Ohio Supreme Court, 1975

State v. Withers

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided November 19, 1975 · Brown, Browr, Celebrezze, Corrigan, Herbert, Neill, Stern

44 Ohio St. 2d 53; 337 N.E.2d 780; 73 Ohio Op. 2d 280; 1975 Ohio LEXIS 580

Cases that cite this one

29 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Walker v. Holland (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)
State v. English (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)
Silver v. Jewish Home of Cincinnati (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)
State v. Roten (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Boden, Unpublished Decision (9-19-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Zamorski (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
Waste Management of Ohio, Inc. v. Mid-America Tire, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 1996)
Paul v. Moore (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)
Rieger v. Giant Eagle, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)
State v. Christian (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
State v. Wynn (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)
State v. Belcher (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
State v. Davis, Unpublished Decision (6-23-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State v. Miller, Unpublished Decision (8-10-1998) (Ohio Ct. App. 1998)
Krischbaum v. Dillon (Ohio 1991)
Coleman v. Excello-Textron Corp. (Ohio Ct. App. 1989)
Dipietro v. Dipietro (Ohio Ct. App. 1983)
DiPietro v. DiPietro (Ohio Ct. App. 1983)
Meyer v. Meyer (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Roberts (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
Ramey v. Quality Mold, Unpublished Decision (5-6-2005) (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)
State v. Crim, Unpublished Decision (5-20-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State v. Holloway, Unpublished Decision (6-24-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State v. Strayer, Unpublished Decision (6-9-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State v. Carter, Unpublished Decision (11-27-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)

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

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 *55argues 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.”

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.