State v. Bogan, Unpublished Decision (7-27-2006)
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Jolly, Unpublished Decision (1-25-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
- State v. Harris, Unpublished Decision (11-30-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
- State v. Kendrick, 21790 (11-16-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} The purpose of an accelerated appeal is to allow this court to render a brief and conclusory opinion. Crawford v.Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983),
{¶ 3} Bogan argues in his sole assignment of error that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion. He contends that because his case had been remanded pursuant toState v. Bogan, Cuyahoga App. No. 84468,
{¶ 4} This court disagrees on the authority of State ex rel.Special Prosecutors v. Judges (1978),
{¶ 5} As recently stated in State v. Cvijetinovic, Cuyahoga App. No. 82894,
{¶ 6} Consequently, since the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider Bogan's motion, the motion properly was denied. Id., at ¶¶ 16-22.
Affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Corrigan, J. and Blackmon, J. concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.