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.
6 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2022 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. Kavanaghgreen1 sentence2022See Kavanagh, supra. However, this case is entirely distinguishable from Kavanagh because the prison term in this case was ordered to be served consecutive to a prison term that had already been imposed by Blessett’s own statement. 2 By contrast, the State requested that the sentences run consecutively. -6- Case No. 16-22-04 {¶15} In sum, the trial court made the requisite statutory findings to impose Blessett’s prison term consecutive to his already-imposed prison term from Hancock County. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Langgreen2 sentences2013No. 1-08-12, 2009- Ohio-89, ¶ 58 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215, ¶ 278 (concluding that the decision not to call a psychologist as a witness during the penalty phase of a capital murder trial “was a tactical choice as part of a trial strategy” and, therefore, not ineffective assistance). 2013No. 1-08-12, 2009- Ohio-89, ¶ 58 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215, ¶ 278 (concluding that the decision not to call a psychologist as a witness during the penalty phase of a capital murder trial “was a tactical choice as part of a trial strategy” and, therefore, not ineffective assistance). | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2011A defendant “must show (1) deficient performance by counsel, i.e., performance falling below an objective standard of reasonable representation, and (2) prejudice, i.e., a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s errors, the proceeding’s result would have been different.” State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22 , 2007-Ohio-4836 , at ¶62, citing Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 694 . {¶6} Ms. Sheppard challenges her counsel’s failure to request a continuance after the trial court allowed Ms. Lakowski, during the sentencing hearing, to make a statement at the sentencing hea | 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 sentences2019State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , ¶ 1. 2019State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , ¶ 1. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Taft
green
1 sentence2019Id., citing R.C. 2930.14(B), 2929.19(B)(1). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Hunter
green
2 sentences2014Appellant maintains that had defense counsel properly prepared for the sentencing hearings, the outcome of the sentencing proceeding would have been different. {¶ 69} "An attorney who fails to conduct a reasonable investigation into a defendant's history and background provides ineffective assistance." State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 , 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 104 . 2014Appellant maintains that had defense counsel properly prepared for the sentencing hearings, the outcome of the sentencing proceeding would have been different. {¶ 69} "An attorney who fails to conduct a reasonable investigation into a defendant's history and background provides ineffective assistance." State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67 , 2011-Ohio-6524, ¶ 104 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Mundt
green
1 sentence2011A defendant “must show (1) deficient performance by counsel, i.e., performance falling below an objective standard of reasonable representation, and (2) prejudice, i.e., a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s errors, the proceeding’s result would have been different.” State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22 , 2007-Ohio-4836 , at ¶62, citing Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 694 . {¶6} Ms. Sheppard challenges her counsel’s failure to request a continuance after the trial court allowed Ms. Lakowski, during the sentencing hearing, to make a statement at the sentencing hea | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.