Narrative Opinion Summary
The judgments of the courts of appeals in several cases are affirmed based on the precedent set in State v. Taylor, 138 Ohio St.3d 194, 2014-Ohio-460, 5 N.E.3d 612. The specific cases affirmed include: 1. State v. Cefalo, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2011-L-163, 2012-Ohio-5594, 2012 WL 5995235 (Case No. 2013-0092). 2. State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25057, 2012-Ohio-5912, 2012 WL 6561009 (Case No. 2013-0141). 3. State v. Boltz, 2013-Ohio-1830, 991 N.E.2d 726 (6th Dist.) (Case No. 2013-1105). 4. State v. Jenkins, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25414, 2013-Ohio-3038, 2013 WL 3776388 (Case No. 2013-1456). Chief Justice O'Connor and Justices Pfeifer, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O'Neill concur in the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Appellate Court Judgmentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the courts of appeals in multiple cases by applying the precedent set in a prior decision.
Reasoning: The judgments of the courts of appeals in several cases are affirmed based on the precedent set in State v. Taylor, 138 Ohio St.3d 194, 2014-Ohio-460, 5 N.E.3d 612.
Concurrence of Justices in Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision to affirm the lower courts' judgments was unanimously concurred by the Chief Justice and all attending Justices.
Reasoning: Chief Justice O'Connor and Justices Pfeifer, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O'Neill concur in the decision.
Precedent Application in Criminal Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The precedent from State v. Taylor was used to affirm decisions in several criminal cases across different appellate districts.
Reasoning: The judgments of the courts of appeals in several cases are affirmed based on the precedent set in State v. Taylor, 138 Ohio St.3d 194, 2014-Ohio-460, 5 N.E.3d 612.