State v. Acklin
State v. Acklin
Opinion
[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 93 Ohio St.3d 213.]
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. ACKLIN, APPELLANT. [Cite as State v. Acklin, 2001-Ohio-1329.] Discretionary appeal allowed—Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and cause remanded for application of State v. Eppinger. (No. 01-910—Submitted July 17, 2001—Decided September 19, 2001.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-000335. __________________ {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is allowed. {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of State v. Eppinger (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 158, 743 N.E.2d 881. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________ Michael K. Allen, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald W. Springman, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Charles H. Bartlett, Jr., for appellant. __________________
Reference
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Discretionary appeal allowed—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and cause remanded for application of State v. Eppinger.