State v. Kamal
Citations
- 2021 Ohio 2261
Syllabus
Gross sexual imposition consecutive sentences findings R.C. 2953.08 R.C. 2929.14 nunc pro tunc journal entry. The trial court made the required consecutive sentence findings at the sentencing hearing, and the trial court's consecutive sentence findings are clearly and convincingly supported by the record. The trial court did not incorporate all of the consecutive sentence findings made at the sentencing hearing into the court's sentencing journal entry. The matter is remanded for the limited purpose of issuing a nunc pro tunc sentencing journal entry incorporating all of the consecutive sentence findings the trial court made at the sentencing hearing.
Judges: Celebrezze
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
11 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. MorrisOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-11-03· cited 38×
- 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. AmeyOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-03-17· cited 11×
- State v. McGowanOhio Court of Appeals· 2018-07-26· cited 11×
- State v. CooperwoodOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-08-08· cited 8×
- 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.