State v. Demangone
Citations
- 2023 Ohio 2522
Syllabus
Appellant's use of alcohol and his failure to show up for appointments with his probation officer constituted a nontechnical violation of his community control authorizing the trial court to impose a sentence in excess of the 180-day limitation sent forth in R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(ii). A discretionary term of up to two years of postrelease control was properly imposed where the trial court provided the necessary notifications at the sentencing hearing and in the sentencing entry.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that when two reasonable readings of a criminal statute exist, courts may choose harsher reading only where legislature has spoken in clear language
- holding that the mail fraud statute is \limited in scope to the protection of property rights\
- holding mail fraud statute protects against the deprivation of monetary or property rights but not intangible rights
- holding mail fraud statute’s application to intangible loss of honest employee service is beyond scope of statute
- noting that the contrary holding would leave the outer scope of the statute ambiguous and result in the federal government setting standards for disclosure and good government for state and local officials
- noting that the phrase, “any scheme or artifice to defraud,” must be “interpreted broadly insofar as property rights are concerned”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Hendrickson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.