In re Cases Held for the Decision in State v. Williams, 957 N.E.2d 289

The court held for decision in State v. Williams to determine disposition of numerous cases cited.
Judgments of the courts of appeals are reversed and remanded for application of Williams.
A group of cases is identified with docket numbers and appellate citations (2009–2011 range).
Some cases are specifically held for decision and others are dismissed as improvidently accepted.
Ment on and related cases are among those later dismissed as improvidently accepted.
Justices O’Connor, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown concur; O’Donnell dissents on some items.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate judgments should be reversed and remanded for Williams.	State would reverse and remand for Williams.	Appellate judgments should be affirmed.	Reversed and remanded for Williams application.
Whether Menton was improvidently accepted and should be dismissed.	State argues for proper disposition under Williams framework.	Menton should be dismissed as improvidently accepted.	Ment on dismissed as improvidently accepted.
Whether other held-for-decision or dismissed-for-improvident-acceptance items should be treated similarly.	State seeks consistent Williams-based disposition.	Certain cases should remain as decided or be dismissed as improvidently accepted.	Cases held for decision or dismissed as improvidently accepted as stated.

State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (2011-Ohio-3374) (primacy of Williams framework for disposition on remand)
Hartley v. State, 2011-Ohio-96 (2011-Ohio-96) (improvident acceptance considerations in appeal dismissals)
Clager v. State, 2010-Ohio-6074 (2010-Ohio-6074) (improvidently accepted cases addressed)
Core v. State, 191 Ohio App.3d 651, 2010-Ohio-6292, 947 N.E.2d 250 (2010-Ohio-6292) (appellate disposition and improvident acceptance considerations)
Menton, 2009-Ohio-4640 (2009-Ohio-4640) (improvidently accepted determination context)