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 2014–2024 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. Magallanesgreen2 sentences2024See also State v. Magallanes, 2014-Ohio-4878, ¶ 21 (3d Dist.) ("[a]lthough it is required to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, the trial court is not required to use specific language regarding its consideration of those statutes"). {¶ 22} The record is clear that the trial court considered the requisite sentencing factors set forth in both R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 prior to issuing its sentencing decision in this case. 2021Putnam No. 12-14-02, 2014-Ohio-4878, ¶ 21 ("[a]lthough it is required to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, the trial court is not required to use specific language regarding its consideration of those statutes"); see also State v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39 (R.C. 2953.08[G][2][b] "does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12"). {¶ 51} The record is clear that the trial court considered the requisite sentencing factors set forth in both R.C. 2929 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fraziergreen2 sentences2024An abuse of discretion means more than a mere error of law or judgment; it implies that the trial court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” State v. Frazier, 158 Ohio App.3d 407 , 2004-Ohio- 4506, 815 N.E.2d 1155, ¶ 15 (1st Dist.). 2024An abuse of discretion means more than a mere error of law or judgment; it implies that the trial court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” State v. Frazier, 158 Ohio App.3d 407 , 2004-Ohio- 4506, 815 N.E.2d 1155, ¶ 15 (1st Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion)green1 sentence2021Putnam No. 12-14-02, 2014-Ohio-4878, ¶ 21 ("[a]lthough it is required to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12, the trial court is not required to use specific language regarding its consideration of those statutes"); see also State v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 39 (R.C. 2953.08[G][2][b] "does not provide a basis for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence based on its view that the sentence is not supported by the record under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12"). {¶ 51} The record is clear that the trial court considered the requisite sentencing factors set forth in both R.C. 2929 | 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. Marcum (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2020Cuyahoga No. 104341, 2017-Ohio-533, ¶ 14 . {¶10} “[A]n appellate court may vacate or modify any sentence that is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law only if the appellate court finds by clear and convincing 3 evidence that the record does not support the sentence.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , ¶ 23. {¶11} Fallon argues that “at sentencing the court did not adhere sufficiently to the requisite sentencing factors required by R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.” He contends that the court did not indicate it considered the R.C. 2929.11 statutory fact 2020Cuyahoga No. 104341, 2017-Ohio-533, ¶ 14 . {¶10} “[A]n appellate court may vacate or modify any sentence that is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law only if the appellate court finds by clear and convincing 3 evidence that the record does not support the sentence.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , ¶ 23. {¶11} Fallon argues that “at sentencing the court did not adhere sufficiently to the requisite sentencing factors required by R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.” He contends that the court did not indicate it considered the R.C. 2929.11 statutory fact | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Price
green
1 sentence2020Cuyahoga No. 104341, 2017-Ohio-533, ¶ 14 . {¶10} “[A]n appellate court may vacate or modify any sentence that is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law only if the appellate court finds by clear and convincing 3 evidence that the record does not support the sentence.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , ¶ 23. {¶11} Fallon argues that “at sentencing the court did not adhere sufficiently to the requisite sentencing factors required by R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12.” He contends that the court did not indicate it considered the R.C. 2929.11 statutory fact | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Hinton
green
1 sentence2018The statute also permits the trial court to consider “any other factors that are relevant to achieving those purposes and principles of sentencing.” Id. {¶13} Our review of the sentencing hearing transcript demonstrates that the trial court considered the requisite sentencing factors pursuant to R.C. 2929.11. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2014The court noted that it had considered the requisite sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.11 and .12 and restated the advisements given during the sentencing hearing. {¶6} Christian filed a timely Notice of Appeal on May 24, 2013. {¶7} On September 20, 2013, appellate counsel filed Christian’s appellate brief, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2014The court noted that it had considered the requisite sentencing factors under R.C. 2929.11 and .12 and restated the advisements given during the sentencing hearing. {¶6} Christian filed a timely Notice of Appeal on May 24, 2013. {¶7} On September 20, 2013, appellate counsel filed Christian’s appellate brief, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.