State v. Matos
Citations
- 2026 Ohio 932
Syllabus
Maximum sentence; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; consecutive sentences; R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); clearly and convincingly; gross sexual imposition; different victims; minor children. - Maximum sentence on one count charging gross sexual imposition involving a ten-year-old victim affirmed where the record supports that the trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Consecutive sentences affirmed because this court did not have a firm conviction or belief that the trial court's R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings were not clearly and convincingly supported by the record.
Judges: Keough
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
13 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. GwynneOhio Supreme Court· 2023-10-25· cited 232×
- State v. FoxOhio Supreme Court· 1994-05-04· cited 207×
- State v. GwynneOhio Supreme Court· 2022-12-23· cited 142×
- State v. ArnettOhio Supreme Court· 2000-03-14· cited 111×
- State v. KeithOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-08-04· cited 77×
- State v. SuttonOhio Court of Appeals· 2015-10-01· cited 57×
- State v. WrightCourt of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County· 2018-03-15· cited 57×
- State v. SeithOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-12-22· cited 37×
- State v. JonesOhio Supreme Court· 2024-03-27· cited 30×
- State v. PateOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-04-01· cited 13×
- State v. PierceOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-02-23· cited 13×
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.