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.
81 Ohio opinions name it 4 courts 1981–2026 5 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State v. Armstrong, Unpublished Decision (11-6-2003)green2 sentences2005Thus, we have held that "although a defendant cannot be expected to produce his or her own database to demonstrate the alleged inconsistency, the issue must at least be raised in the trial court and some evidence, however minimal, must be presented to the trial court to provide a starting point for analysis and to preserve the issue for appeal." State v. Armstrong, Cuyahoga App. No. 81928, 2003-Ohio-5932, at ¶ 29 (McMonagle, J., concurring). 2005"Although a defendant cannot be expected to produce his or her own database to demonstrate the alleged inconsistency, the issue must at least be raised in the trial court and some evidence, however minimal, must be presented to the trial court to provide a starting point for analysis and to preserve the issue for appeal." State v. Armstrong, Cuyahoga App. No. 81928, 2003-Ohio-5932 at ¶ 29 ; see, also, State v. Lathan, Lucas App. No. L-03-1188, 2004-Ohio-7074 , at ¶ 27 . {¶ 41} R.C. 2929.11 (B) directs trial courts to impose felony sentences that are "consistent with sentences imposed for simil | 3 | 5 |
State v. Redding, 90864 (11-6-2008)green2 sentences2011See also State v. Redding, Cuyahoga App. No. 90864, 2008-Ohio-5739 , 2008 WL 4812477 . {¶ 55} In the instant case, defense counsel argued that Butler should be treated more leniently in light of his age and participation in the crime, but he failed to raise the argument that Butler’s sentence was disproportionate to sentences given to other offenders with similar records who have committed the same offense. 2009This court has repeatedly recognized that in order to support a contention that a "sentence is disproportionate to sentences imposed upon other offenders, a defendant must raise this issue before the trial court and present some evidence, however minimal, in order to provide a starting point for analysis and to preserve the issue for appeal." Redding , supra, at ¶ 18, fn. 7 , quoting State v. Edwards , 8th Dist. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Mayes, Unpublished Decision (4-22-2004)green2 sentences2005See, also, State v. Mayes, Cuyahoga App. No. 82592, 2004-Ohio-2014 . 2004See, also, Mayes, supra. Having failed to raise this issue at sentencing, appellant cannot now argue that the sentence imposed by the trial court was inconsistent with those imposed on similar offenders. {¶ 90} I dissent with respect to that part of the majority's resolution of assignment of error five regarding the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentences. {¶ 91} The majority holds that the trial court properly imposed consecutive sentences because, when sentencing appellant, the trial judge recited the language of R.C. 2929.14 , which authorizes the imposition of consecutive sentenc | 3 | 3 |
State v. Woods, Unpublished Decision (5-27-2004)green2 sentences2013State v. Woods, [8th Dist.] No. 82789, 2004-Ohio-2700 . 2008See State v. Woods , Cuyahoga App. No. 82789, 2004-Ohio-2700 (when defendant challenges consistency in sentencing, "the issue must at least be raised in the trial court and some evidence, however minimal, must be presented to the trial court to provide a starting point for analysis and to preserve the issue for appeal."); State v. Marshall , Cuyahoga App. No. 89551, 2008-Ohio-1632 . {¶ 45} Appellant here raises this issue for the first time on appeal, and this court will not decide it. | 1 | 12 |
Cherry v. Cherrygreen2 sentences2017Cherry v. Cherry, 66 Ohio St.2d 348, 353 , 421 N.E.2d 1293 (1981), syllabus. 1981In Cherry v.Cherry (1981), 66 Ohio St. 2d 348 , at pages 355-356, the Ohio Supreme Court set forth the following standards for the review of alimony awards: *182 “In using the partnership analogy, this court in Wolfe did not intend to create a presumption, rebuttable or irrebuttable, that property be divided equally upon divorce; rather, a potentially equal division should be the starting point of analysis for the trial court. | 1 | 4 |
District of Columbia v. Hellergreen1 sentence2026Id., citing State v. Jackson, 2004-Ohio-3206 , ¶ 14, and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 576-577 (2008). {¶30} In interpreting the plain meaning of the Ohio Constitution, courts typically apply the same rules that govern the construction of statutes. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Watsongreen1 sentence2025Lawrence App. No. 23CA35 15 {¶34} In Pierce we explained, “the defendant must raise this issue before the trial court and present some evidence, however minimal, to provide a starting point for analysis and to preserve the [consistency] issue for appeal.” Id. at ¶ 61, citing State v. Jones, 2013-Ohio-3141, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.); State v. Watson, 2024-Ohio-4992, ¶ 20-21 (4th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2025Lawrence App. No. 23CA35 15 {¶34} In Pierce we explained, “the defendant must raise this issue before the trial court and present some evidence, however minimal, to provide a starting point for analysis and to preserve the [consistency] issue for appeal.” Id. at ¶ 61, citing State v. Jones, 2013-Ohio-3141, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.); State v. Watson, 2024-Ohio-4992, ¶ 20-21 (4th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Canton v. Imperial Bowling Lanes, Inc.green2 sentences2017See Canton v. Imperial Bowling Lanes, Inc. , 16 Ohio St.2d 47 , 53, 242 N.E.2d 566 (1968). *168 {¶ 23} In Columbia Gas Transm. 2017See Canton v. Imperial Bowling Lanes, Inc. , 16 Ohio St.2d 47 , 53, 242 N.E.2d 566 (1968). *168 {¶ 23} In Columbia Gas Transm. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Beasley, Unpublished Decision (3-4-2004)green1 sentence2013No. 82884, 2004-Ohio-988, ¶24 (internal citation omitted). {¶77} This court has previously found that in order to support a contention that a sentence is disproportionate to sentences imposed upon other offenders, the defendant must raise this issue before the trial court and present some evidence, however minimal, in order to provide a starting point for analysis and to preserve the issue for appeal. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Parkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Remmer v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cantrell, Unpublished Decision (1-27-2006)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lathan, Unpublished Decision (12-23-2004)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Coleman, Unpublished Decision (1-22-2004)green | 1 | 1 |
| Pistole v. Wiltshiregreen | 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. Edwards, Unpublished Decision (11-15-2007)
green
2 sentences2011To support a claim that a “sentence is disproportionate to sentences imposed upon other offenders, a defendant must raise this issue before the trial court and present some evidence, however minimal, in order to provide a starting point for analysis and to preserve the issue for appeal.” State v. Edwards, Cuyahoga App. No. 89191, 2007-Ohio-6068, ¶11 . 2011He claims that the sentencing hearing was fundamentally flawed because the trial court failed to consider the consistency and proportionality of his sentence with sentences imposed on similar offenders. {¶ 54} However, this court has previously held that in order to support a claim that a “sentence is disproportionate to sentences imposed upon other offenders, a defendant must raise this issue before the trial court and present some evidence, however minimal, in order to provide a starting point for analysis and to preserve the issue for appeal.” State v. Edwards, Cuyahoga App. No. 89181, 2007 | 9 | 2008–2011 |
State v. Bell, Unpublished Decision (2-18-2005)
neutral
2 sentences2011At the sentencing hearing, however, Moore did not object to the length of his sentence. {¶ 22} We have previously noted that: {¶ 23} “ ‘R.C. 2929.11(B) imposes a duty upon the trial court to insure consistency among the sentences it imposes. * * * [It is] also recognized, however, that trial courts are limited in their ability to address the consistency mandate, and appellate courts are hampered in their review of this issue, by the lack of a reliable body of data upon which they can rely. * * * “[A]lthough a defendant cannot be expected to produce his or her own database to demonstrate the al 2009We have held that "the issue (of the alleged inconsistency) must . . . be raised in the trial court and some evidence, however minimal, must be presented to the trial court to provide a starting point for analysis and to preserve the issue (of inconsistency) for appeal." State v. Rigsbee , 174 Ohio App.3d 12 , 2007-Ohio-6267 , at ¶ 16 , quoting State v. Bell , Greene App. No. 2004-CA-5, 2005-Ohio-655 . | 7 | 2006–2011 |
State v. Spock
green
2 sentences2024Cuyahoga No. 99950, Scioto App. No. 22CA4002 34 2014-Ohio-606 [ 2014 WL 688793 ], ¶ 37, citing State v. Lang, 8th Dist. 2018Cuyahoga No. 99950, 2014-Ohio-606, ¶ 37 . | 6 | 2016–2024 |
State v. Roberts, Unpublished Decision (1-6-2005)
neutral
2 sentences2011At the sentencing hearing, however, Moore did not object to the length of his sentence. {¶ 22} We have previously noted that: {¶ 23} “ ‘R.C. 2929.11(B) imposes a duty upon the trial court to insure consistency among the sentences it imposes. * * * [It is] also recognized, however, that trial courts are limited in their ability to address the consistency mandate, and appellate courts are hampered in their review of this issue, by the lack of a reliable body of data upon which they can rely. * * * “[A]lthough a defendant cannot be expected to produce his or her own database to demonstrate the al 2007There, we provided the following: {¶ 44} "`R.C. 2929.11 (B) imposes a duty upon the trial court to insure consistency among the sentences it imposes. * * * [It is] also recognized, however, that trial courts are limited in their ability to address the consistency mandate, and appellate courts are hampered in their review of this issue, by the lack of a reliable body of data upon which they can rely. * * * `[Although a defendant cannot be expected to produce his or her own database to demonstrate the alleged inconsistency, the issue must at least be raised in the trial court and some evidence, | 5 | 2006–2011 |
State v. Douse, Unpublished Decision (10-2-2003)
green
2 sentences2004"Although a defendant cannot be expected to produce his or her own database to demonstrate the alleged inconsistency, the issue must at least be raised in the trial court and some evidence, however minimal, must be presented to the trial court to provide a starting point for analysis and to preserve the issue for appeal." Id. at ¶ 29; cf. State v. Douse, Cuyahoga App. No. 82008, 2003-Ohio-5238 (McMonagle, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); State v. Crayton, Cuyahoga App. No. 81257, 2003-Ohio-4663 (McMonagle, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). {¶ 54} As in Armstrong , 2004"Although a defendant cannot be expected to produce his or her own database to demonstrate the alleged inconsistency, the issue must at least be raised in the trial court and some evidence, however minimal, must be presented to the trial court to provide a starting point for analysis and to preserve the issue for appeal." Id. at ¶ 29; cf. State v. Douse, Cuyahoga App. No. 82008, 2003-Ohio-5238 (McMonagle, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); State v. Crayton, Cuyahoga App. No. 81257, 2003-Ohio-4663 (McMonagle, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). {¶ 51} As in Armstrong , | 4 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Montanez-Roldon
green
2 sentences2019Cuyahoga No. 103509, 2016-Ohio-3062, ¶ 14 , quoting State v. Spock, 8th Dist. 2018Cuyahoga No. 103509, 2016-Ohio-3062, ¶ 14 . “[C]ourts -12- have long concluded, a ‘defendant must raise [the consistency-in-sentencing] issue before the trial court and present some evidence, however minimal, in order to provide a starting point for analysis and to preserve the issue for appeal.’ ” Montanez-Roldon at ¶ 14, quoting State v. Spock, 8th Dist. | 2 | 2018–2019 |
State v. Searles
green
2 sentences2016No. 96549, Ashland County, Case No. 14-COA-039 27 2011-Ohio-6275, ¶ 25 , quoting State v. Edwards, 8th Dist. 2012No. 96549, 2011-Ohio-6275, ¶ 25 , quoting State v. Edwards, 8th Dist. | 2 | 2012–2016 |
State v. Mitchell
neutral
2 sentences2012No. 96916, 2012-Ohio-701 , 2012 WL 589487 , ¶ 11. 2012No. 96916, 2012-Ohio-701 , citing State v. Breeden, 8th Dist. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Nettles, Unpublished Decision (9-22-2005)
neutral
2 sentences2011State v. Cole, Cuyahoga App. No. 93271, 2010-Ohio-3408 , at ¶31, citing State v. Edwards, Cuyahoga App. No. 89181, 2008-Ohio-2068 ; State v. Nettles, Cuyahoga App. No. 85637, 2005-Ohio-4990 ; State v. Woods, Cuyahoga App. No. 82789, 2004-Ohio-2700 ; State v. Mercado, Cuyahoga App. No. 84559, 2005-Ohio-3429 ; Breeden; State v. Austin, Cuyahoga App. No. 84142, 2004-Ohio-5736 . {¶ 22} Appellant argues that his six-year sentence in CR-509845 violates R.C. 2929.11(B). 2008This court has previously found that "in order to support a contention that his or her sentence is disproportionate to sentences imposed upon other offenders, a defendant must raise this issue before the trial court and present some evidence, however minimal, in order to provide a starting point for analysis and to preserve the issue for appeal." State v. Edwards , supra; State v. Nettles , Cuyahoga App. No. 85637, 2005-Ohio-4990 . | 2 | 2008–2011 |
State v. Breeden, Unpublished Decision (2-10-2005)
green
2 sentences2005State v. Breeden, Cuyahoga App. No. 84663, 2005-Ohio-510 , ¶ 80, citing State v. Woods, Cuyahoga App. No. 82789, 2004-Ohio-2700 , ¶ 53-54. 2005State v. Breeden, Cuyahoga App. No. 84663, 2005-Ohio-510, ¶ 80 , citing State v. Woods, Cuyahoga App. No. 82789, 2004-Ohio-2700, ¶ 53-54 . | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State ex rel. Sylvania Home Telephone Co. v. Richards
green
1 sentence2026Id., citing State v. Jackson, 2004-Ohio-3206 , ¶ 14, and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 576-577 (2008). {¶30} In interpreting the plain meaning of the Ohio Constitution, courts typically apply the same rules that govern the construction of statutes. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Clifton v. Village of Blanchester
green
1 sentence2025Two cases from this court provide a starting point for our analysis. {¶ 37} In Clifton, 2012-Ohio-780 , a property owner alleged that the Village of Blanchester had made a partial regulatory taking of his property by rezoning a neighbor’s property. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
J.M. v. L.M.
neutral
1 sentence2021Lorain No. 17CA011126, 2018-Ohio-3417, ¶ 13 . “[T]he statutorily-defined level of support for a combined gross income of $150,000 represents ‘the starting point’ in the analysis when the parties’ combined income exceeds $150,000.” Batcher v. Pierce, 9th Dist. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State ex rel. M.L. v. O'Malley (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2020M.L. v. O’Malley, 144 Ohio St.3d 553 , 2015-Ohio-4855, ¶ 12 , quoting Rosen at ¶ 21. {¶9} The starting point for our analysis, therefore, is to determine whether O.V. had a home state and, if so, whether the home state was Ohio or Louisiana. 2020M.L. v. O’Malley, 144 Ohio St.3d 553 , 2015-Ohio-4855, ¶ 12 , quoting Rosen at ¶ 21. {¶9} The starting point for our analysis, therefore, is to determine whether O.V. had a home state and, if so, whether the home state was Ohio or Louisiana. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Adams
green
1 sentence2019Lawrence No. 15CA2, 2016-Ohio-7772 , 84 N.E.3d 155 , ¶ 46, citing State v. Montanez-Roldon, 8th Dist. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Davis v. Flickinger
green
2 sentences2017(Doc. 136, p. 18). {¶18} “A change of circumstances is a starting point requirement intended to provide some stability to the custodial status of the child.” Davis, supra, citing Wyss. 2017(Doc. 136, p. 18). {¶18} “A change of circumstances is a starting point requirement intended to provide some stability to the custodial status of the child.” Davis, supra, citing Wyss. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Ewert
green
1 sentence2016Muskingum No. CT2012-0002, 2012-Ohio-2671 , ¶ 32-33: As relevant to this appeal, under R.C. 2929.11(B), a felony sentence must be "consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar offenders." "To support a claim that a 'sentence is disproportionate to sentences imposed upon other offenders, a defendant must raise this issue before the trial court and present some evidence, however minimal, in order to provide a starting point for analysis and to preserve the issue for appeal.' " State v. Searles, 8th Dist. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Kaechele v. Kaechele
green
1 sentence2015Kaechele v. Kaechele, 35 Ohio St.3d 93 (1988). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Drobny
green
1 sentence2014Cuyahoga No. 98404, 2013-Ohio-937, ¶ 7 . {¶37} This court has previously found that in order to support a contention that a sentence is disproportionate to sentences imposed upon other offenders, the defendant must raise this issue before the trial court and present some evidence, however minimal, in order to provide a starting point for analysis and to preserve the issue for appeal. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Fletcher v. Fletcher green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. McClendon
neutral
1 sentence2013No. 11 MA 15, 2012-Ohio-1410, ¶ 15 , quoting State v. Miller, 2d Dist. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Austin, Unpublished Decision (10-28-2004) neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Mercado, Unpublished Decision (6-30-2005) neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Sistrunk, 91470 (4-9-2009) neutral | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. O'Brien green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Crager green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Dawson, Unpublished Decision (3-9-2006) green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Rigsbee green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Marshall, 89551 (4-3-2008) green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Crawford v. Washington green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Conalco, Inc. v. Monroe County Board of Revision green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Georgakopoulos neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. McSwain, Unpublished Decision (6-24-2004) green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Patterson, Unpublished Decision (4-28-2005) neutral | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Bechtol v. Bechtol green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State ex rel. Johnson v. Akron General Hospital Center green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Snyder v. Roadway Express, Inc. green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Crosby v. Beam green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Heitzler green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.