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. Yates

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

October 26, 2017

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
PIERRE YATES DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

         Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-04-460767-A

          FOR APPELLANT Pierre Yates, pro se

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: Amy Venesile Assistant Prosecuting Attorney

          BEFORE: Celebrezze, J., Kilbane, P.J., and Boyle, J.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR, JUDGE

         {¶1} Appellant, Pierre Yates, appeals from the denial of his successive petition for postconviction relief He argues that amendments to R.C. 2901.09(B) apply retroactively to his case and should result in the vacation of his conviction for murder. After a thorough review of the record and law, this court affirms.

         I. Factual and Procedural History

         {¶2} Appellant was convicted of murder in 2005, for which he received a prison sentence of 23 years to life. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by this court in 2006. State v. Yates, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 86631, 2006-Ohio-3004.[1] Over the intervening years, appellant filed several petitions for postconviction relief, which were denied by the trial court.

         {¶3} In July 2016, appellant filed an "amended petition to vacate or set aside judgment of conviction or sentence under R.C. 2953.21 and R.C. 2953.23." Appellant argued that statutory amendments created a retroactive right that should now be applied to his case. The trial court denied the motion in a journal entry without exposition.

         {¶4} Appellant then filed the instant appeal, assigning two errors for review:

1. [The] trial court committed constitutional error and abused its discretion [by] denying a hearing on [appellant's] petition under R.C. 2953.23 for application [of] newly amended R.C. 2901.05(B) and R.C. 2901.09(B) when [a] new federal holding of U.S. Supreme Court gives retroactive effect [sic] to new substantive rule of constitutional law.
2. No reasonable juror would convict [appellant] of [the] firearm specification for discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle under R.C. 2941.146 if [the] jury instruction for R.C. 2901.09(B) was retroactively given and applied to [appellant's] sentence and conviction.

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Successive Petition for ...


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.