Garland Peters' Appeal by backgroundnow

VIEWS: 74 PAGES: 7

									                                                                                                                        2009-11-25
[Cite as State v. Peters, 2009-Ohio-5836.]


                   Court of Appeals of Ohio
                                     EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                        COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA



                                 JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
                                          No. 92791




                                           STATE OF OHIO
                                                             PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

                                                               vs.

                                       GARLAND PETERS
                                                             DEFENDANT-APPELLEE




                                    JUDGMENT:
                              REVERSED AND REMANDED


                                     Criminal Appeal from the
                               Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                        Case No. CR-508436

          BEFORE:                 Dyke, J., Rocco, P.J., and Boyle, J.

          RELEASED:                     November 5, 2009

SOURCED: WWW.BACKGROUNDNOW.COM                                                                                           Page 1 of 7
www.BackgroundNow.com provides background checks to businesses; publishes fraud, corruption, and other criminal and civil case news;
and distr butes case complaints, indictments, plea agreements and other court documents to analysts, bloggers, journalists, reporters and interested
readers. Always keep in mind that indictments, complaints or informations are not evidence of guilt. These are descriptions of accusations made
against defendants. Those accused are presumed innocent until guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proven or until guilt is admitted or plead.
                                                                                                                        2009-11-25
          JOURNALIZED:

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

William D. Mason, Esq.
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Andrew J. Santoli,Esq.
Assistant County Prosecutor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Paul F. Markstrom, Esq.
11565 Pearl Road, Suite 300
Strongsville, Ohio 44136




N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court’s decision. See App.R. 22(B) and
26(A); Loc.App.R. 22. This decision will be journalized and will become the
judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(C) unless a motion for
reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days
of the announcement of the court’s decision. The time period for review by the
Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this courts
announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(C). See, also, S.Ct. Prac.R. II,
Section 2(A)(1).




ANN DYKE, J.:
SOURCED: WWW.BACKGROUNDNOW.COM                                                                                           Page 2 of 7
www.BackgroundNow.com provides background checks to businesses; publishes fraud, corruption, and other criminal and civil case news;
and distr butes case complaints, indictments, plea agreements and other court documents to analysts, bloggers, journalists, reporters and interested
readers. Always keep in mind that indictments, complaints or informations are not evidence of guilt. These are descriptions of accusations made
against defendants. Those accused are presumed innocent until guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proven or until guilt is admitted or plead.
                                                                                                                        2009-11-25
          {¶ 1} The State of Ohio appeals from the order of the court of common

pleas that dismissed the indictment issued against defendant Garland Peters.

For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

          {¶ 2} On March 31, 2008, defendant was indicted for one count of escape

in violation of R.C. 2921.34(A)(1).                          Defendant subsequently filed a motion to

dismiss the indictment. He argued that he did not break detention because he

was subject to electronic home monitoring.
								
To top