State v. Jones
Citations
- 2022 Ohio 2133
Syllabus
R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) felony sentence review consecutive sentences clearly and convincingly contrary to law findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) failure to incorporate findings into sentencing entry nunc pro tunc. The trial court made the requisite findings during the sentencing hearing under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), and the findings were clearly and convincingly supported by the record. Further, the imposition of consecutive sentences was not contrary to law. Because the trial court failed to incorporate its findings from the hearing into the sentencing entry, the matter was remanded for the court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry that included all of its findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
Judges: Celebrezze
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
7 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. ShelineOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-02-14· cited 86×
- State v. BlevinsOhio Court of Appeals· 2017-06-22· cited 28×
- State v. BlevinsCourt of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County· 2017-06-22· cited 22×
- State v. WilkinsOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-02-04· 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.