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.
10 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2016–2026 7 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. Endress, 08ca0011-M (9-8-2008)green2 sentences2025This Court disagrees. {¶7} “Generally, misdemeanor sentencing is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed upon review if the sentence is within the limits of the applicable statute.” State v. Seidowsky, 2015-Ohio-4311, ¶ 6 (9th Dist.), quoting State v. Endress, 2008-Ohio-4498, ¶ 3 (9th Dist.). 2024No. 08CA0011-M, 2008-Ohio-4498 , 2008 WL 4115838 , ¶ 4. {¶27} Here, the sentencing entry does not affirmatively show the trial court failed to consider the statutory factors. “[T]he mere failure to evince consideration of the misdemeanor sentencing factors in the sentencing entry is not a legal error.” State v. Nuby, 7th Dist. | 1 | 2 |
State v. McClurggreen1 sentence2026State v. McClurg, 2020-Ohio-1144, ¶ 7 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mushrushgreen1 sentence2025See State v. Mushrush, 135 Ohio App.3d 99, 110 (1st Dist. 1999) (analyzing "worst forms of the offense" in the context of felony sentencing); Scott, 2023-Ohio-476 at ¶ 13 (same, in misdemeanor sentencing). {¶ 64} In the case at bar, we cannot say that the court's sentence constituted an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Seidowskygreen1 sentence2025This Court disagrees. {¶7} “Generally, misdemeanor sentencing is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed upon review if the sentence is within the limits of the applicable statute.” State v. Seidowsky, 2015-Ohio-4311, ¶ 6 (9th Dist.), quoting State v. Endress, 2008-Ohio-4498, ¶ 3 (9th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nubygreen1 sentence2025Consistent with this point of law, “the mere failure to evince consideration of the misdemeanor sentencing factors in the sentencing entry is not a legal error.” State v. Nuby, 2016-Ohio-8157, ¶ 17 (7th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Scottgreen1 sentence2025See State v. Mushrush, 135 Ohio App.3d 99, 110 (1st Dist. 1999) (analyzing "worst forms of the offense" in the context of felony sentencing); Scott, 2023-Ohio-476 at ¶ 13 (same, in misdemeanor sentencing). {¶ 64} In the case at bar, we cannot say that the court's sentence constituted an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Anthonygreen1 sentence2023Anthony, supra, ¶ 181. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ishmailgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 , 377 N.E.2d 500 (1978), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶31} Our review of the record indicates that appointed counsel successfully moved the case from the suspended docket on February 13, 2020, when Moss’s felony case was “still pending.” Although appointed counsel did not formally withdraw from representation, Moss became represented by retained counsel shortly after that date and remained represented by retained counsel through the date of the misdemeanor sentencing hearing. 2022See State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 , 377 N.E.2d 500 (1978), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶31} Our review of the record indicates that appointed counsel successfully moved the case from the suspended docket on February 13, 2020, when Moss’s felony case was “still pending.” Although appointed counsel did not formally withdraw from representation, Moss became represented by retained counsel shortly after that date and remained represented by retained counsel through the date of the misdemeanor sentencing hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Pons v. Ohio State Medical Boardgreen1 sentence2016Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621 (1993). {¶10} Although the trial court’s failure to consider the misdemeanor sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.22 constitutes an abuse of discretion, we presume that the trial court considered those factors “absent an affirmative showing to the contrary.” State v. Smith, 9th Dist. | 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. Peppeard, 2008-P-0058 (4-3-2009)
green
1 sentence2023Id., citing State v. Kish, 11th Dist. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
City of Warren v. Clay, Unpublished Decision (8-20-2004)
green
1 sentence2023In such cases, a reviewing court “has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings.” Id. {¶11} Appellant argues that the trial court failed to consider or reference the purposes and principles of misdemeanor sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.21(A) and the misdemeanor sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.22(B). {¶12} R.C. 2929.21(A) provides that a court imposing a misdemeanor sentence “shall be guided by the overriding purposes of misdemeanor sentencing * * * to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender.” The sente | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. O'Keefe
green
1 sentence2019Lake No. 2018-L-088, 2019-Ohio-841, ¶ 26 . {¶24} Here, the sentence for OVI was within the statutory limits and although the court did not reference R.C. 2929.22 at sentencing, Petrovich has not demonstrated an affirmative indication on the record that the court did not properly consider the misdemeanor sentencing factors or that it abused its discretion. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Crable, Unpublished Decision (12-8-2004)
green
1 sentence2017No. 04 BE 17, 2004-Ohio-6812 , 2004 WL 2913280 , ¶ 24. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2006)
green
1 sentence2016Wayne No. 05CA0006, 2006-Ohio-1558, ¶ 21 . “‘The burden of demonstrating this error falls to [the] appellant.’” State v. Seidowsky, 9th Dist. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.