State v. Morgan
Citations
- 2018 Ohio 1834
Syllabus
Restitution, stipulation, ability to pay, consideration, sentence, contrary to law, supported by the record. The record demonstrates that the trial court considered appellant's present and future ability to pay restitution when sufficient information was contained in the presentence investigation report. Additionally, the appellant stipulated to the restitution amount and order. Appellant's maximum sentence is not contrary to law and is supported by the record.
Judges: Keough
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. OhioOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-03-07· cited 3×
- State v. WhitakerOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-07-11· cited 3×
- State v. TownsendOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-04-18· cited 2×
- State v. WilliamsOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-10-24· cited 2×
- State v. TownsendOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-06-15· cited 1×
- State v. JacksonOhio Court of Appeals· 2025-02-06· cited 1×
- State v. WilliamsOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-03-14
- State v. SmithOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-04-18
- State v. Quinones-TorresOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-03-07
- State v. HannahOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-03-07
- State v. WrightOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-12-19
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 123,578×
- State v. Marcum (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2016-03-15· cited 2,307×
- State v. MadrigalOhio Supreme Court· 2000-01-05· cited 1,280×
- State v. HintonOhio Court of Appeals· 2015-11-25· cited 115×
- State v. ClaytonOhio Court of Appeals· 2014-01-16· cited 70×
- State v. TateOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-11-22· cited 19×
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.