State v. Warren (2006)

Lucas No. L-20-1042, 2021-Ohio-3505, ¶ 14 (statute of limitations did not begin to run due to mother’s knowledge of sexual abuse and failure to report it; parents of victims were “specifically exempted by the state legislature from the reporting requirements under R.C. 2901.13(J)(2)”); State v. Warren, 168 Ohio App.3d 288 , 2006-Ohio-4104 , 859 N.E.2d 998, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Hensley, 59 Ohio St.3d 136 , 571 N.E.2d 711 (1991) (“When the victim of a sex offense …

State v. White, 18 Ohio St.3d 340 , 481 N.E.2d 596 (1985); State v. Warren, 168 Ohio App.3d 288 , 2006-Ohio-4104 , 859 N.E.2d 998, ¶ 30 (8th Dist.). {¶11} Lastly, Larson contends that the nunc pro tunc entry does not reflect the action taken, because unlike the original judgment entry, it does not include that he was found indigent.

No. 90874 at ¶15 (“the instant case is distinguishable from Valentine, supra, as the evidence at trial was sufficient to show numerous incidents of sexual conduct and/or contact.”); Warren, 168 Ohio App.3d 288 at ¶20 (framing the reversal as being based upon insufficient evidence); Hemphill, 8th Dist.

See State v. Warren, 168 Ohio App.3d 288 , 2006- Ohio-4104, 859 N.E.2d 998, ¶ 13-14 (8th Dist.); State v. Picard, 5th Dist.

See State v. Warren, 168 Ohio App.3d 288 , 2006-Ohio-4104 , 859 N.E.2d 998, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing Am.H.B.

See, e.g., State v. Warren , 168 Ohio App.3d 288 , 299 , 2006-Ohio-4104 , (holding that "[w]e cannot say that a sentence of life imprisonment * * * is grossly disproportionate to the crime of rape of a child under the age of 13").