History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Hawkins
74 Ohio St. 3d 530
Ohio
1996
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

We affirm the decision of the court of appeals for the reason stated in its entry. Further, we reject Hawkins’ unsupported assumption that fewer than three judges of the court of appeals decided to deny his application for reopening. The fact that only the presiding judge of the court of appeals signed the entry does not impeach the entry. App.R. 22(A) requires only “a journal entry signed by a judge of the court.” Hawkins has not contradicted the presumption of regularity accorded all judicial proceedings. State v. Sweet (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 375, 650 N.E.2d 450; Coleman v. McGettrick (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 177, 180, 31 O.O.2d 326, 328,207 N.E.2d 552, 554.

Judgment affirmed.

*532Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur. Wright, J., dissents.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Hawkins
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Feb 14, 1996
Citation: 74 Ohio St. 3d 530
Docket Number: No. 95-1813
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.