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.
7 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2025 3 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. Bondgreen1 sentence2025“Also, there is no language in the statute providing for an ‘aggregate indefinite sentence’ or an ‘aggregate maximum term.’” State v. Bond, 2022-Ohio-1487, ¶ 31 (8th Dist.) (S. Gallagher, J., concurring). {¶64} The trial court held a joint sentencing hearing, but the cases remained unconsolidated. | 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. Foster
green
2 sentences2006Guided by the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , the court sentenced Pickering to two five-year prison terms to be served concurrently for the rape counts. 2006Guided by the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , the court sentenced Pickering to two five-year prison terms to be served concurrently for the rape counts. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Comer
red
2 sentences2005Moreover, in Comer, the court required that sentencing courts make their "findings," and reasons in support thereof, on the record "at the sentencing hearing." 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 15} In the instant case, the trial court conducted a joint sentencing hearing with Vincenzo and a co-defendant. 2005Moreover, in Comer, the court required that sentencing courts make their "findings," and reasons in support thereof, on the record "at the sentencing hearing." 99 Ohio St.3d 463 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 16} In the instant case, the trial court conducted a joint sentencing hearing with Green and a co-defendant, Vincenzo. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2025For the following reasons, we reject his argument. {¶6} “R.C. 2953.08(G) defines the standard of review for felony-sentencing appeals.” State v. Jones, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 27 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Martin
green
2 sentences2023Sufficiency review “raises a question of law, the resolution of which does not allow the court to weigh the evidence.” State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 , 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983); see State v. Guthrie, 1st Dist. 2023Sufficiency review “raises a question of law, the resolution of which does not allow the court to weigh the evidence.” State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 , 485 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist.1983); see State v. Guthrie, 1st Dist. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Walker (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2023Woodard argues that his guilt cannot be based on his complicity to the shooting because his acquittal on count two means that “the jury did not believe Jerrell should be held accountable for the injuries Killings sustained from being shot by Jayce.” Thus, Woodard contends that under a complicity theory, “the only way the jury could convict him of Count One is if the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt Killings sustained serious physical harm when Jayce punched him.” Woodard contends that the state did not offer any evidence that Killings sustained serious physical harm as a result of a punc 2023Woodard argues that his guilt cannot be based on his complicity to the shooting because his acquittal on count two means that “the jury did not believe Jerrell should be held accountable for the injuries Killings sustained from being shot by Jayce.” Thus, Woodard contends that under a complicity theory, “the only way the jury could convict him of Count One is if the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt Killings sustained serious physical harm when Jayce punched him.” Woodard contends that the state did not offer any evidence that Killings sustained serious physical harm as a result of a punc | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Jenks
yellow
2 sentences2023Woodard argues that his guilt cannot be based on his complicity to the shooting because his acquittal on count two means that “the jury did not believe Jerrell should be held accountable for the injuries Killings sustained from being shot by Jayce.” Thus, Woodard contends that under a complicity theory, “the only way the jury could convict him of Count One is if the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt Killings sustained serious physical harm when Jayce punched him.” Woodard contends that the state did not offer any evidence that Killings sustained serious physical harm as a result of a punc 2023Woodard argues that his guilt cannot be based on his complicity to the shooting because his acquittal on count two means that “the jury did not believe Jerrell should be held accountable for the injuries Killings sustained from being shot by Jayce.” Thus, Woodard contends that under a complicity theory, “the only way the jury could convict him of Count One is if the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt Killings sustained serious physical harm when Jayce punched him.” Woodard contends that the state did not offer any evidence that Killings sustained serious physical harm as a result of a punc | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.