State v. Logan

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Logan, 2003-Ohio-3437.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals Nos. L-02-1315 L-02-1359 Appellee Trial Court No. CR-95-5845 v. Mark A. Logan Appellant DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Decided: June 30, 2003 ***** Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Craig T. Pearson, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Mark A. Logan, pro se. ***** PIETRYKOWSKI, J. {¶1} This is an accelerated appeal from the September 24, and September 26, 2002 judgments of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas which denied, respectively, [Cite as State v. Logan, 2003-Ohio-3437.] appellant Mark Logan's petition for postconviction relief and motion for transcripts.1 Pursuant to App.R. 11.1(E) and 6th Dist.Loc.R. 12(F), we hereby render our decision. Because we find that the trial court properly dismissed appellant's postconviction petition as being untimely, we find that appellant's assignment of error, set forth in L-02-1315, is not well taken. As to L-02-1359, we find that, assuming that the trial court erred in denying appellant's request for transcripts, such error is moot based upon our finding that appellant's postconviction petition was untimely. Appellant's assignment of error in L-021359 is found not well taken. {¶2} Upon consideration whereof, we find that substantial justice was done the party complaining, and the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Court costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4, amended 1/1/98. Richard W. Knepper, J. _______________________________ JUDGE Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. Arlene Singer, J. CONCUR. _______________________________ JUDGE _______________________________ JUDGE 1 Appellant filed separate notices of appeal from the September 24, and September 26, 2002 judgments. On December 13, 2002, the cases were consolidated for purposes of appeal. 3.

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.