State v. Elliott

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State v. Elliott, 2003-Ohio-3078.] STATE OF OHIO, COLUMBIANA COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. STEVENBO T. ELLIOTT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NOS. 02-CO-19 02-CO-28 OPINION and JOURNAL ENTRY CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. 00CR153; Petition for Post-Conviction Relief JUDGMENT: Petition moot; appeal dismissed APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: Robert L. Herron Prosecuting Attorney Tammie M. Jones Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Columbiana County Courthouse 105 South Market Street Lisbon, Ohio 44432 For Defendant-Appellant: Attorney David H. Bodiker Ohio Public Defender Molly J. McAnespie Assistant State Public Defender Office of the Ohio Public Defender 8 East Long Street, 11th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 JUDGES: Hon. Gene Donofrio -2- Hon. Cheryl L. Waite Hon. Mary DeGenaro Dated: May 30, 2003 PER CURIAM. Defendant-appellant, Stevenbo T. Elliott, appeals a decision of the Columbiana County Common Pleas Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. On March 27, 2001, appellant was convicted of robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02. On June 4, 2001, appellant filed a motion for new trial alleging newly discovered evidence. Specifically, appellant alleged that another individual, similar in appearance to him, had admitted to committing the robbery. The trial court overruled the motion. Appellant assigned this as error in his direct appeal before this court under case No. 01 CO 24. On March 21, 2003, this court found merit to appellant s argument and reversed the trial court s decision, vacated appellant s conviction, and remanded the case for a new trial. See State v. Elliott, 7th Dist. No. 01 CO 24, 2003Ohio-1426. Accordingly, the appeal from the denial of appellant s petition for postconviction relief is moot. This appeal is hereby dismissed as moot. Costs taxed against appellant. Waite, P.J., Donofrio and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.