imposed sentence standard (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

imposed sentence standard in Ohio

40 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2021 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Marcum (Slip Opinion) green
ohio · 2016
2 sentences

2018We therefore find no merit to Ervin's arguments and overrule her first assignment of error. 4 {¶ 21} Assignment of Error No. 2: {¶ 22} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES. {¶ 23} In her second assignment of error, Ervin argues the trial court erred in imposing her sentence as the court "did not make the necessary findings to impose consecutive sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)." As set forth above, we review the imposed sentence under the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). *561 See Marcum , 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 at ¶ 1. {¶

2018We therefore find no merit to Ervin's arguments and overrule her first assignment of error. 4 {¶ 21} Assignment of Error No. 2: {¶ 22} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES. {¶ 23} In her second assignment of error, Ervin argues the trial court erred in imposing her sentence as the court "did not make the necessary findings to impose consecutive sentences pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)." As set forth above, we review the imposed sentence under the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2). *561 See Marcum , 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 at ¶ 1. {¶

402016–2021
State v. Cooper green
ohioctapp · 2000
1 sentence

2018The state responds that felonious assault can cover multiple acts of physical violence over the years and cites State v. Cooper, 139 Ohio App.3d 149 (12th Dist.2000), in support. {¶ 13} We review the imposed sentence under the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which governs all felony sentences.

12018–2018
State v. Wofford neutral
ohioctapp · 2015
2 sentences

2017Butler No. CA2014-10-210, 2015-Ohio-3708, ¶ 12 . {¶ 36} Appellant's third assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 37} Assignment of Error No. 4: -9- Fayette CA2016-12-020 CA2016-12-021 {¶ 38} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT TO CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES. {¶ 39} Appellant argues the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences because the court failed to set forth the requisite consecutive sentencing findings in both the sentencing hearing and the sentencing entry. {¶ 40} We review the imposed sentence under the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which go

2017Butler No. CA2014-10-210, 2015-Ohio-3708, ¶ 12 . {¶ 36} Appellant's third assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 37} Assignment of Error No. 4: -9- Fayette CA2016-12-020 CA2016-12-021 {¶ 38} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SENTENCING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT TO CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES. {¶ 39} Appellant argues the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences because the court failed to set forth the requisite consecutive sentencing findings in both the sentencing hearing and the sentencing entry. {¶ 40} We review the imposed sentence under the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which go

12017–2017
State v. Sage, Unpublished Decision (2-2-2007) green
ohioctapp · 2007
1 sentence

2017Montgomery No. 21097, 2007-Ohio-442, ¶ 6 . {¶ 8} Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 9} Assignment of Error No. 2: {¶ 10} THE TRIAL COURT DID ERR BY IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE PRISON SENTENCES. {¶ 11} Appellant argues the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences because the court "failed to make adequate findings to justify consecutive sentences." {¶ 12} We review the imposed sentence under the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which governs all felony sentences.

12017–2017

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08 (40) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.12 (35) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.14 (35) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.11 (34) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.16 (18) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.13 (17) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.02 (6) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.05 (6) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.02 (6) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.19 (6) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.25 (5) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.11 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

OH 40 (2016–2021) KS 5 (1969–1997)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check