11 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2024 1 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 sentences2024See R.C. 2953.08(G); Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003-Ohio- Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0070,0071 15 4165, 793 N.E.2d 473, at ¶ 10, 23, 27 . 2024See R.C. 2953.08(G); Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , 2003-Ohio- Muskingum County, Case No. CT2023-0070,0071 15 4165, 793 N.E.2d 473, at ¶ 10, 23, 27 . | 2 | 4 |
State v. Brooksgreen2 sentences2017See State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403 , 2016-Ohio- 7658, ¶ 2 (“A court only has authority to impose a sentence that conforms to law[.]”). {¶13} The law is clear that “[w]hen a trial court makes an error in sentencing a defendant, the usual procedure is for an appellate court to remand to the trial court for resentencing.” State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 , 2004-Ohio-4746 , ¶ 33. 2006As the Ohio Supreme Court stated in Hernandez , "[S]entencing errors by a court that had proper jurisdiction cannot be remedied by extraordinary writ because the petitioner has or had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law, e.g., appeal and postconviction relief, for review of any alleged sentencing error." Id. at ___ 11. {¶ 8} The court noted in a related context that "`When a trial court makes an error in sentencing a defendant, the usual procedure is for an appellate court to remand to the trial court for resentencing.'" Id. at ___ 30, citing State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 , 2 | 1 | 2 |
State v. Williams (Slip Opinion)green1 sentence2017See State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403 , 2016-Ohio- 7658, ¶ 2 (“A court only has authority to impose a sentence that conforms to law[.]”). {¶13} The law is clear that “[w]hen a trial court makes an error in sentencing a defendant, the usual procedure is for an appellate court to remand to the trial court for resentencing.” State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 , 2004-Ohio-4746 , ¶ 33. | 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. Caplinger
green
2 sentences2016Cuyahoga No. 94788, 2011-Ohio-214 , ¶ 13, quoting State v. Caplinger, 105 Ohio App.3d 567, 572 , 664 N.E.2d 959 (4th Dist.1995). 2016Cuyahoga No. 94788, 2011-Ohio-214 , ¶ 13, quoting State v. Caplinger, 105 Ohio App.3d 567, 572 , 664 N.E.2d 959 (4th Dist.1995). | 3 | 2015–2016 |
State v. Holdcroft
green
2 sentences2017The Ohio Supreme Court, however, has held that “[n]either [its] jurisprudence nor Ohio’s criminal-sentencing statutes allow a trial court to resentence a defendant for an offense when the defendant has already completed the prison sanction for that offense.” State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 , 2013-Ohio-5014, ¶ 19 ; see State v. Mockbee, 4th Dist. 2017The Ohio Supreme Court, however, has held that “[n]either [its] jurisprudence nor Ohio’s criminal-sentencing statutes allow a trial court to resentence a defendant for an offense when the defendant has already completed the prison sanction for that offense.” State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 , 2013-Ohio-5014, ¶ 19 ; see State v. Mockbee, 4th Dist. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Carter
green
1 sentence2004State v. Carter (1998), 128 Ohio App.3d 419 . {¶ 24} When the trial court learned during the first day of trial that Defendant had requested removal and substitution of his court-appointed counsel, the trial court addressed Defendant personally and inquired into his complaint. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Wilhelm
green
1 sentence2002Drogi is further weakened by the Ohio Supreme Court's resolution of State v. Wilhelm (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 444 , given the underlying court of appeal's decision in the matter. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.