149 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2026 69 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. McKennellygreen2 sentences2025“A trial court’s statement that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes.” Maggette, 2016- Ohio-5554, at ¶ 32 (3d Dist.). {¶30} Thus, when imposing a felony sentence, “it is ‘[t]he trial court [that] determines the weight afforded to any particular statutory factors, mitigating grounds, or other relevant circumstances.’” State v. McKennelly, 2017-Ohio-9092, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Steger, 2016-Ohio-7908, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.). 2024“A trial court’s statement that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes.” Maggette, 2016- Ohio-5554, at ¶ 32 (3d Dist.). {¶13} Thus, when imposing a felony sentence, “it is ‘[t]he trial court [that] determines the weight afforded to any particular statutory factors, mitigating grounds, or other relevant circumstances.’” State v. McKennelly, 2017-Ohio-9092, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Steger, 2016-Ohio-7908, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.). | 8 | 11 |
State v. Stegergreen2 sentences2025“A trial court’s statement that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes.” Maggette, 2016- Ohio-5554, at ¶ 32 (3d Dist.). {¶30} Thus, when imposing a felony sentence, “it is ‘[t]he trial court [that] determines the weight afforded to any particular statutory factors, mitigating grounds, or other relevant circumstances.’” State v. McKennelly, 2017-Ohio-9092, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Steger, 2016-Ohio-7908, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.). 2024“A trial court’s statement that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes.” Maggette, 2016- Ohio-5554, at ¶ 32 (3d Dist.). {¶13} Thus, when imposing a felony sentence, “it is ‘[t]he trial court [that] determines the weight afforded to any particular statutory factors, mitigating grounds, or other relevant circumstances.’” State v. McKennelly, 2017-Ohio-9092, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.), quoting State v. Steger, 2016-Ohio-7908, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.). | 8 | 8 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2025However, “R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not fact-finding statutes and although the trial court must consider the factors, it is not required to make specific findings on the record regarding its consideration of those factors, even when imposing a more-than-minimum sentence.” Id., quoting State v. Artis, 2022-Ohio-3819, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Pate, 2021-Ohio-1089, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.). “‘Indeed, consideration of the factors is presumed unless the defendant affirmatively shows otherwise.’” Id., quoting Artis at ¶ 13 , citing State v. Wright, 2018-Ohio-965, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). “‘Furthermore, 2025However, “R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not fact-finding statutes and although the trial court must consider the factors, it is not required to make specific findings on the record regarding its consideration of those factors, even when imposing a more-than-minimum sentence.” Id., quoting State v. Artis, 2022-Ohio-3819, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Pate, 2021-Ohio-1089, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.). “‘Indeed, consideration of the factors is presumed unless the defendant affirmatively shows otherwise.’” Id., quoting Artis at ¶ 13 , citing State v. Wright, 2018-Ohio-965, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). “‘Furthermore, | 7 | 16 |
State v. Claytongreen2 sentences2025However, “R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not fact-finding statutes and although the trial court must consider the factors, it is not required to make specific findings on the record regarding its consideration of those factors, even when imposing a more-than-minimum sentence.” Id., quoting State v. Artis, 2022-Ohio-3819, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Pate, 2021-Ohio-1089, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.). “‘Indeed, consideration of the factors is presumed unless the defendant affirmatively shows otherwise.’” Id., quoting Artis at ¶ 13 , citing State v. Wright, 2018-Ohio-965, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). “‘Furthermore, 2024Cuyahoga No. 99700, 2014-Ohio-112, ¶ 9 (“The trial court’s statement that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes.”). | 7 | 9 |
State v. Suttongreen2 sentences2026“Further, a trial court’s statement in its sentencing journal entry that it considered the required statutory factors is enough to fulfill its obligations under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Pierce, 2023-Ohio-528, ¶ 41 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Sutton, 2015-Ohio-4074, ¶ 72 (8th Dist.). 2025However, “R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not fact-finding statutes and although the trial court must consider the factors, it is not required to make specific findings on the record regarding its consideration of those factors, even when imposing a more-than-minimum sentence.” Id., quoting State v. Artis, 2022-Ohio-3819, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Pate, 2021-Ohio-1089, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.). “‘Indeed, consideration of the factors is presumed unless the defendant affirmatively shows otherwise.’” Id., quoting Artis at ¶ 13 , citing State v. Wright, 2018-Ohio-965, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). “‘Furthermore, | 5 | 11 |
State v. Seithgreen2 sentences2025Furthermore, a court’s journal entry, which states that “the trial court considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill a trial court’s obligations under [R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12].” State v. Riemer, 2021-Ohio- 4122, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Whitehead, 2021-Ohio-847, ¶ 34 (8th Dist.), citing Seith, 2016-Ohio-8302, at ¶ 12 (8th Dist.). 2025In fact, “[c]onsideration of the factors is presumed unless the defendant affirmatively shows otherwise.” State v. Seith, 2016-Ohio-8302, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Keith, 2016-Ohio-5234 (8th Dist.). ‘“[T]his court has consistently recognized that a trial court’s statement in the journal entry that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes.’” State v. White, 2018-Ohio-3414 , ¶ 9 (8th Dist.), quoting Kronenberg at ¶ 27 , citing State v. Wright, 2014-Ohio-3321 (8th Dist.). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Pategreen2 sentences2025However, “R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not fact-finding statutes and although the trial court must consider the factors, it is not required to make specific findings on the record regarding its consideration of those factors, even when imposing a more-than-minimum sentence.” Id., quoting State v. Artis, 2022-Ohio-3819, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Pate, 2021-Ohio-1089, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.). “‘Indeed, consideration of the factors is presumed unless the defendant affirmatively shows otherwise.’” Id., quoting Artis at ¶ 13 , citing State v. Wright, 2018-Ohio-965, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). “‘Furthermore, 2025However, “R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not fact-finding statutes and although the trial court must consider the factors, it is not required to make specific findings on the record regarding its consideration of those factors, even when imposing a more-than-minimum sentence.” Id., quoting State v. Artis, 2022-Ohio-3819, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Pate, 2021-Ohio-1089, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.). “‘Indeed, consideration of the factors is presumed unless the defendant affirmatively shows otherwise.’” Id., quoting Artis at ¶ 13 , citing State v. Wright, 2018-Ohio-965, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). “‘Furthermore, | 3 | 4 |
State v. Paynegreen2 sentences2021“A trial court’s statement that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes.” Id., citing State v. Abrams, 8th Dist. -5- Case No. 8-20-15 Cuyahoga No. 103786, 2016-Ohio-4570 , ¶ 14, citing State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , ¶ 18. {¶10} At Clinchscales’s sentencing hearing and in its sentencing entry, the trial court considered the R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors. 2018Cuyahoga No. 97092, 2012-Ohio-2061, ¶ 61 , citing State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , 873 N.E.2d 306, ¶ 18 (trial court’s statement that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes). | 2 | 43 |
State v. Piercegreen2 sentences2026“Further, a trial court’s statement in its sentencing journal entry that it considered the required statutory factors is enough to fulfill its obligations under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Pierce, 2023-Ohio-528, ¶ 41 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Sutton, 2015-Ohio-4074, ¶ 72 (8th Dist.). 2026“Further, a trial court’s statement in its sentencing journal entry that it considered the required statutory factors is enough to fulfill its obligations under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Pierce, 2023-Ohio-528, ¶ 41 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Sutton, 2015-Ohio- 4074, ¶ 72 (8th Dist.). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Montanez-Roldongreen2 sentences2017Cuyahoga No. 103509, 2016-Ohio-3062 [ 2016 WL 2941098 ], ¶ 10-11 ( R.C. 2953.08 precluded appellate review of the trial court's discretion in weighing the consistency in sentencing principles under R.C. 2929.11(B) because the final sentence was within the applicable statutory range and the trial court expressly indicated it considered all the required statutory factors and principles). 2016Cuyahoga No. 103509, 2016-Ohio-3062, ¶ 10-11 (R.C. 2953.08 precluded appellate review of the trial court’s discretion in weighing the consistency in sentencing principles under R.C. 2929.11(B) because the final sentence was within the applicable statutory range and the trial court expressly indicated it considered all the required statutory factors and principles).2 {¶6} The trial court in this case, at both the sentencing hearing and again in the final sentencing entry, expressly considered all factors at law before imposing the mid-range sentence for a third-degree felony offense. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Whiteheadgreen2 sentences2026State v. Whitehead, 2021-Ohio-847, ¶ 34 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Seith, 2016-Ohio-8302, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.). 2025Furthermore, a court’s journal entry, which states that “the trial court considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill a trial court’s obligations under [R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12].” State v. Riemer, 2021-Ohio- 4122, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Whitehead, 2021-Ohio-847, ¶ 34 (8th Dist.), citing Seith, 2016-Ohio-8302, at ¶ 12 (8th Dist.). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Artisgreen2 sentences2025However, “R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not fact-finding statutes and although the trial court must consider the factors, it is not required to make specific findings on the record regarding its consideration of those factors, even when imposing a more-than-minimum sentence.” Id., quoting State v. Artis, 2022-Ohio-3819, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Pate, 2021-Ohio-1089, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.). “‘Indeed, consideration of the factors is presumed unless the defendant affirmatively shows otherwise.’” Id., quoting Artis at ¶ 13 , citing State v. Wright, 2018-Ohio-965, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). “‘Furthermore, 2024However, “R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not fact-finding statutes and although the trial court must consider the factors, it is not required to make specific findings on the record regarding its consideration of those factors, even when imposing a more-than-minimum sentence.” Id., quoting State v. Artis, 2022-Ohio-3819, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Pate, 2021-Ohio-1089, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.). {¶18} “‘Indeed, consideration of the factors is presumed unless the defendant affirmatively shows otherwise.’” Id., quoting Artis at ¶ 13 , citing State v. Wright, 2018-Ohio-965, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). “‘Further | 2 | 2 |
State v. Jordangreen2 sentences2024Accord Jordan at ¶ 18-20 (resolving that the trial court considered the required statutory factors under R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(b) despite the trial court’s failure to specifically reference the factors). {¶19} Furthermore, after weighing the seriousness and recidivism factors, the trial court concluded that Webb was likely to commit future crimes because he has a history of criminal convictions. 2020See Jordan at ¶ 18-20 (holding that the trial court considered all of the required statutory factors despite the trial court’s failure to specifically reference the factors); State v. Tanner, 5th Dist. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kamlehgreen2 sentences2018Cuyahoga No. 97092, 2012-Ohio-2061, ¶ 61 , citing State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , 873 N.E.2d 306, ¶ 18 (trial court’s statement that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes). 2013No. 97092, 2012-Ohio-2061, ¶ 61 (“The court’s statement that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes”), citing State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , 873 N.E.2d 306, ¶ 18 ; State v. Wright, 8th Dist. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2024State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 20 , citing State v. Wilson, 2011-Ohio- 2669, ¶ 31; State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 , (2000). “[A] trial court’s statement in its sentencing entry that it considered the required statutory factors is sufficient to fulfill a trial court’s obligations under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Carter, 2016-Ohio-2725, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). 2018Cuyahoga No. 103279, 2016-Ohio-2725, ¶ 15 . {¶63} The trial court stated at the sentencing hearing and in the sentencing journal entry that it considered the required statutory factors and the record confirms the trial court did consider those factors and the principles and purposes of sentencing. {¶64} Buchanan further contends that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) in imposing consecutive sentences. | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Agnewgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Aburasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cookgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gossmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wolfegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gossgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Chapmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Stewartgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re A.M.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dorseygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re M.B.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Browninggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Maygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. W.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wingategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Keithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re McMillingreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Tanner, Unpublished Decision (12-24-2003)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Reevesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cyrusgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ebbing, Unpublished Decision (11-3-2003)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Edmonsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Maggette
green
2 sentences2025“A trial court’s statement that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes.” Maggette, 2016-Ohio-5554, at ¶ 32 . {¶19} Kittle alleges that the trial court did not properly weigh the mitigating factors when imposing his sentence. 2025“A trial court’s statement that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes.” Maggette, 2016-Ohio-5554, at ¶ 32 . {¶17} Hughes alleges that the trial court did not properly weigh the mitigating factors when imposing his sentence. | 19 | 2017–2025 |
State v. Polick
green
2 sentences2022“A trial court’s statement that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes.” Id., citing State v. Abrams, 8th Dist. 2022“A trial court’s statement that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes.” Id., citing State v. Abrams, 8th Dist. | 17 | 2016–2022 |
State v. Keith
green
2 sentences2025In fact, “[c]onsideration of the factors is presumed unless the defendant affirmatively shows otherwise.” State v. Seith, 2016-Ohio-8302, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Keith, 2016-Ohio-5234 (8th Dist.). ‘“[T]his court has consistently recognized that a trial court’s statement in the journal entry that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes.’” State v. White, 2018-Ohio-3414 , ¶ 9 (8th Dist.), quoting Kronenberg at ¶ 27 , citing State v. Wright, 2014-Ohio-3321 (8th Dist.). 2022Id., citing State v. Wright, 2018-Ohio-965 , 108 N.E.3d 1109, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). “[A] trial court’s statement in its sentencing journal entry that it considered the required statutory factors is alone sufficient to fulfill its obligations under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” Phillips at ¶ 8. | 6 | 2018–2025 |
State v. Foster
green
2 sentences2022Id., citing State v. Wright, 8th Dist. 2019Id., citing State v. Wright, 8th Dist. | 6 | 2019–2022 |
State v. Nienberg
green
2 sentences2019Putnam Nos. 12-16-15 and 12-16-16, 2017-Ohio-2920, ¶ 12 , quoting Maggette at ¶ 32. 2019Putnam Nos. 12-16-15 and 12-16-16, 2017-Ohio-2920, ¶ 12 , quoting Maggette at ¶ 32. -4- Case No. 8-18-38 {¶6} “Appellate courts defer to the broad discretion of the trial court in matters of sentencing.” State v. Walton, 3d Dist. | 5 | 2017–2019 |
State v. Wright
neutral
2 sentences2025In fact, “[c]onsideration of the factors is presumed unless the defendant affirmatively shows otherwise.” State v. Seith, 2016-Ohio-8302, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Keith, 2016-Ohio-5234 (8th Dist.). ‘“[T]his court has consistently recognized that a trial court’s statement in the journal entry that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes.’” State v. White, 2018-Ohio-3414 , ¶ 9 (8th Dist.), quoting Kronenberg at ¶ 27 , citing State v. Wright, 2014-Ohio-3321 (8th Dist.). 2021Cuyahoga No. 100283, 2014-Ohio-3321 . | 4 | 2018–2025 |
In Matter of D.H., 9-06-57 (4-16-2007)
green
2 sentences2020“It is not sufficient for the trial court to simply rely on the appellate court to review the factual record or narrative and then make the necessary inferences to determine whether the trial court must have considered each of the required statutory factors.” In re D.H. supra at ¶ 20 . 2010No. 9-06-57, 2007-Ohio-1762, at ¶ 21 . “[It] is not sufficient for the trial court to simply rely on the appellate court to review the factual record or narrative and then make the necessary inferences to determine whether the trial court must have considered each of the required statutory factors.” Id. at ¶ 20. | 4 | 2007–2020 |
State v. Kalish
red
2 sentences2012We disagree. {¶13} The Ohio Supreme Court established the proper standard of review for sentencing determinations in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124 ; State v. Brunning, 8th Dist. 2012We disagree. {¶13} The Ohio Supreme Court established the proper standard of review for sentencing determinations in State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124 ; State v. Brunning, 8th Dist. | 3 | 2009–2012 |
State v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences2026Bell at ¶ 32 , citing State v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-681 (4th Dist.), State v. Sutton, 2015-Ohio-4074, ¶ 72 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Scioto 24CA4110 23 Clayton, 2014-Ohio-112, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.); see also State v. Goss, 2025-Ohio-3136, ¶ 16 (4th Dist.). {¶43} A trial court “has full discretion to impose any sentence within the authorized statutory range, and the court is not required to make any findings or give its reasons for imposing maximum or more than minimum sentences.” State v. Chapman, 2022-Ohio-2853, ¶ 76 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Wolfe, 2020-Ohio-5501, ¶ 61-62 (J. 2024State v. Smith, 4th Dist. 22CA3, 22CA4, 2023-Ohio-681 ; State v. Sutton, 8th Dist. | 2 | 2024–2026 |
State v. Roby
green
2 sentences2025However, “R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not fact-finding statutes and although the trial court must consider the factors, it is not required to make specific findings on the record regarding its consideration of those factors, even when imposing a more-than-minimum sentence.” Id., quoting State v. Artis, 2022-Ohio-3819, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Pate, 2021-Ohio-1089, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.). “‘Indeed, consideration of the factors is presumed unless the defendant affirmatively shows otherwise.’” Id., quoting Artis at ¶ 13 , citing State v. Wright, 2018-Ohio-965, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). “‘Furthermore, 2024However, “R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not fact-finding statutes and although the trial court must consider the factors, it is not required to make specific findings on the record regarding its consideration of those factors, even when imposing a more-than-minimum sentence.” Id., quoting State v. Artis, 2022-Ohio-3819, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Pate, 2021-Ohio-1089, ¶ 6 (8th Dist.). {¶18} “‘Indeed, consideration of the factors is presumed unless the defendant affirmatively shows otherwise.’” Id., quoting Artis at ¶ 13 , citing State v. Wright, 2018-Ohio-965, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). “‘Further | 2 | 2024–2025 |
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2025However, “an appellate court errs if it * * * modifies or vacates a sentence ‘based on the lack of support in the record for the trial court’s findings under R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.’” State v. Dorsey, 2021-Ohio-76, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.), quoting Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 29 . 2024State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 20 , citing State v. Wilson, 2011-Ohio- 2669, ¶ 31; State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 , (2000). “[A] trial court’s statement in its sentencing entry that it considered the required statutory factors is sufficient to fulfill a trial court’s obligations under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Carter, 2016-Ohio-2725, ¶ 16 (8th Dist.). | 2 | 2024–2025 |
State v. Slife
green
2 sentences2025In fact, “[a] trial court’s statement that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes.” Slife, 2021-Ohio-644, ¶ 15 , quoting State v. Maggette, 2016- Ohio-5554, ¶ 32 (3d Dist.). {¶24} Fischer is ultimately asking this Court to determine whether the record supports the findings that the trial court made pursuant to R.C. 2929.12 and R.C. 2929.11. 2024“Although the trial court did not elaborate on its consideration of R.C. 2929 .11 and 2929.12, ‘[a] trial court’s statement that it considered the required statutory factors, without more, is sufficient to fulfill its obligations under the sentencing statutes.’” Slife, supra, at ¶ 15 , quoting State v. Maggette, 3d Dist. | 2 | 2024–2025 |
State v. Paulino
neutral
2 sentences2023Cuyahoga No. 104198, 2017-Ohio-15, ¶ 37 , citing State v. Gonzalez, 8th Dist. 2022Cuyahoga No. 104198, 2017-Ohio-15, ¶ 37 , citing State v. Gonzalez, 8th Dist. | 2 | 2022–2023 |
State v. Bonnell (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2020To support his argument that the trial court needed to make “separate and distinct findings” pursuant to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, Boyd cites to State v. Moore, 2014-Ohio-5135 , 24 N.E.3d 1197 , ¶ 21 (8th Dist.), and State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 , 2014-Ohio-4177 , 16 N.E.2d 659 , ¶ 29. 2018We find no merit to this argument. {¶65} “[T]o impose consecutive terms of imprisonment, a trial court is required to make the findings mandated by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry * * *.” State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 , 2014-Ohio-3177 , 16 N.E.3d 659, ¶ 37 . | 2 | 2018–2020 |
State v. Weaver
neutral
2 sentences2018Cuyahoga No. 102909, 2016-Ohio-811, ¶ 17 , citing Jones, and a trial court’s statement in its sentencing entry that it considered the required statutory factors is sufficient to fulfill this obligation. 2016Cuyahoga No. 102909, 2016-Ohio-811, ¶ 17 , citing Jones, and a trial court’s statement in its sentencing entry that it considered the required statutory factors is sufficient to fulfill this obligation. | 2 | 2016–2018 |
| State v. Fresenko neutral | 2 | 2016–2017 |
| State v. Bell green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| In re A.M. (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| In Re B.D., 2009-L-003 (5-15-2009) green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Riemer green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Arnett green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Black neutral | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| McCabe v. Rourke green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Beverly green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In re J.F. neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Scott neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Moore green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Townsend green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Cole green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Rahab (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Long green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Anders v. California green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| In Re N.A.E., Unpublished Decision (10-13-2006) neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Stevens green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Rodeffer green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Kincade green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In Re G.N. green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| In re Schaefer green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.