Court Opinion

ID: 3758320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 07:15:48.308126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:21:31.930954
License: Public Domain

I fully concur in the majority's analysis and disposition of appellant's third assignment of error.
I generally concur in the majority's analysis and disposition of appellant's first and second assignments of error. I write separately to note my disagreement with the majority's conclusion "Setting aside the issue of whether appellant moved for a continuance, we find any entry journalizing the continuance should have been filed prior to August 29, 1997 . . . [according to] . . . the Supreme Court's decision in Mincy,supra." (Majority Opinion at 5-6, emphasis added). If the continuance was at the request of the appellant, Mincy does not apply. Mincy's syllabus specifically limits its application tosua sponte continuances by the trial court.
                                      ------------------------ JUDGE WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
For the reasons stated in the Memorandum-Opinion on file, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County, Ohio, is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause is remanded to that court further proceedings in accord with law and consistent with this opinion.
-----------------------
-----------------------
                                        ----------------------- JUDGES