From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Condit v. Clermont Cty.

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 18, 1996
673 N.E.2d 135 (Ohio 1996)

Summary

stating that the failure of a prosecutor to raise an issue either before the sentencing court or on appeal does not in any way change the duty of the court to impose a mandatory sentence prescribed by the legislature

Summary of this case from State v. Smith

Opinion

No. 96-1359.

December 18, 1996.

Clermont App. No. CA95-0-060.


DISMISSALS, SUA SPONTE, NO SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND DISDRETIONARY APPEALS, IF APPLICABLE, NOT ALLOWED

PFEIFER, J., dissents.


Summaries of

Condit v. Clermont Cty.

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 18, 1996
673 N.E.2d 135 (Ohio 1996)

stating that the failure of a prosecutor to raise an issue either before the sentencing court or on appeal does not in any way change the duty of the court to impose a mandatory sentence prescribed by the legislature

Summary of this case from State v. Smith
Case details for

Condit v. Clermont Cty.

Case Details

Full title:Condit v. Clermont Cty. Review

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Dec 18, 1996

Citations

673 N.E.2d 135 (Ohio 1996)

Citing Cases

Wampler v. Higgins

Id., 72 Ohio St.3d at 282, 649 N.E.2d at 186. In Condit v. Clermont County Review (1996), 110 Ohio App.3d…

State v. Watt

Thus, the state's failure to appeal an illegal or void sentence does not negate the trial court's duty to…