MOTION DOCKET, 75 Ohio St.3d 1455 (1996)

663 N.E.2d 645, 647Supreme Court of Ohio.
1996.

MOTION DOCKET Friday, April 19, 1996 88-1265. State v. Wiles. Portage County, No. 1675. UPON CONSIDERATION of the motion filed by counsel for appellant to stay the execution of sentence in the above-styled cause pending the exhaustion of state post-conviction remedies,
IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion be, and is hereby, granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that, pursuant to State v. Glenn (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 601, 514 N.E.2d 869, a stay is granted for a period of six months, beginning April 12, 1996, and ending October 15, 1996, to allow appellant an opportunity to file a petition for post-conviction relief. If a petition for post-conviction relief is not filed within the time allotted, this stay will expire. No further time for the filing of the petition will be granted except in unusual circumstances.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that, if a petition for post-conviction relief is filed within the time allotted, a date-stamped copy of the petition shall be filed by appellant with the Clerk of this court, and this stay shall remain in effect until exhaustion of all state post-conviction proceedings, including any appeals.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that compliance with the mandate and execution of sentence be, and is hereby, stayed for the six-month period allotted by this order and, if a petition for post-conviction relief is filed within the time allotted, pending the exhaustion of all proceedings for post-conviction relief before the courts of this state.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for the appellant and for the appellee shall notify this court when all proceedings for post-conviction relief before courts of this state have been exhausted.

93-1708. State v. Kinley. Clark County, No. 2826. UPON CONSIDERATION of the motion filed by counsel for appellant to stay the execution of sentence in the above-styled cause pending the exhaustion of state post-conviction remedies,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion be, and is hereby, granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that, pursuant to State v. Glenn (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 601, 514 N.E.2d 869, a stay is granted for a period of six months, beginning April 8, 1996, and ending October 8, 1996, to allow appellant an opportunity to file a petition for post-conviction relief. If a petition for post-conviction relief is not filed within the time allotted, this stay will expire. No further time for the filing of the petition will be granted except in unusual circumstances.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that, if a petition for post-conviction relief is filed within the time allotted, a date-stamped copy of the petition shall be filed by appellant with the Clerk of this court, and this stay shall remain in effect until exhaustion of all state post-conviction proceedings,

Page 1456

including any appeals.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that compliance with the mandate and execution of sentence be, and is hereby, stayed for the six-month period allotted by this order and, if a petition for post-conviction relief is filed within the time allotted, pending the exhaustion of all proceedings for post-conviction relief before the courts of this state.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for the appellant and for the appellee shall notify this court when all proceedings for post-conviction relief before courts of this state have been exhausted.

96-113. Thompson v. Utomo. Lucas County, No. L-95-034. This cause is pending before the court on the certification of conflict by the Court of Appeals for Lucas County. On February 14, 1996, this case was consolidated with Supreme Court case No. 95-2509, Thompson, Admx., etc., et al. v. Utomo et al. for purposes of briefing. On April 9, 1996, Supreme Court case No. 95-2509 was dismissed on joint application of the parties.

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the parties show cause, within ten days from the date of this entry, why this cause should not be dismissed.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

CUSPIDE PROPERTIES, LTD. v. EARL MECHANICAL SERVICES, INC., 53 N.E.3d 818 (2015)

53 N.E.3d 818 (2015)2015-Ohio-5019 CUSPIDE PROPERTIES, LTD., Appellee/Cross-Appellant v. EARL MECHANICAL SERVICES, Inc., Appellant/Cross-Appellee v.…

2 years ago

McCAMMON v. COOPER, 69 Ohio St. 366 (1904)

McCammon v. Cooper, 69 Ohio St. 366 (1904) Jan. 5, 1904 · Supreme Court of Ohio · No. 8237…

5 years ago

BANK OF AM., N.A. v. SMITH, 2018-Ohio-3638

[Cite as Bank of Am., N.A. v. Smith, 2018-Ohio-3638.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST…

7 years ago

STATE v. MARCUM, 2018-Ohio-1009 (2018)

[Cite as State v. Marcum, 2018-Ohio-1009.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF…

8 years ago

In re A.F., 2018-Ohio-310 (Oh. App. 1/26/2018)

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY IN RE: :…

8 years ago

Ohio Attorney General Opinion No. 2017-007

March 13, 2017 The Honorable Paul J. Gains Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney 6th Floor Administration…

8 years ago