State v. Holliman
Citations
- 2025 Ohio 1187
Syllabus
One- and three-year firearm specifications attendant to same count; R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g); sentencing on firearm specifications is not analogous to sentencing for allied offenses; trial court decides under which specification defendant will be sentenced. Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in sentencing the defendant on the one-year firearm specification after he was found guilty of both the one- and a three-year firearm specification for the same count. The exception under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) is inapplicable to this case, and the other relevant statutes — R.C. 2941.141(B) and 2941.145(B) — preclude sentencing on both a one- and three-year firearm specification attendant to the same count. The statutes do not elevate the three-year specification over the one-year specification. Firearm specifications are sentencing enhancements and are not analogous to allied offenses, where the State chooses which count to proceed to sentencing on.
Judges: Michael John Ryan
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Provident Bank v. WoodOhio Supreme Court· 1973-12-05· cited 235×
- State v. S.R.Ohio Supreme Court· 1992-05-06· cited 189×
- State ex rel. Pennington v. GundlerOhio Supreme Court· 1996-03-04· cited 94×
- State ex rel. McKee v. CooperOhio Supreme Court· 1974-12-11· cited 58×
- State v. Faggs (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2020-02-19· cited 24×
- State v. BeattyOhio Supreme Court· 2024-12-09· cited 16×
- State v. ChearsOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-03-18· cited 2×
- State v. WattsOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-04-28· cited 2×
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.