Ohio Court of Appeals· 12/23/2019
State v. Crowe
Citations
- 2019 Ohio 5300
Syllabus
The defendant-appellant's consecutive sentences are not contrary to law.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[T]he trial court first considered the principles and purposes of felony sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 prior to imposing Crowe’s sentence. Then, in its consecutive-sentence analysis, the trial court again referenced the purposes of R.C. 2929.11 in its consecutive-sentence imposition.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Zimmerman
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- 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. VenesOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-05-09· cited 321×
- State v. HitesOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-04-30· cited 116×
- State v. PeddicordOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-08-05· cited 49×
- State v. MarshallOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-11-18· cited 20×
- State v. FieldsOhio Court of Appeals· 2017-02-23· cited 18×
- State v. LambertOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-07-12· cited 12×
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.