consistency requirement in Ohio

2009State v. Todd , Franklin App. No. 06AP-1208, 2007-Ohio-4307 , at ¶ 16 , citing State v. Daniel , Franklin App. No. 05AP-564, 2006-Ohio-4627 , at ¶ 50.

2009No. 06AP-1208, 2007-Ohio-4307 , ¶ 16. {¶ 14} Defendant nonetheless contends his sentence is contrary to law because the reasons the state offered to support a longer sentence for defendant are not valid.

2021No. 19-COA-001, 2019-Ohio-2875, ¶ 22 , quoting State v. Ware, 8th Dist.

2020Ashland No. 19-COA-001, 2019-Ohio-2875, ¶ 22 , quoting State v. Ware, 8th Dist.

2009State v. Todd , Franklin App. No. 06AP-1208, 2007-Ohio-4307 , at ¶ 16 , citing State v. Daniel , Franklin App. No. 05AP-564, 2006-Ohio-4627 , at ¶ 50.

2008State v. Todd , Franklin App. No. 06AP-1208, 2007-Ohio-4307 , at ¶ 16 , citing State v. Daniel , Franklin App. No. 05AP-564, 2006-Ohio-4627 , at ¶ 50 .

2021No. 16AP-761, 2017-Ohio-4196, ¶ 13 , quoting State v. Hayes, 10th Dist.

2020Cuyahoga No. 103902, 2016-Ohio-5932, ¶ 11 .

2019Cuyahoga No. 106176, 2018-Ohio-2294 , ¶ 17: The fact that a defendant receives a longer prison sentence than a codefendant does not, in and of itself establish a violation of the consistency requirement.

2017No. 08AP-233, 2009-Ohio-1100, ¶ 11 .

2016Cuyahoga No. 86417, 2006-Ohio-1083 . ¶ 31. {¶13} Thus, the fact that Cargill was sentenced to an aggregate prison term longer than the term that his codefendant was sentenced to does not in itself establish a violation of the consistency requirement set forth in R.C. 2929.11(B).

2014Cuyahoga No. 99628, 2014-Ohio-202, ¶ 25 . {¶14} The constitutional concepts of proportionality, as defined by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9, of the Ohio Constitution, also do not involve a consistency analysis.1 The constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment “‘forbid only extreme sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the crime.’” State v. Weitbrecht, 86 Ohio St.3d 368 , 373, 1999-Ohio-113 , 715 N.E.2d 167 , quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 997 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991).

2014Cuyahoga No. 99628, 2014-Ohio-202, ¶ 25 . {¶14} The constitutional concepts of proportionality, as defined by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9, of the Ohio Constitution, also do not involve a consistency analysis.1 The constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment “‘forbid only extreme sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the crime.’” State v. Weitbrecht, 86 Ohio St.3d 368 , 373, 1999-Ohio-113 , 715 N.E.2d 167 , quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 997 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991).

2014Cuyahoga No. 99628, 2014-Ohio-202, ¶ 25 . {¶14} The constitutional concepts of proportionality, as defined by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9, of the Ohio Constitution, also do not involve a consistency analysis.1 The constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment “‘forbid only extreme sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the crime.’” State v. Weitbrecht, 86 Ohio St.3d 368 , 373, 1999-Ohio-113 , 715 N.E.2d 167 , quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 997 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991).

2014Cuyahoga No. 99628, 2014-Ohio-202, ¶ 25 . {¶14} The constitutional concepts of proportionality, as defined by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9, of the Ohio Constitution, also do not involve a consistency analysis.1 The constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment “‘forbid only extreme sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the crime.’” State v. Weitbrecht, 86 Ohio St.3d 368 , 373, 1999-Ohio-113 , 715 N.E.2d 167 , quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 997 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991).

2014Cuyahoga No. 99628, 2014-Ohio-202, ¶ 25 . {¶14} The constitutional concepts of proportionality, as defined by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9, of the Ohio Constitution, also do not involve a consistency analysis.1 The constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment “‘forbid only extreme sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the crime.’” State v. Weitbrecht, 86 Ohio St.3d 368 , 373, 1999-Ohio-113 , 715 N.E.2d 167 , quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 997 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991).

2014Both the constitutional and statutory concepts of proportionality focus on the defendant’s conduct and whether the penalty is disproportionate to the seriousness of each particular offense. {¶15} In State v. Hairston, 118 Ohio St.3d 289 , 2008-Ohio-2338 , 888 N.E.2d 1073 , ¶ 13, the Ohio Supreme Court explained: “Ohio’s felony-sentencing scheme is clearly designed to focus the judge’s attention on one offense at a time,” and “[o]nly after the judge has imposed a separate prison term for each offense may the judge then consider in his discretion whether the offender should serve those terms con

2014Both the constitutional and statutory concepts of proportionality focus on the defendant’s conduct and whether the penalty is disproportionate to the seriousness of each particular offense. {¶15} In State v. Hairston, 118 Ohio St.3d 289 , 2008-Ohio-2338 , 888 N.E.2d 1073 , ¶ 13, the Ohio Supreme Court explained: “Ohio’s felony-sentencing scheme is clearly designed to focus the judge’s attention on one offense at a time,” and “[o]nly after the judge has imposed a separate prison term for each offense may the judge then consider in his discretion whether the offender should serve those terms con

2014Cuyahoga No. 99628, 2014-Ohio-202, ¶ 25 . {¶14} The constitutional concepts of proportionality, as defined by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9, of the Ohio Constitution, also do not involve a consistency analysis.1 The constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment “‘forbid only extreme sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the crime.’” State v. Weitbrecht, 86 Ohio St.3d 368 , 373, 1999-Ohio-113 , 715 N.E.2d 167 , quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 997 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991).

2007Unlike the victims in the present matter — Ultra-Met, its investors, and its employees — the victims in Georgakopoulos were the members of the public who had voluntarily chosen to partake in the events, although with the intention that their contributions would go to charity. {¶ 22} Likewise, we do not find Rigsbee’s argument compelling that State v. Graor (1998), 126 Ohio App.3d 488 , 710 N.E.2d 785 , demonstrates the trial court’s failure to comply with the consistency principle in R.C. 2929.11(B).

2007Unlike the victims in the present matter — Ultra-Met, its investors, and its employees — the victims in Georgakopoulos were the members of the public who had voluntarily chosen to partake in the events, although with the intention that their contributions would go to charity. {¶ 22} Likewise, we do not find Rigsbee’s argument compelling that State v. Graor (1998), 126 Ohio App.3d 488 , 710 N.E.2d 785 , demonstrates the trial court’s failure to comply with the consistency principle in R.C. 2929.11(B).

2006State v. Walker , Cuyahoga App. No. 87677, 2006-Ohio-6188 at ¶ 81 ; State v. Erwin , Cuyahoga App. No. 87333, 2006-Ohio-4498 ; State v. McCarroll , Cuyahoga App. No. 86901, 2006-Ohio-3010 ; State v. Chambers , Cuyahoga App. No. 87221, 2006-Ohio-4889 ; State v. Rady , Lake App. No. 2006-L-012, 2006-Ohio-3434 ; State v. Pitts , Allen App. No. 01-06-02, 2006-Ohio-2796 ; State v. Sanchez , Defiance App. No. 4-05-47, 2006-Ohio-2141 .

2006State v. Walker , Cuyahoga App. No. 87677, 2006-Ohio-6188 at ¶ 81 ; State v. Erwin , Cuyahoga App. No. 87333, 2006-Ohio-4498 ; State v. McCarroll , Cuyahoga App. No. 86901, 2006-Ohio-3010 ; State v. Chambers , Cuyahoga App. No. 87221, 2006-Ohio-4889 ; State v. Rady , Lake App. No. 2006-L-012, 2006-Ohio-3434 ; State v. Pitts , Allen App. No. 01-06-02, 2006-Ohio-2796 ; State v. Sanchez , Defiance App. No. 4-05-47, 2006-Ohio-2141 .

2006State v. Walker , Cuyahoga App. No. 87677, 2006-Ohio-6188 at ¶ 81 ; State v. Erwin , Cuyahoga App. No. 87333, 2006-Ohio-4498 ; State v. McCarroll , Cuyahoga App. No. 86901, 2006-Ohio-3010 ; State v. Chambers , Cuyahoga App. No. 87221, 2006-Ohio-4889 ; State v. Rady , Lake App. No. 2006-L-012, 2006-Ohio-3434 ; State v. Pitts , Allen App. No. 01-06-02, 2006-Ohio-2796 ; State v. Sanchez , Defiance App. No. 4-05-47, 2006-Ohio-2141 .

2006State v. Walker , Cuyahoga App. No. 87677, 2006-Ohio-6188 at ¶ 81 ; State v. Erwin , Cuyahoga App. No. 87333, 2006-Ohio-4498 ; State v. McCarroll , Cuyahoga App. No. 86901, 2006-Ohio-3010 ; State v. Chambers , Cuyahoga App. No. 87221, 2006-Ohio-4889 ; State v. Rady , Lake App. No. 2006-L-012, 2006-Ohio-3434 ; State v. Pitts , Allen App. No. 01-06-02, 2006-Ohio-2796 ; State v. Sanchez , Defiance App. No. 4-05-47, 2006-Ohio-2141 .

2006State v. Walker , Cuyahoga App. No. 87677, 2006-Ohio-6188 at ¶ 81 ; State v. Erwin , Cuyahoga App. No. 87333, 2006-Ohio-4498 ; State v. McCarroll , Cuyahoga App. No. 86901, 2006-Ohio-3010 ; State v. Chambers , Cuyahoga App. No. 87221, 2006-Ohio-4889 ; State v. Rady , Lake App. No. 2006-L-012, 2006-Ohio-3434 ; State v. Pitts , Allen App. No. 01-06-02, 2006-Ohio-2796 ; State v. Sanchez , Defiance App. No. 4-05-47, 2006-Ohio-2141 .

2006State v. Walker , Cuyahoga App. No. 87677, 2006-Ohio-6188 at ¶ 81 ; State v. Erwin , Cuyahoga App. No. 87333, 2006-Ohio-4498 ; State v. McCarroll , Cuyahoga App. No. 86901, 2006-Ohio-3010 ; State v. Chambers , Cuyahoga App. No. 87221, 2006-Ohio-4889 ; State v. Rady , Lake App. No. 2006-L-012, 2006-Ohio-3434 ; State v. Pitts , Allen App. No. 01-06-02, 2006-Ohio-2796 ; State v. Sanchez , Defiance App. No. 4-05-47, 2006-Ohio-2141 .

2006State v. Walker , Cuyahoga App. No. 87677, 2006-Ohio-6188 at ¶ 81 ; State v. Erwin , Cuyahoga App. No. 87333, 2006-Ohio-4498 ; State v. McCarroll , Cuyahoga App. No. 86901, 2006-Ohio-3010 ; State v. Chambers , Cuyahoga App. No. 87221, 2006-Ohio-4889 ; State v. Rady , Lake App. No. 2006-L-012, 2006-Ohio-3434 ; State v. Pitts , Allen App. No. 01-06-02, 2006-Ohio-2796 ; State v. Sanchez , Defiance App. No. 4-05-47, 2006-Ohio-2141 .

2006In support of his argument, Keyes cites to five fourth-degree burglary cases, including two out of this court, in which the defendants received less than the maximum eighteen month sentence. {¶ 12} In State v. Wilson (Feb. 22, 2005), Washington App. No. 04CA18, 2005-Ohio-830 , at ¶ 41-43 , we reasoned: R.C. 2929.11 (B) directs trial courts to impose felony sentences that are "consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes by similar offenders." However, the General Assembly has not identified the means by which the courts should attain this goal.

1983(Ohio State Federation of Licensed Nursing Homes v. Public Health Council, 113 Ohio App. 113 [ 17 O.O.2d 108 ], approved and followed.)” We further conclude that the final rules promulgated by appellant were consistent with the public notice as required by R.C. 119.03(D).

1983(Ohio State Federation of Licensed Nursing Homes v. Public Health Council, 113 Ohio App. 113 [ 17 O.O.2d 108 ], approved and followed.)” We further conclude that the final rules promulgated by appellant were consistent with the public notice as required by R.C. 119.03(D).

1983As to the consistency requirement of R.C. 119.03(D), this court, in Jamison Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Rose (1967), 14 Ohio App. 2d 47 [ 43 O.O.2d 136 ], in paragraph two of the syllabus, held: “Amendments which are finally adopted pursuant to Section 119.03(D) of the Revised Code may differ from the synopsis of proposed amendments published under paragraph (A) of such section and the full text of the proposed amendments filed under paragraph (B) of such section, provided the amendments finally adopted are sufficiently consistent with the public notice to insure that all persons affected have b

1983As to the consistency requirement of R.C. 119.03(D), this court, in Jamison Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Rose (1967), 14 Ohio App. 2d 47 [ 43 O.O.2d 136 ], in paragraph two of the syllabus, held: “Amendments which are finally adopted pursuant to Section 119.03(D) of the Revised Code may differ from the synopsis of proposed amendments published under paragraph (A) of such section and the full text of the proposed amendments filed under paragraph (B) of such section, provided the amendments finally adopted are sufficiently consistent with the public notice to insure that all persons affected have b