Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2,606
cases (
623 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case:
State v. Johnson, 2010 Ohio 6314 (Ohio 2010).
State v. Johnson, 2010 Ohio 6314 (Ohio 2010).
· cites it 107× “] Criminal law — Allied offenses of similar import — R.C. 2941.25 — Conduct of accused to be considered — State v.”
State v. Whitfield, 2010 Ohio 2 (Ohio 2010).
· cites it 61× “2d 699 (“Ohio’s General Assembly has indicated its intent to permit or prohibit cumulative punishments for the commission of certain offenses through the multiple-count statute set forth in R.C. 2941.25” ). This case involves the latter protection – the prohibition against…”
State v. Williams, 2012 Ohio 5699 (Ohio 2012).
· cites it 51× “{¶ 1} The issue we address in this case is whether an appellate court should apply a de novo or an abuse-of-discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s determination of whether a defendant’s offenses should merge pursuant to R.”
State v. Earley (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 4615 (Ohio 2015).
· cites it 67× “41(B)(3), the appellate courts either held that an aggravated-vehicular-assault offense and an OVI offense merged or remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether the offenses should merge pursuant to R.C. 2941.25. West at ¶ 45; Mendoza at ¶…”
State v. Williams (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 7658 (Ohio 2016).
· cites it 27× “] R.C. 2941.25 prohibits imposition of multiple sentences for allied offenses of similar import—When a trial court concludes that two offenses are allied offenses of similar import but then imposes a sentence for each offense, the sentences are void.”
In Re A.G., 2016 Ohio 3306 (Ohio 2016).
· cites it 49× “would constitute allied offenses of similar import under R.C. 2941.25 if committed by an adult. Nevertheless, it reasoned that criminal statutes, including R.”
State v. Ruff, 34 N.E.3d 892 (Ohio 2015).
· cites it 28× “In other words, we were asked to determine what “import” means within the meaning of R.C. 2941.25. Analysis Protection Against Double Jeopardy {¶ 10} The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall “be subject for…”
State v. Underwood, 2010 Ohio 1 (Ohio 2010).
· cites it 24× “The court reasoned, “Because the required merger of convictions must precede any sentence the court imposes upon a conviction, [Underwood’s] agreement to the multiple sentences the court imposed could not waive his right to the prior merger that R.C. 2941.25 requires. Neither…”
State v. Rogers, 38 N.E.3d 860 (Ohio 2015).
· cites it 18× “), a trial court has “a duty to inquire and determine under R.C. 2941.25 whether those offenses should merge” for sentencing purposes, id.”
State v. Bollar, 2022 Ohio 4370 (Ohio 2022).
· cites it 25× “We also accepted jurisdiction over the sole proposition of law in Bollar’s discretionary appeal: “Trial courts cannot impose a prison sentence for a specification attached to an offense that merged under R.C. 2941.25 and did not result in a conviction.”
State v. Cabrales, 886 N.E.2d 181 (Ohio 2008).
· cites it 23× “03(A)(2) are allied offenses of similar import under R.C. 2941.25 and therefore must merge. We hold that possession and trafficking under R.”
State v. Washington, 2013 Ohio 4982 (Ohio 2013).
· cites it 21× “We hold that the court of appeals erred by relying on Johnson for the proposition that a court may consider a defendant’s conduct only as it was described by the state’s “theory” at trial. Background {¶ 2} In 2009, a jury found defendant-appellee, David Washington, guilty of…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.25(A) — 1046 cases
State v. Whitfield, 2010 Ohio 2 (Ohio 2010).
“2d 699 (“Ohio’s General Assembly has indicated its intent to permit or prohibit cumulative punishments for the commission of certain offenses through the multiple-count statute set forth in R.C. 2941.25” ). This case involves the latter protection – the prohibition against…”
State v. Johnson, 2010 Ohio 6314 (Ohio 2010).
“] Criminal law — Allied offenses of similar import — R.C. 2941.25 — Conduct of accused to be considered — State v.”
State v. Williams (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 7658 (Ohio 2016).
“] R.C. 2941.25 prohibits imposition of multiple sentences for allied offenses of similar import—When a trial court concludes that two offenses are allied offenses of similar import but then imposes a sentence for each offense, the sentences are void.”
State v. Cabrales, 886 N.E.2d 181 (Ohio 2008).
“03(A)(2) are allied offenses of similar import under R.C. 2941.25 and therefore must merge. We hold that possession and trafficking under R.”
State v. Underwood, 2010 Ohio 1 (Ohio 2010).
“The court reasoned, “Because the required merger of convictions must precede any sentence the court imposes upon a conviction, [Underwood’s] agreement to the multiple sentences the court imposed could not waive his right to the prior merger that R.C. 2941.25 requires. Neither…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.25(A)(1) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.25(A)(2) — 2 cases
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.25(A)(B) — 2 cases
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.25(B) — 941 cases
State v. Ruff, 34 N.E.3d 892 (Ohio 2015).
“In other words, we were asked to determine what “import” means within the meaning of R.C. 2941.25. Analysis Protection Against Double Jeopardy {¶ 10} The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall “be subject for…”
State v. Johnson, 2010 Ohio 6314 (Ohio 2010).
“] Criminal law — Allied offenses of similar import — R.C. 2941.25 — Conduct of accused to be considered — State v.”
State v. Williams, 2012 Ohio 5699 (Ohio 2012).
“{¶ 1} The issue we address in this case is whether an appellate court should apply a de novo or an abuse-of-discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s determination of whether a defendant’s offenses should merge pursuant to R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.25(a) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.25(a)(B) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.