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.
95 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2026 44 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. Morrisgreen2 sentences2026"Accordingly, when a trial court imposes a sentence based on factors or considerations that are extraneous to those that are permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, that sentence is contrary to law." Id. {¶ 10} "A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court 'considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.'" State v. Morris, 2021-Ohio-2646, ¶ 90 (5th Dist.), rev'd on other grounds, State v. Morris, 2022 2026"Accordingly, when a trial court imposes a sentence based on factors or considerations that are extraneous to those that are permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, that sentence is contrary to law." Id. {¶ 20} "A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court 'considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.'" State v. Morris, 2021-Ohio-2646, ¶ 90 (5th Dist.), rev'd on other grounds, State v. Morris, 2022 | 13 | 13 |
State v. Dinkagreen2 sentences2025"Accordingly, when a trial court imposes a sentence based on factors or considerations that are extraneous to those that are permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, that sentence is contrary to law." Id. {¶ 12} "A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court 'considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.' " State v. Morris, 2021-Ohio-2646, ¶ 90 (5th Dist.), rev'd on other grounds, 2022-Ohio-4609 , quo 2025"Accordingly, when a trial court imposes a sentence based on factors or considerations that are extraneous to those that are permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, that sentence is contrary to law." Id. {¶ 12} Conversely, however, "[a] sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court 'considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.' " State v. Morris, 2021- Ohio-2646, ¶ 90 (5th Dist.), reversed on other gr | 7 | 7 |
State v. Juliousgreen2 sentences2022Butler No. CA2015-12-224, 2016-Ohio-4822, ¶ 8 ("[a]s with all felony sentences, we review this sentence under the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08[G][2]"). 2021Butler No. CA2015-12-224, 2016-Ohio-4822, ¶ 8 ("[a]s with all felony sentences, we review this sentence under the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08[G][2]"). | 5 | 6 |
State v. Sullensgreen2 sentences2025"Accordingly, when a trial court imposes a sentence based on factors or considerations that are extraneous to those that are permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, that sentence is contrary to law." Id. {¶ 12} "A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court 'considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.' " State v. Morris, 2021-Ohio-2646, ¶ 90 (5th Dist.), rev'd on other grounds, 2022-Ohio-4609 , quo 2025"Accordingly, when a trial court imposes a sentence based on factors or considerations that are extraneous to those that are permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, that sentence is contrary to law." Id. {¶ 12} Conversely, however, "[a] sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court 'considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.' " State v. Morris, 2021- Ohio-2646, ¶ 90 (5th Dist.), reversed on other gr | 3 | 3 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2025"Accordingly, when a trial court imposes a sentence based on factors or considerations that are extraneous to those that are permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, that sentence is contrary to law." Id. {¶ 12} "A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court 'considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.' " State v. Morris, 2021-Ohio-2646, ¶ 90 (5th Dist.), rev'd on other grounds, 2022-Ohio-4609 , quo 2025"Accordingly, when a trial court imposes a sentence based on factors or considerations that are extraneous to those that are permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, that sentence is contrary to law." Id. {¶ 12} Conversely, however, "[a] sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court 'considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.' " State v. Morris, 2021- Ohio-2646, ¶ 90 (5th Dist.), reversed on other gr | 3 | 3 |
State v. Jackson (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2025“The Ohio Supreme Court has affirmed that a hearing to impose a sentence for a violation of community control is a sentencing hearing and, therefore, compliance with the relevant sentencing statutes is required.” State v. Scott, 2021-Ohio-1368, ¶ 13 (11th Dist.), citing State v. Jackson, 2016-Ohio-8127, ¶ 11 . 2023However, in State v. Jackson, 150 Ohio St.3d 362, 2016-Ohio-8127, ¶ 17, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmatively held that “a hearing following community-control revocation is a sentencing hearing and that a trial court must abide by R.C. 2929.19(A) and Crim.R. 32(A)(1) by affording an offender an opportunity for allocution prior to imposing a sentence at such a hearing.” {¶22} Given that a judicial release revocation hearing is extremely similar in nature, albeit with fewer options for the trial court in sentencing, we find that the Jackson holding would control here. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Smith, 08ap-736 (5-5-2009)green2 sentences2015Franklin Nos. 08AP-736 and 09AP-72, 2009-Ohio-2166, ¶ 48 (affirming where the trial court's "express intention was to apply all of the time to the community control violation as the full sentence for that violation" so that there were no concurrent sentences imposed). {¶ 20} After reviewing the record, we find that Wilson was properly sentenced on the community control violation to the time he already served while awaiting disposition of the pending burglary charge. 2014Franklin Nos. 08AP-736, 09AP-72, 2009-Ohio-2166, ¶ 48 (finding Fugate inapplicable where the trial court's "express intention was to apply all of the time to the community control violation as the full sentence for that violation" so that there were no concurrent sentences imposed). {¶ 16} After reviewing the record, we find that this is not a case where Chasteen was sentenced to concurrent prison time for his violation of community control and his new 2013 crimes. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Stuart Jeffrey Paskowgreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., United States v. Soto-Olivas (C.A.9, 1995), 44 F.3d 788 , in which the court found that the federal supervised-release statute, Section 3583(a), Title 18, U.S. Code, by its plain language provides that “the entire sentence, including the period of supervised release, is the punishment for the original crime, and ‘it is the original sentence that is executed when the defendant is returned to prison after a violation of the terms’ of his release.” Id. at 790 , quoting United States v. Paskow (C.A.9, 1993), 11 F.3d 873, 881 . {¶ 23} The Soto-Olivas court went on to state that “punishme 2002See, e.g., United States v. Soto-Olivas (C.A.9, 1995), 44 F.3d 788 , in which the court found that the federal supervised-release statute, Section 3583(a), Title 18, U.S. Code, by its plain language provides that “the entire sentence, including the period of supervised release, is the punishment for the original crime, and ‘it is the original sentence that is executed when the defendant is returned to prison after a violation of the terms’ of his release.” Id. at 790 , quoting United States v. Paskow (C.A.9, 1993), 11 F.3d 873, 881 . {¶ 23} The Soto-Olivas court went on to state that “punishme | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Lorenzo Soto-Olivasgreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., United States v. Soto-Olivas (C.A.9, 1995), 44 F.3d 788 , in which the court found that the federal supervised-release statute, Section 3583(a), Title 18, U.S. Code, by its plain language provides that “the entire sentence, including the period of supervised release, is the punishment for the original crime, and ‘it is the original sentence that is executed when the defendant is returned to prison after a violation of the terms’ of his release.” Id. at 790 , quoting United States v. Paskow (C.A.9, 1993), 11 F.3d 873, 881 . {¶ 23} The Soto-Olivas court went on to state that “punishme 2002See, e.g., United States v. Soto-Olivas (C.A.9, 1995), 44 F.3d 788 , in which the court found that the federal supervised-release statute, Section 3583(a), Title 18, U.S. Code, by its plain language provides that “the entire sentence, including the period of supervised release, is the punishment for the original crime, and ‘it is the original sentence that is executed when the defendant is returned to prison after a violation of the terms’ of his release.” Id. at 790 , quoting United States v. Paskow (C.A.9, 1993), 11 F.3d 873, 881 . {¶ 23} The Soto-Olivas court went on to state that “punishme | 2 | 2 |
Woods v. Telbgreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., R.C. 2929.14(F) (“If a court imposes a prison term of a type described in division (B) of section 2967.28 of the Revised Code, it shall include in the sentence a requirement that the offender be subject to a period of post-release control after the offender’s release from imprisonment, in accordance with that division” [emphasis added]); Woods v. Telb (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 504, 512 , 733 N.E.2d 1103 (“post-release control is part of the original judicially imposed sentence” [emphasis added]). 2006See, e.g., R.C. 2929.14(F) (“If a court imposes a prison term of a type described in division (B) of section 2967.28 of the Revised Code, it shall include in the sentence a requirement that the offender be subject to a period of post-release control after the offender’s release from imprisonment, in accordance with that division” [emphasis added]); Woods v. Telb (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 504, 512 , 733 N.E.2d 1103 (“post-release control is part of the original judicially imposed sentence” [emphasis added]). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Marcum (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2018State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio- 1002, ¶ 1. 2018State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio- 1002, ¶ 1. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Bonnell (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2022Specifically, the court held that “[n]othing about [the Jones] holding should be construed as prohibiting appellate review of a sentence when the claim is that the sentence was improperly imposed based on impermissible considerations—i.e., considerations that fall outside those that are contained in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” Bryant, supra, at ¶22 . 3 Case Nos. 2021-P-0103 and 2021-P-0104 committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct. {¶10} (c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences a 2022Specifically, the court held that “[n]othing about [the Jones] holding should be construed as prohibiting appellate review of a sentence when the claim is that the sentence was improperly imposed based on impermissible considerations—i.e., considerations that fall outside those that are contained in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” Bryant, supra, at ¶22 . 3 Case Nos. 2021-P-0103 and 2021-P-0104 committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct. {¶10} (c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences a | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bradleygreen2 sentences2008Therefore, Dwyer's first assignment of error is not well-taken. {¶ 16} Dwyer's second assignment of error states: {¶ 17} "Mr. Dwyer received ineffective assistance of counsel at his sentencing when trial counsel failed to object to the court's imposition of a sentence in violation of his rights under the [S]ixth and [Fourteenth [A]mendment[s] to the [Constitution of the United States." {¶ 18} The Supreme Court of Ohio, in State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136 , paragraph two of the syllabus, adopted the following test set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , to determi 2005See Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d at 143 . {¶ 15} While the trial court did articulate its reasons for the sentence at the hearing, it did not make the requisite R.C. 2929.14 (B) findings. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Castrogreen1 sentence2026State v. Castro, 2022-Ohio-4327, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.), following State v. Patrick, 2020-Ohio-6803, ¶ 22 . - 14 - Clinton CA2025-03-008 outcome. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pettigrewgreen1 sentence2025See Pettigrew, 2023-Ohio-3877, at ¶ 11 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Elliotgreen1 sentence2025PAGE 2 OF 7 Case Nos. 2025-A-0001 and 2025-A-0002 {¶8} “‘As with all felony sentences, we review the trial court’s sentencing decision for a community control violation under the standard set forth by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).’” State v. Hogya, 2024-Ohio-639, ¶ 11 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Demangone, 2023- Ohio-2522, ¶ 11 (12th Dist.); and State v. Elliott, 2023-Ohio-1459, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.). {¶9} R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides: The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by | 1 | 1 |
State v. Scottgreen1 sentence2025“The Ohio Supreme Court has affirmed that a hearing to impose a sentence for a violation of community control is a sentencing hearing and, therefore, compliance with the relevant sentencing statutes is required.” State v. Scott, 2021-Ohio-1368, ¶ 13 (11th Dist.), citing State v. Jackson, 2016-Ohio-8127, ¶ 11 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hogyagreen1 sentence2025PAGE 2 OF 7 Case Nos. 2025-A-0001 and 2025-A-0002 {¶8} “‘As with all felony sentences, we review the trial court’s sentencing decision for a community control violation under the standard set forth by R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).’” State v. Hogya, 2024-Ohio-639, ¶ 11 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Demangone, 2023- Ohio-2522, ¶ 11 (12th Dist.); and State v. Elliott, 2023-Ohio-1459, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.). {¶9} R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) provides: The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wingategreen1 sentence2024“The fact that the trial court chose to weigh various sentencing factors differently than how appellant would have weighed them does not mean the trial court erred in imposing appellant’s sentence.” Id. {¶14} “Further, R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(b) outlines several factors that the sentencing court must consider prior to determining the sentence for a violation of R.C. 2921.331(B) when the offender caused a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property.” State v. Wingate, 2020-Ohio-6796, ¶ 12 (3d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bishop (Slip Opinion)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Semenchukgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Beasleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mooregreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Singletonred | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Simpkinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Buellgreen | 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. Bryant
green
2 sentences2026The Supreme Court of Ohio clarified that the holding in Jones should not be "construed as prohibiting appellate review of a sentence when the claim is that the sentence was imposed based on impermissible considerations—i.e., considerations that fall outside those that are contained in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12." State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, ¶ 22 . 2026The Supreme Court of Ohio clarified that the holding in Jones should not be "construed as prohibiting appellate review of a sentence when the claim is that the sentence was imposed based on impermissible considerations—i.e., considerations that fall outside those that are contained in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12." State v. Bryant, 2022-Ohio-1878, ¶ 22 . | 17 | 2022–2026 |
State v. Morris
neutral
2 sentences2026"Accordingly, when a trial court imposes a sentence based on factors or considerations that are extraneous to those that are permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, that sentence is contrary to law." Id. {¶ 10} "A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court 'considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.'" State v. Morris, 2021-Ohio-2646, ¶ 90 (5th Dist.), rev'd on other grounds, State v. Morris, 2022 2026"Accordingly, when a trial court imposes a sentence based on factors or considerations that are extraneous to those that are permitted by R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, that sentence is contrary to law." Id. {¶ 20} "A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court 'considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.'" State v. Morris, 2021-Ohio-2646, ¶ 90 (5th Dist.), rev'd on other grounds, State v. Morris, 2022 | 14 | 2025–2026 |
Blakely v. Washington
green
2 sentences2009(Tr. 12.) {¶ 6} Appellant filed this appeal, alleging two assignments of error: FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR The trial court erred in imposing a sentence in violation of Blakely v. Washington (2004), 124 S.Ct. 2531 . 2008The sentence was the term of incarceration jointly recommended by the parties. {¶ 2} A single assignment of error is presented: The trial court erred in imposing a sentence in violation of Blakely v. Washington (2004), 124 S.Ct. 2531 . *Page 2 {¶ 3} A criminal defendant who agrees to a specific sentence is not in a position to argue that his sentence is in violation of Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 961 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 . | 8 | 2005–2009 |
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2024State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39 . “…R.C.2953.08, as amended, precludes second-guessing a sentence imposed by the trial court based on its weighing of the considerations in R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” State v. Toles, 2021-Ohio-3531, ¶ 10 . {¶28} In State v. Bryant, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified its holding in Jones and further set forth the role of the appellate court: Nothing about that holding should be construed as prohibiting appellate review of a sentence when the claim is that the sentence was improperly imposed based on impermissible considerations - i.e., considerations that fall 2022As such, the Court’s review of the matter, and likewise our review of the matter at bar, was not precluded by the Court’s 9 Case Nos. 2021-L-080, 2021-L-081, 2021-L-082, 2021-L-083 ruling in State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 , 2020-Ohio-6729 , which held that an appellate court may not “independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12.” Id., at ¶42 and Bryant, supra, at ¶22. (“Nothing about [Jones] should be construed as prohibiting appellate review of a se | 3 | 2022–2025 |
State v. Fischer
green
2 sentences2011In State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St. 3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , however, the Court modified Bezak, clarifying that only the part of the sentence that was in error is void. 2011In State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St. 3d 92 , 2010-Ohio-6238 , however, the Court modified Bezak, clarifying that only the part of the sentence that was in error is void. | 3 | 2011–2013 |
State v. Beasley
green
2 sentences2001Such a belief stems from the decision in State v. Beasley (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 74 , 471 N.E.2d 774 , which stated that a sentence in violation of statutory requirements renders the attempted sentence a nullity or void. 2001Such a belief stems from the decision in State v. Beasley (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 74 , 471 N.E.2d 774 , which stated that a sentence in violation of statutory requirements renders the attempted sentence a nullity or void. | 2 | 2001–2008 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2006In particular, appellant asserts that the trial court imposed the sentence in violation of jury trial principles afforded by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in contravention of Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 , and State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 . {¶ 46} Blakely stems from Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), 530 U.S. 466 , 490 , wherein the United States Supreme Court held that, "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and 2006In particular, appellant asserts that the trial court imposed the sentence in violation of jury trial principles afforded by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in contravention of Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296 , and State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 . {¶ 46} Blakely stems from Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), 530 U.S. 466 , 490 , wherein the United States Supreme Court held that, "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Woods v. Telb
green
2 sentences2003Woods v. Telb , 89 Ohio St.3d 504 , 2000-Ohio-171 , characterized post-release control as a "part of an offender's sentence." Id., at 513. {¶ 17} A court that imposes a sentence that includes post-release control must notify the offender of the post-release control requirement at sentencing, and that "if the offender violates that supervision or condition of post-release control . . . the parole board may impose a prison term, as a part of the sentence, of up to one-half of the stated prison term originally imposed on the offender." R.C. 2929.19 (B)(3)(e). 2003Woods v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504 , 2000-Ohio-171 , characterized post-release control as a "part of an offender's sentence." Id., at 513. {¶ 17} A court that imposes a sentence that includes post-release control must notify the offender of the post-release control requirement at sentencing, and that "if the offender violates that supervision or condition of post-release control . . . the parole board may impose a prison term, as a part of the sentence, of up to one-half of the stated prison term originally imposed on the offender." R.C. 2929.19 (B)(3)(e). | 2 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Gill
green
1 sentence2026A court shall not impose more than one prison term on an offender under division (B)(11) of this section for felonies committed as part of the same act. {¶27} As the First District concluded in Gill, supra, 2024- Ohio-2792 (1st Dist.), read together, R.C. 2929.14 and 2941.1410 only authorize the imposition of an additional prison term for an MDO specification when the drug involved is a fentanyl- related compound or a mixture thereof. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Patrick (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2026State v. Castro, 2022-Ohio-4327, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.), following State v. Patrick, 2020-Ohio-6803, ¶ 22 . - 14 - Clinton CA2025-03-008 outcome. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Toles (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Sullivan neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Sain neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Steger
green
1 sentence2024“The fact that the trial court chose to weigh various sentencing factors differently than how appellant would have weighed them does not mean the trial court erred in imposing appellant’s sentence.” Id. {¶14} “Further, R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(b) outlines several factors that the sentencing court must consider prior to determining the sentence for a violation of R.C. 2921.331(B) when the offender caused a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property.” State v. Wingate, 2020-Ohio-6796, ¶ 12 (3d Dist.). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Rose neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Bentley green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Henderson (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Fultz neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Howard (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Grimes (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Miller v. Alabama green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Warrix green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Long green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Wilks (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Creech (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Dunwoody neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Garner neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Green green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Branham neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Harris green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Payne green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Qualls green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Henderson green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Wilcher v. Mississippi (Two Judgments) green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Reynolds green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Evans green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Strickland v. Washington green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (10-2-2006) neutral | 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.