Skip to main content
· 10/2/2025

State v. Hartness

Citations

  • 2025 Ohio 4584

Syllabus

Consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); fines; indigency; right to allocution. Affirmed. Appellant has not demonstrated that his consecutive sentences are clearly and convincingly contrary to the record, that the trial court erred by imposing the fine, or that the trial court deprived him of the right to allocution by interrupting his statements attempting to minimize his conduct.

Judges: S. Gallagher

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.