State v. Holley

<p>[Cite as State v. Holley, 2020-Ohio-5104.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY : STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case No. 2019-CA-44 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 2019-CR-158 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from CHAD E. HOLLEY : Common Pleas Court) : Defendant-Appellant : ........... OPINION Rendered on the 30th day of October, 2020. ........... MARCY A. VONDERWELL, Atty. Reg. No. 0078311, Greene County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, 61 Greene Street, Suite 200, Xenia, Ohio 45385 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee KEARA R. SCHREIBER, Atty. Reg. No. 0096864, 130 West Second Street, Suite 1818, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant ............. FROELICH, J. -2- {¶ 1} Chad E. Holley pled guilty in the Greene County Court of Common Pleas to an amended charge of carrying a concealed weapon, in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2), a misdemeanor of the first degree. The trial court imposed 180 days in jail with 97 days suspended and jail time credit of 83 days. The court ordered two years of monitored time and required Holley to pay a fine of $1,000, all of which was suspended, and court costs. {¶ 2} Holley appeals from his conviction, claiming that the trial court did not comply with Crim.R. 11 and R.C. 2937.07 in accepting his plea. The State has conceded error. For the following reasons, the trial court’s judgment will be reversed and the matter will be remanded for further proceedings. I. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 3} Holley was indicted on three counts of having weapons while under disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(1), (2), and (3), all felonies of the third degree.1 The charges were based on Holley’s possession of a .44 caliber F. Lli Pietta Model 1858 black powder revolver; at the time of his arrest, Holley had two outstanding warrants for assault and criminal damaging in Xenia and a prior burglary conviction in Florida. The indictment also sought forfeiture of the weapon. {¶ 4} Holley initially had appointed counsel, who filed a discovery demand on his behalf. On April 30, Holley’s attorney moved to withdraw as counsel due to a “significant breakdown in communication which would make further representation impossible.” 1 The State agreed during a pretrial conference that the charges were allied offenses of similar import. -3- After a hearing, the trial court allowed defense counsel to withdraw. Holley elected to proceed without counsel, and he expressly waived his constitutional right to counsel, orally and in writing, at a subsequent hearing. {¶ 5} Prior to trial, the State dismissed Count 3 (R.C. 2923.13(A)(3)) of the indictment and struck references in the indictment to a “dangerous ordnance.” On July 22, 2019, the matter proceeded to a jury trial on Counts 1 and 2. At the conclusion of the State’s case, the court granted Holley’s Crim.R. 29 motion as to Count 2 (R.C. 2923.13(A)(1)) on the ground that there was insufficient evidence that Holley was a fugitive from justice. After the jury received its instructions and departed the courtroom ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4802014/state-v-holley/">Original document</a>
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on, it is strongly advised to avoid State v. Holley in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from State v. Holley. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
State v. Holley is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.