implements the proportionality standard (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

implements the proportionality standard in Ohio

8 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2021 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Graham v. Floridagreen
scotus · 2010 · cited in 8 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2012–2021
2 sentences

2021“There are two classifications of proportionality review – one involving the length of term-of-years sentences given in a particular case and the other involving categorical restrictions.” Moore at ¶ 32. {¶ 59} A proportionality review based on categorical restrictions involves “ ‘cases -28- in which the Court implements the proportionality standard by certain categorical restrictions.’ ” In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2012-Ohio-1446 , 967 N.E.2d 729 , ¶ 26, quoting Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 59 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 .

2021“There are two classifications of proportionality review – one involving the length of term-of-years sentences given in a particular case and the other involving categorical restrictions.” Moore at ¶ 32. {¶ 59} A proportionality review based on categorical restrictions involves “ ‘cases -28- in which the Court implements the proportionality standard by certain categorical restrictions.’ ” In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2012-Ohio-1446 , 967 N.E.2d 729 , ¶ 26, quoting Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 59 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 .

38

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
In re C.P. green
ohio · 2012
2 sentences

2021“There are two classifications of proportionality review – one involving the length of term-of-years sentences given in a particular case and the other involving categorical restrictions.” Moore at ¶ 32. {¶ 59} A proportionality review based on categorical restrictions involves “ ‘cases -28- in which the Court implements the proportionality standard by certain categorical restrictions.’ ” In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2012-Ohio-1446 , 967 N.E.2d 729 , ¶ 26, quoting Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 59 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 .

2021“There are two classifications of proportionality review – one involving the length of term-of-years sentences given in a particular case and the other involving categorical restrictions.” Moore at ¶ 32. {¶ 59} A proportionality review based on categorical restrictions involves “ ‘cases -28- in which the Court implements the proportionality standard by certain categorical restrictions.’ ” In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2012-Ohio-1446 , 967 N.E.2d 729 , ¶ 26, quoting Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 59 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 .

32016–2021
Weems v. United States green
scotus · 1910
2 sentences

2016Central to the Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is the ‘precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to [the] offense.’ ” In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2012-Ohio-1446 , 967 N.E.2d 729 , ¶ 25, quoting Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 367 , 30 S.Ct. 544 , 54 L.Ed. 793 (1910). {¶ 33} “Proportionality review falls within two general classifications: the first involves ‘challenges to the length of term-of-years sentences given all the circumstances in a particular case.’ The second, which until recently was applied only in

2016Central to the Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is the ‘precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to [the] offense.’ ” In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513 , 2012-Ohio-1446 , 967 N.E.2d 729 , ¶ 25, quoting Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 367 , 30 S.Ct. 544 , 54 L.Ed. 793 (1910). {¶ 33} “Proportionality review falls within two general classifications: the first involves ‘challenges to the length of term-of-years sentences given all the circumstances in a particular case.’ The second, which until recently was applied only in

22012–2016

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.02 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.86 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.01 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.02 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.14 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.145 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2950.02 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2950.06 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

KS 11 (2010–2020) OH 8 (2012–2021) NC 5 (2014–2022) MD 2 (2022–2022) CO 2 (2024–2025) CA 2 (2014–2014)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check