STATE v. WILLINGHAM (2020)

Supreme Court of Ohio.

The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. WILLINGHAM, Appellee.

Nos. 2019-0659 and 2019-0900

Decided: June 30, 2020

Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Daniel T. Van and Mary M. Frey, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellant. Mark A. Stanton, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Paul A. Kuzmins, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee, Christopher Willingham. Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alex S. Havlin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association.

{¶ 1} The cause in case No. 2019-0659 is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

{¶ 2} In case No. 2019-0900, the judgment of the court of appeals is vacated. See State v. Washington, 137 Ohio St.3d 427, 2013-Ohio-4982, 999 N.E.2d 661, ¶ 8; State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Gwin, 64 Ohio St.3d 245, 249-250, 594 N.E.2d 616 (1992); see also S.Ct.Prac.R. 5.02, 7.01(A)(1), and 7.01(D)(1).

O'Connor, C.J., and French, Donnelly, and Stewart, JJ., concur. Kennedy, J., concurs in case No. 2019-0900 for the reasons stated in her dissenting opinion in State v. Moore, 149 Ohio St.3d 557, 2016-Ohio-8288, 76 N.E.3d 1127, ¶ 150-152, and dissents in case No. 2019-0659 and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals in that case. Fischer and DeWine, JJ., concur in case No. 2019-0900 and dissent in case No. 2019-0659 and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals in that case.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law