Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
220 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1999–2026 21 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Comergreen2 sentences2014Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-74 6 {¶18} We have previously found the import of these revisions is the trial court must, again, make the required findings in compliance with State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003–Ohio–4165; in other words, the findings must be made on the record at the sentencing hearing prior to imposition of consecutive sentences. 2008See, e.g., State v. Comer , 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003-Ohio-4165 , paragraph one of the syllabus (holding that in imposing consecutive sentences, a court must not only make the requisite factual findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14 (E)(4) but must also state, on the record at the sentencing hearing, the reasons for those findings). {¶ 6} The Foster court, however, found the statutes requiring judicial factfinding prior to imposition of maximum, nonminimum, or consecutive sentences were *Page 3 unconstitutional because they violated a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to jury trial. | 11 | 107 |
State v. Edmonsongreen2 sentences2017There, the appellate court interpreted the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in State v. Edmonson , 86 Ohio St.3d 324 , 715 N.E.2d 131 (1999), as requiring the trial court to make findings and give its reasons for imposing a maximum sentence, both on the record at the sentencing hearing and in the sentencing journal entry. 2017There, the appellate court interpreted the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in State v. Edmonson , 86 Ohio St.3d 324 , 715 N.E.2d 131 (1999), as requiring the trial court to make findings and give its reasons for imposing a maximum sentence, both on the record at the sentencing hearing and in the sentencing journal entry. | 10 | 27 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2003See State v. Perkins, Cuyahoga App. No. 81547, 2003-Ohio-656 , 2003 WL 303090 ; State v. Martin (1999), 136 Ohio App.3d 355, 362 , 736 N.E.2d 907 ; State v. Williams, 136 Ohio App.3d 570 , 737 N.E.2d 139 (findings and reasons must be stated on the record at the sentencing hearing). 2003See State v. Perkins, Cuyahoga App. No. 81547, 2003-Ohio-656 , 2003 WL 303090 ; State v. Martin (1999), 136 Ohio App.3d 355, 362 , 736 N.E.2d 907 ; State v. Williams, 136 Ohio App.3d 570 , 737 N.E.2d 139 (findings and reasons must be stated on the record at the sentencing hearing). | 9 | 21 |
State v. Lestergreen2 sentences2026State v. Bonnell, 2014- Ohio-3177, ¶ 31 (“a sentencing entry that is corrected by a nunc pro tunc entry incorporating findings stated on the record at the sentencing hearing does not extend the time for filing an appeal from the original judgment of conviction and does not create a new final, appealable order”), citing State v. Lester, 2011-Ohio-5204, ¶ 20 (“a nunc pro tunc judgment entry issued for the sole purpose of complying with Crim.R. 32(C) to correct a clerical omission in a final judgment entry is not a new final order from which a new appeal may be taken”). {¶47} On September 22, 202 2016See State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 , 2011-Ohio-5204 , 958 N.E.2d 142, ¶ 20 ("a nunc Ashland County, Case No. 14-COA-039 26 pro tunc judgment entry issued for the sole purpose of complying with Crim.R. 32(C) to correct a clerical omission in a final judgment entry is not a new final order from which a new appeal may be taken"). {¶46} Although the trial court made the statutorily required findings during the sentencing hearing, a review of the judgment entry on sentencing reveals it failed to incorporate these findings into the sentencing entry contrary to Bonnell. {¶47} Upon review, we vac | 4 | 4 |
State v. Newmangreen2 sentences2005State v. Howard, Fayette App. No. CA2003-01-001, 2004-Ohio-423 , citing Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , and State v. Newman, 100 Ohio St.3d 24 , 2003-Ohio-4754 . {¶ 7} R.C. 2929.12 (D) provides the recidivism factors for a sentencing court to consider, which include whether: {¶ 8} "* * * {¶ 9} "(2) The offender previously was adjudicated a delinquent child * * *, or the offender has a history of criminal convictions. {¶ 10} "(3) The offender * * * has not responded favorably to sanctions previously imposed for criminal convictions. {¶ 11} "(4) The offender has demonstrated a pattern of drug or alco 2005State v. Newman, 100 Ohio St.3d 24 , 2003-Ohio-4754 . | 3 | 10 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2014Cuyahoga County Nos. 97689, 97691, and 79692, 2012-Ohio-3951, ¶ 8 (“Under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the trial court must state its findings in support of consecutive sentences on the record at the sentencing hearing.”). 2014Cuyahoga Nos. 97689, 97691, and 79692, 2012-Ohio-3951, ¶ 8 (“Under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the trial court must state its findings in support of consecutives sentences on the record at the sentencing hearing.”). -37- Case No. 10-13-10 exists a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome at trial would have been different.” Id. at paragraph three of syllabus. | 2 | 5 |
State v. Aligreen2 sentences2025This leaves only the costs of confinement to be resolved. {¶ 45} “Costs of confinement must be imposed on the record at the sentencing hearing and in the judgment entry.” State v. Ali, 2024-Ohio-486, ¶ 8 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Henderson, 2023-Ohio-4576, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.). 2024“Costs of confinement must be imposed on the record at the sentencing hearing and in the judgment entry.” State v. Ali, 2024-Ohio-486, ¶ 8 , citing State v. Velesquez, 2023-Ohio-1100, ¶ 14 (6th Dist.); State v. Henderson, 2023-Ohio- 4576, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.) R.C. 2929.18(A)(5)(ii) permits a “court imposing a sentence upon an offender for a felony” to impose costs of confinement in an amount “as determined at a hearing,” not to “exceed the actual cost of the confinement.” Because the trial court failed to impose costs of confinement at the sentencing hearing, it could not add those costs to the ju | 2 | 3 |
State v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2025This leaves only the costs of confinement to be resolved. {¶ 45} “Costs of confinement must be imposed on the record at the sentencing hearing and in the judgment entry.” State v. Ali, 2024-Ohio-486, ¶ 8 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Henderson, 2023-Ohio-4576, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.). 2025Velesquez at ¶ 14 ; State v. Henderson, 2023-Ohio-4576, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pattersongreen2 sentences2024We disagree with the state that a trial court retains continuing jurisdiction over all “court costs” under R.C. 2947.23, or that a nunc pro tunc 4. entry can correct the trial court’s failure to address the costs on the record at the sentencing hearing. {¶ 12} As we have previously noted, the costs of prosecution, imposed under R.C. 2947.23(A)(1), “do not include costs imposed under separate statutory provisions, requiring separate determinations.” State v. Patterson, 2024-Ohio-2198, ¶ 10 (6th Dist.), quoting State v. Walker, 2020-Ohio-839, ¶ 72 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Faulkner, 2011- Ohi 2024However, these costs must be imposed “on the record at the sentencing hearing and in the judgment entry.” State v. Patterson, 2024-Ohio-2198, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.), citing Ali at ¶ 8 . 3. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Martingreen2 sentences2005Id. {¶ 11} Additionally, in State v. Comer (2003), 99 Ohio St. 3d 463 , 2003-Ohio-4165 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that prior to imposing consecutive sentences, the trial court must make the requisite statutory findings and provide the rationale supporting those findings on the record at the sentencing hearing. 2003See State v. Perkins, Cuyahoga App. No. 81547, 2003-Ohio-656 , 2003 WL 303090 ; State v. Martin (1999), 136 Ohio App.3d 355, 362 , 736 N.E.2d 907 ; State v. Williams, 136 Ohio App.3d 570 , 737 N.E.2d 139 (findings and reasons must be stated on the record at the sentencing hearing). | 1 | 23 |
State v. Bonnell (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2021“On appeals involving the imposition of consecutive sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court ‘to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence’ and to modify or vacate the sentence ‘if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14 * * * of the Revised Code.’” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 , 2014- Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 28 . {¶ 34} Prior to imposing consecutive sentences, the trial court must state the required findings, enumerated at R. 2021“On appeals involving the imposition of consecutive sentences, R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a) directs the appellate court ‘to review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence’ and to modify or vacate the sentence ‘if it clearly and convincingly finds * * * [t]hat the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under division * * * (C)(4) of section 2929.14 * * * of the Revised Code.’” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 , 2014- Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 28 . {¶ 34} Prior to imposing consecutive sentences, the trial court must state the required findings, enumerated at R. | 1 | 11 |
State v. Fostergreen2 sentences2012Therefore, Pence’s sentence was not contrary to law. {¶9} We must also reject Pence’s argument that the trial court was required to analyze the factors in R.C. 2929.12 upon the record at the sentencing hearing. -5- Case No. 2-11-18 “Trial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences.” State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , paragraph seven of the syllabus. 2012Therefore, Pence’s sentence was not contrary to law. {¶9} We must also reject Pence’s argument that the trial court was required to analyze the factors in R.C. 2929.12 upon the record at the sentencing hearing. -5- Case No. 2-11-18 “Trial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences.” State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , paragraph seven of the syllabus. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Cyrusgreen2 sentences2023State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422 , 2017-Ohio-9423 , 108 N.E.3d 1 ; State v. Cyrus, 63 Ohio St.3d 164, 166 , 586 N.E.2d 94 (1992). {¶ 43} Here, we know that the trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 because it said so on the record at the sentencing hearing, and reiterated it in its judgment entry. 2023State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422 , 2017-Ohio-9423 , 108 N.E.3d 1 ; State v. Cyrus, 63 Ohio St.3d 164, 166 , 586 N.E.2d 94 (1992). {¶ 43} Here, we know that the trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 because it said so on the record at the sentencing hearing, and reiterated it in its judgment entry. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Pettygreen1 sentence2026Accordingly, we remand the matter to the trial court “‘to consider whether consecutive sentences are appropriate, pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and, if so, to make the proper findings on the record at the sentencing hearing and incorporate those findings into its sentencing entry.’” Petty at ¶ 94 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Piercegreen1 sentence2025State v. Pierce, 2024-Ohio-82, ¶ 64 (4th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Eatongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Carmelgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Velesquezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Kimmiegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Walkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Tealgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Middlebrooksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Zandersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Aylwardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Millergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Croom, 90036 (6-16-2008)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Kelley, Unpublished Decision (7-19-2005)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mooregreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. McPhersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Comergreen2 sentences2014Licking County, Case No. 13-CA-74 6 {¶18} We have previously found the import of these revisions is the trial court must, again, make the required findings in compliance with State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003–Ohio–4165; in other words, the findings must be made on the record at the sentencing hearing prior to imposition of consecutive sentences. 2008See, e.g., State v. Comer , 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003-Ohio-4165 , paragraph one of the syllabus (holding that in imposing consecutive sentences, a court must not only make the requisite factual findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14 (E)(4) but must also state, on the record at the sentencing hearing, the reasons for those findings). {¶ 6} The Foster court, however, found the statutes requiring judicial factfinding prior to imposition of maximum, nonminimum, or consecutive sentences were *Page 3 unconstitutional because they violated a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to jury trial. | 1 | 107 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Woods v. Telb
green
2 sentences2003Moreover, in Woods v. Telb (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 504 , paragraph two of the syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court mandated that a trial court "inform the defendant at sentencing or at the time of a plea hearing that post-release control is part of the defendant's sentence," thus reinforcing my dissent in Riggs that the findings and reasons, when required, be placed on the record at the sentencing hearing. 2003Moreover, in Woods v. Telb (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 504 , paragraph two of the syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court mandated that a trial court "inform the defendant at sentencing or at the time of a plea hearing that post-release control is part of the defendant's sentence," thus reinforcing my dissent in Riggs that the findings and reasons, when required, be placed on the record at the sentencing hearing. | 18 | 2000–2003 |
Blakely v. Washington
green
2 sentences2007Daniels , 2005-Ohio-1920 . *Page 4 Daniels also argued, on appeal, that his sentence was unconstitutional under the United States Supreme Court decision in Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 . 2007Daniels , 2005-Ohio-1920 . *Page 4 Daniels also argued, on appeal, that his sentence was unconstitutional under the United States Supreme Court decision in Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 . | 6 | 2005–2007 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2014R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). {¶10} The failure to make these findings on the record at the sentencing hearing is “contrary to law.” Venes at ¶ 12, citing State v. Jones, 93 Ohio St.3d 391, 399 , 2001-Ohio-1341 , 754 N.E.2d 1252 . {¶11} In this matter, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court heard detailed descriptions of the offenses from each of Grant’s victims, the harm they suffered, and the aftermath that resulted. 2004State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003-Ohio-4165 , 793 N.E.2d 473 ; State v. Jones, 93 Ohio St.3d 391 , 2001-Ohio-1341 , 754 N.E.2d 1252 ; State v. Reeder, 148 Ohio App.3d 177 , 2002-Ohio-2829 , 772 N.E.2d 674 . | 3 | 2003–2014 |
State v. Jones
red
2 sentences2014R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). {¶10} The failure to make these findings on the record at the sentencing hearing is “contrary to law.” Venes at ¶ 12, citing State v. Jones, 93 Ohio St.3d 391, 399 , 2001-Ohio-1341 , 754 N.E.2d 1252 . {¶11} In this matter, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court heard detailed descriptions of the offenses from each of Grant’s victims, the harm they suffered, and the aftermath that resulted. 2014R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). {¶10} The failure to make these findings on the record at the sentencing hearing is “contrary to law.” Venes at ¶ 12, citing State v. Jones, 93 Ohio St.3d 391, 399 , 2001-Ohio-1341 , 754 N.E.2d 1252 . {¶11} In this matter, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court heard detailed descriptions of the offenses from each of Grant’s victims, the harm they suffered, and the aftermath that resulted. | 3 | 2003–2014 |
State v. Kalish
red
2 sentences2014Cuyahoga No. 98622, 2013-Ohio-2525, ¶ 10 , citing State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124 . {¶16} The trial court did not mention R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 on the record at the sentencing hearing. 2014Cuyahoga No. 98622, 2013-Ohio-2525, ¶ 10 , citing State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124 . {¶16} The trial court did not mention R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 on the record at the sentencing hearing. | 3 | 2012–2014 |
State v. Howard, Unpublished Decision (2-2-2004)
neutral
2 sentences2005State v. Howard, Fayette App. No. CA2003-01-001, 2004-Ohio-423 , citing Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , and State v. Newman, 100 Ohio St.3d 24 , 2003-Ohio-4754 . {¶ 7} R.C. 2929.12 (D) provides the recidivism factors for a sentencing court to consider, which include whether: {¶ 8} "* * * {¶ 9} "(2) The offender previously was adjudicated a delinquent child * * *, or the offender has a history of criminal convictions. {¶ 10} "(3) The offender * * * has not responded favorably to sanctions previously imposed for criminal convictions. {¶ 11} "(4) The offender has demonstrated a pattern of drug or alco 2005State v. Howard, Fayette App. No. CA2003-01-001, 2004-Ohio-423 , citing Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , and State v. Newman, 100 Ohio St.3d 24 , 2003-Ohio-4754 . {¶ 21} Appellant claims that the trial court did not adequately state findings to support imposing maximum sentences. | 3 | 2004–2005 |
State v. Bryant
green
2 sentences2024State v. Bryant, 168 Ohio St.3d 250 , 2022-Ohio-1878 , 198 N.E.3d 68, ¶ 22 . {¶29} In the instant case, on the record at the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated, “Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, your record, aggravated [Cite as State v. Pitts, 2024-Ohio-987 .] possession of drugs, methamphetamine, I’m imposing the minimum prison term of 11 years and the indefinite maximum of 16½ with the mandatory fine of $10,000. 2024State v. Bryant, 168 Ohio St.3d 250 , 2022-Ohio-1878 , 198 N.E.3d 68, ¶ 22 . {¶29} In the instant case, on the record at the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated, “Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, your record, aggravated [Cite as State v. Pitts, 2024-Ohio-987 .] possession of drugs, methamphetamine, I’m imposing the minimum prison term of 11 years and the indefinite maximum of 16½ with the mandatory fine of $10,000. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Clayton
green
2 sentences2016Cuyahoga No. 99700, 2014-Ohio-112, ¶ 9 . {¶17} Here, the trial court stated on the record at the sentencing hearing that it had “considered all this information, all the principles and purposes of felony sentencing, all the appropriate recidivism and seriousness factors.” Tr. 15. 2016Cuyahoga No. 99700, 2014-Ohio-112, ¶ 9 . {¶18} Here, the trial court stated on the record at the sentencing hearing that it had “reviewed the purposes and principles set forth in felony sentencing.” The court noted on the record that: (1) Weaver’s victims were vulnerable people with mental health and addiction issues; (2) Weaver used his medical background to facilitate these crimes; and (3) Weaver had a criminal history and had not taken advantage of prior opportunities to rehabilitate himself. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Jordan
green
2 sentences2014Whether the trial court violated procedural due process and abused its discretion by denying defendant-appellant’s properly pled and substantive[] motion for de novo sentencing pursuant to State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 , as the court failed to strictly comply with the relevant statutes by not making such findings on the record at the sentencing hearing. 2007We also examined two of our cases: State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003-Ohio-4165 , 793 N.E.2d 473 , which held that certain findings required by R.C. 2929.19 must be spoken on the record at the sentencing hearing, and State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 , 2004-Ohio-4746 , 814 N.E.2d 837 , which held that R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) requires a trial court to deliver the statutorily required notification at the sentencing hearing when sentencing an offender to a community-control sanction. {¶ 8} We determined that the reasoning used in both State v. Comer and State v. Brooks also applied in State v. | 2 | 2007–2014 |
State v. Brooks
green
2 sentences2007We also examined two of our cases: State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003-Ohio-4165 , 793 N.E.2d 473 , which held that certain findings required by R.C. 2929.19 must be spoken on the record at the sentencing hearing, and State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 , 2004-Ohio-4746 , 814 N.E.2d 837 , which held that R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) requires a trial court to deliver the statutorily required notification at the sentencing hearing when sentencing an offender to a community-control sanction. {¶ 8} We determined that the reasoning used in both State v. Comer and State v. Brooks also applied in State v. 2007We also examined two of our cases: State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003-Ohio-4165 , 793 N.E.2d 473 , which held that certain findings required by R.C. 2929.19 must be spoken on the record at the sentencing hearing, and State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 , 2004-Ohio-4746 , 814 N.E.2d 837 , which held that R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) requires a trial court to deliver the statutorily required notification at the sentencing hearing when sentencing an offender to a community-control sanction. {¶ 8} We determined that the reasoning used in both State v. Comer and State v. Brooks also applied in State v. | 2 | 2004–2007 |
State v. Gary
green
2 sentences2005However, as we held in State v. Cardona (Dec. 16, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 75556, pursuant to Ohio's sentencing statutes, "the trial court must make a record at the sentencing hearing that confirms that the trial court's decision-making process included all of the statutorily required sentencing considerations." See, also, State v. Gary (2001), 141 Ohio App.3d 194 , 197 (holding that conclusory statements mimicking the sentencing statute's language are not enough to support the imposition of consecutive sentences). {¶ 13} In the instant case, the court cited the proper statutory language, but 2005Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 30} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court made the following findings on the record: (1) consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crimes and to punish appellant based upon his acts; (2) consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of appellant's conduct and the danger he poses to the public; (3) when this crime was committed, appellant was under community control sanctions for a previous crime; (4) the harm caused was so great and unusual that no single prison term would reflect the seriousness of a | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Edmonson
green
2 sentences2004No. C-020808, 2003-Ohio-5518, at ¶ 14 . 19 State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380 , 387 , 1997-Ohio-52 , 678 N.E.2d 541 . 20 State v. Martin (1983), 20 Ohio App.3d 172 , 175 , 485 N.E.2d 717 . 21 Thompkins, supra at 387. 22 R.C. 2929.14 (C) and 2929.19 (B)(2); State v. Edmonson, 86 Ohio St.3d 324 , 328-329 , 1999-Ohio-110 , 715 N.E.2d 131 . 23 See State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003-Ohio-4165 , 793 N.E.2d 473 , at ¶ 20 (holding that a trial court must orally make its findings and state the reasons supporting its findings on the record at the sentencing hearing when imposing consecut 2002I {¶ 9} Appellant argues that the court erred in failing to state on the record the reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. {¶ 10} Appellant first argues that the court cannot put reasons to support the sentence in its journal entry that were not stated on the record at the sentencing hearing, as he was deprived of his right to due process of law, and his opportunity to be present and have an opportunity to respond at every critical stage of the proceedings. {¶ 11} In State v. Edmonson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 324 , 1999-Ohio-110 , the Ohio Supreme Court looked to both the transcript of the s | 2 | 2002–2004 |
State v. Parker
green
2 sentences2004We have held that "the trial court must make a record at the sentencing hearing that confirms that the trial court's decision-making process included all of the statutorily required sentencing considerations." State v. Parker (2001), 144 Ohio App.3d 334 . {¶ 10} In the case sub judice, the record reveals the trial court made all requisite findings. 2003R.C. 2929.14 (E)(4)(a)-(c). {¶ 12} We have held that "[t]he trial court must make a record at the sentencing hearing that confirms that the trial court's decision-making process included all of the statutorily required sentencing considerations." State v. Parker (June 7, 2001), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 78257 78809, 144 Ohio App.3d 334 . | 2 | 2003–2004 |
State v. Reeder
neutral
2 sentences2004State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003-Ohio-4165 , 793 N.E.2d 473 ; State v. Jones, 93 Ohio St.3d 391 , 2001-Ohio-1341 , 754 N.E.2d 1252 ; State v. Reeder, 148 Ohio App.3d 177 , 2002-Ohio-2829 , 772 N.E.2d 674 . 2004State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003-Ohio-4165 , 793 N.E.2d 473 ; State v. Jones, 93 Ohio St.3d 391 , 2001-Ohio-1341 , 754 N.E.2d 1252 ; State v. Reeder, 148 Ohio App.3d 177 , 2002-Ohio-2829 , 772 N.E.2d 674 . | 2 | 2003–2004 |
State v. Meenach, Unpublished Decision (4-12-2004)
neutral
2 sentences2004State v. Meenach, Madison App. No. CA2003-04-017, 2004-Ohio-1864, ¶ 5 , citing State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003-Ohio-4165 , and State v. Newman, 100 Ohio St.3d 24 , 2003-Ohio-4754 . {¶ 5} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found that appellant "pose[s] the greatest likelihood of committing future crimes." This finding supports the imposition of a maximum sentence under R.C. 2929.14 (C). 2004State v. Meenach, Madison App. No. CA2003-04-017, 2004-Ohio-1864, ¶ 5 , citing State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003-Ohio-4165 , and State v. Newman, 100 Ohio St.3d 24 , 2003-Ohio-4754 . {¶ 30} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that appellant's crime "is the worst form of this offense; [and] that you are likely to commit, in my opinion, future crimes[.]" We find that the trial court made the necessary statutory finding for imposing a maximum sentence in compliance with R.C. 2929.14 (C). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Moore green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Taylor (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Ruby v. Wolf green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Pitts green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Marcum (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Clinton green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Chester neutral | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Tyree neutral | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Artripe neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Chicago District Electric Generating Corp. v. Evans green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Perry green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Szefcyk green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Reynolds green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Sergent (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Hancock green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Rogers green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Jones green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. J.H.S. neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| McCabe v. Rourke green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. A.H. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Fischer green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Lynch, 90630 (10-30-2008) neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Daniels, Unpublished Decision (4-25-2005) neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Beasley green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Apprendi v. New Jersey green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.
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.