State v. Brandenburg (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-2970, 146 Ohio St. 3d 221. · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Brandenburg (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-2970, 146 Ohio St. 3d 221. Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 50× by 49 distinct cases, 2017–2021→ Stable · …increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence only when it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is (1) contrary to law or (2) unsupported by the record. ✓ Topic ↗
cited 7× by 5 distinct cases · …that is, an appellate court may vacate or modify any sentence that is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law only if the appellate court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the record does not support the sentence. ⚠ not in text Topic ↗
145 citation events (145 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Steger (ohioctapp, 2016-11-28)
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016 2021 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Steger
Ohio Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Thus, this court may "increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence only when it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is (1) contrary to law or (2) unsupported by the record." State v. Brandenburg, 146 Ohio St.3d 221, 2016-Ohio-2970, ¶ 1, citing Marcum at ¶ 7. {¶ 11} Appellant was convicted of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4). trial court for review. -4- Butler CA2016-03-059 Consequently, pursuant to R.C. 2907.05(C)(2), "there is a presumption that a prison term shall be imposed for the offense." In fashioning an appropriate sanction for a defendant …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Richardson (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence low
Marcum at ¶ 1; see also State v. Brandenburg, 146 Ohio St.3d 221 , 2016-Ohio-2970 , 54 N.E.3d 1217, ¶ 1 . {¶13} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law “where the trial court considers the purposes and principles of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 as well as the seriousness and recidivism factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly applies post-release control, and sentences a defendant within the permissible statutory range.” State v. A.H., 8th Dist.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State of Ohio, Appellee,
v.
Brandenburg, Appellant
2015-1330 and 2015-1489.
Ohio Supreme Court.
May 17, 2016.
146 Ohio St. 3d 221
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Lina N. Akam-hawi, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee., Charles M. Conliff, for appellant.
French, Kennedy, Lanzinger, O'Connor, O'Donnell, O'Neill, Pfeifer.
Cited by 73 opinions  |  Published

{¶ 1} In State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, we held that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence only when it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is (1) contrary to law or (2) unsupported by the record. Id. at ¶ 7.

[*222] Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Lina N. Akam-hawi, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Charles M. Conliff, for appellant.

‘{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals in the instant case is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of Marcum.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.