facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

COURT APPEAL Ohio Supreme Court to review robbery case



Published: Wed, July 27, 2005 @ 12:00 a.m.



Bundy had been sentenced to 18 years in prison.

YOUNGSTOWN -- The Mahoning County prosecutor's office will ask the Ohio Supreme Court to determine whether a Youngstown man was charged correctly and whether his 2002 robbery conviction should be dismissed.

The request to the Supreme Court is in response to an appeals court ruling reducing the defendant's sentence.

A hearing had been scheduled for Tuesday in the courtroom of Judge R. Scott Krichbaum to resentence Andre Bundy, 21, who was convicted in 2002 of aggravated robbery and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery.

The crimes were committed against a Boardman woman in 2001.

The hearing was canceled, however, when Dawn Krueger, an assistant county prosecutor, said the prosecutor's office was going to ask the high court to review a ruling from the 7th District Court of Appeals on the Bundy matter.

Judge Krichbaum had sentenced Bundy in 2002 to maximum sentences for the crimes and ordered the terms to be served consecutively for a total of 18 years.

Last month, the 7th District Court of Appeals affirmed part of the conviction and sentence, and threw out part.

The appellate court ruled there was not a substantial act contained in the indictment that was sufficient to charge Bundy with conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery.

Sentence canceled?

On that basis, it threw out his conviction and eight-year sentence on the charge.

The appellate court ruled, however, that the conviction and sentence on the aggravated robbery would stand.

Krueger said the state wants the Ohio Supreme Court to review the appellate court's ruling concerning the defective indictment.

The 7th District Court wrote in its Bundy ruling that the high court has held in the past that a defendant's failure to object to the indictment before or at trial waives any right to later argue about defects in the indictment.

Krueger said that is essentially the state's argument as to why the conspiracy indictment should stand.

The high court, however, also has affirmed a 2nd District appellate decision vacating a defendant's conviction for conspiracy because of a defective indictment.

The court ruled in that instance the indictment failed to charge an offense, and the defendant could raise an objection to the indictment any time during legal proceedings.




Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport