State v. Marsh, 522 N.E.2d 457 (Ohio 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Marsh, 522 N.E.2d 457 (Ohio 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: DeSarro v. East Liverpool Board of Zoning Appeals (ohioctapp, 2006-03-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." DeSarro v. East Liverpool Board of Zoning Appeals (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
No. 98-CA-55, 1999 WL 812385 ; see also In re Disqualification of Martin (1987), 36 Ohio St.3d 603 , 522 N.E.2d 457 (a judge is presumed to follow applicable law in all respects).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re Disqualification of Martin: The State of Ohio
v.
Marsh
No. 87-AP-275.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Dec 17, 1987.
522 N.E.2d 457
Moyer.
Published
Moyer, C.J.

The affidavit of disqualification filed herein alleges that Judge John D. Martin pursues a sentencing pattern which would preclude probation if the defendant, Rick Marsh, is convicted or accepts a plea bargain in case No. 87CRJY0102 in the Court of Common Pleas of Fair-field County.

A judge is presumed to follow applicable law in all respects and “[generally, the severity of a sentence imposed in conformity to the law by a trial court rests in the discretion of that court * * *.” State v. Williams (1982), 7 Ohio App. 3d 160, 162, 7 OBR 204, 207, 454 N.E. 2d 1334, 1337.

If it may later be shown that the judge legally erred by not considering required mitigating factors in impos[*604] ing sentence, that is a matter for appeal and not for an affidavit of disqualification. State v. Baker (1984), 25 Ohio Misc. 2d 11, 15, 25 OBR 232, 236, 495 N.E. 2d 976, 980.

Differences in sentences between judges are to be expected and “the possibility of being sentenced by a more severe judge is one of the hazards of wrongdoing.” Baker, supra, at 15, 25 OBR at 237, 495 N.E. 2d at 981.

For these reasons, the affidavit is found not well-taken and is hereby dismissed.