up” identification upheld

City of New Lexington v. Stanley, 2010-Ohio-1916, 09-CA-5 (OHCA5) FACTS: On September 20, 2008, Jennifer Stenson was outside of her home at 402 Mill Street, in New Lexington, Ohio, when she heard a car crash nearby. Ms. Stenson was sitting outside in her yard with several friends after a local high school football game when she heard the crash.Ms. Stenson, and others who were with her, began to look around for the source of the crash. As she walked towards an alley to the side of her house, Ms. Stenson observed a dark colored pickup...

Continue reading

Ohio OVI Law: Allied Offenses

State v. West, 2010-Ohio-1786, C. A. 23547 (OHCA2)Defendant was indicted on one count of aggravated vehicular assault, R.C. 2903.08(A)(1), and one count of operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited concentration of breath alcohol. R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(h), (G)(1)(a). Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, including her statements to the police. Following a hearing, the trial court overruled Defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant also filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, which the trial court never ruled upon. Defendant subsequently entered pleas of no contest to both charges and was found guilty. The...

Continue reading

Ohio DUI Law: State v. Barron (Ineffective Assistance of Counsel)

State v. Barron, 2010-Ohio-1632, CA2009-04-105 (OHCA12) This case involves the issue of whether an attorney was ineffective in providing the defendant a defensebecause he didn''t challenge the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test by filing a motion to suppress  or object on foundational grounds during trial.To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, an appellant must show that his trial counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that appellant was prejudiced as a result. Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 693, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Prejudice exists where there is a reasonable probability...

Continue reading

Ohio OVI Law: State v. Hamblin (speedy trial)

State v. Hamblin, 2010-Ohio-1620, 23189 (OHCA2)Defendant-appellant Michael appeals from his conviction and sentence, following a bench trial, for violating a civil protection order, in violation of R.C. 2919.27(B). contends that the trial court erred by overruling his motion to dismiss, based on statutory speedy trial grounds.After signing the time waiver, the charge was dismissed.  Subsequently, the charge  was refiled and Hamblin filed a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds. His motion was denied.The Second District Court of Appeals held that "That waiver remained in effect up to the time that...

Continue reading

Ohio DUI Law: State v. Phillips (Drafting Motions to Suppress)

State v. Phillips, 2010-Ohio-1547, 08-MO-6 (OHCA7) Defendant-appellant Lee A. appeals his conviction in the Monroe County Court for first-offense operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI). The central issues are whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress the field sobriety and breath test results.It is well recognized that a suppression motion must set forth an adequate basis for the motion. v. Shindler (1994), 70 Ohio.St.3d 54, 58, 636 N.E.2d 319. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that "[i]n order to require a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence, the ...

Continue reading