State v. Banks
Citations
- 2019 Ohio 980
Syllabus
Modification of sentence R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) — consecutive sentences. There is no necessity for modification of appellant's sentence. Although the trial court made a verbal miscalculation of appellant's sentence during the sentencing hearing, the correct sentence was entered on the record and in the court's sentencing entry. There was no retaliation against appellant where he was resentenced on remand. The trial court complied with R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) where it recited its findings at the sentencing hearing and incorporated those finding in the sentencing judgment entry. Additionally, appellant's sentence was less than the prior sentence.
Judges: Jones
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court· 1969-06-23· cited 7,763×
- State v. FosterOhio Supreme Court· 2006-02-27· cited 3,571×
- State v. Marcum (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2016-03-15· cited 2,307×
- State v. Bonnell (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2014-07-24· cited 1,841×
- State v. EdmonsonOhio Supreme Court· 1999-09-08· cited 1,498×
- State v. SaxonOhio Supreme Court· 2006-03-20· cited 624×
- State v. BanksOhio Court of Appeals· 2015-12-24· cited 17×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.