Ohio Court of Appeals· 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

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Anders v. California
Supreme Court· 1967-05-08· cited 87,848×
State v. Marcum (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court· 2016-03-15· cited 2,307×
State v. Venes
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2013-05-09· cited 321×
State v. Beasley
Ohio Supreme Court· 2018-01-16· cited 310×
State v. Osie (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court· 2014-07-10· cited 155×
State v. Nitsche
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2016-05-26· cited 94×
State v. Glover
Ohio Supreme Court· 2024-11-01· cited 62×
State v. Jones
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2016-12-15· cited 25×
State v. Schneider
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2012-04-19· cited 17×
State v. Stiver
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2024-01-11· cited 10×
State v. Frazier
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2019-04-26· cited 5×
State v. Rice
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2022-03-31· cited 3×
State v. Allison
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2025-02-14· cited 3×
State v. Davis
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2017-09-21· cited 2×
State v. Roberts
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2020-06-19· cited 2×
State v. Flowers
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2025-06-12· cited 1×

Other cases with this name

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.