Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Farmer

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Licking

May 24, 2017

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
BRIAN FARMER Defendant-Appellant

         Appeal from the Municipal Court, Case No. 15CRB00319

          For Plaintiff-Appellee J. Michael King

          For Defendant-Appellant BRIAN J. FARMER, Pro Se

          JUDGES: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.

          OPINION

          Wise, Earle, J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Brian Farmer, appeals the October 27, 2016 judgment entry of the Municipal Court of Licking County, Ohio, denying his motion for injunctive relief. Plaintiff-Appellee is the state of Ohio.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         {¶ 2} On June 8, 2015, following a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of menacing by stalking in violation of R.C. 2903.211. By journal entry filed same date, the trial court sentenced appellant to one hundred eighty days in jail, ninety days suspended, and imposed three years of probation as directed by the probation officer. Appellant was ordered to abide by a civil protection order issued by the Court of Common Pleas, and have no contact with the victim and any of the witnesses and jurors. Appellant's conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. State v. Farmer, Licking No. 15 CA 0044, 2015-Ohio-5434.

         {¶ 3} On October 25, 2016, appellant filed a motion for injunctive relief, seeking to bar the probation department from imposing certain probationary restrictions. By judgment entry filed October 27, 2016, the trial court converted the motion for injunctive relief to a motion to modify probation conditions, and denied the motion.

         {¶ 4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:

         I

         {¶ 5} "WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT ENTERING GRANTING AN INJUNCTION BARRING THE ADULT PROBATION FROM IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW AND WHICH DON'T MEET THE JONES TEST."

         II

         {¶ 6} "WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY ALLOWING IMPROPER ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.