State v. Gumm

Supreme Court of Ohio · Decided 2004-09-22

Cited by 196 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

Pfeifer, J., concurring. {¶ 11} I concur with the result in this case. However, I find Gumm’s lack of timeliness to arise not at the expiration of the 90-day period set forth in App.R. 26(B), but rather from the years-long delay that occurred after Gumm had obtained new counsel. {¶ 12} App.R. 26(B) provides: {¶ 13} “(1) A defendant in a criminal case may apply for reop…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.