State v. Sbarbati
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 622
Syllabus
The trial court did not err by failing to consider and decide whether appellant had a present or future ability to pay a mandatory fine imposed pursuant to R.C. 2929.19(B)(1) where the trial court specifically stated it had done so within its judgment entry, nor did appellant receive ineffective assistance of counsel due to his trial counsel's failure to file an affidavit of indigency where the record did not support appellant's claim that there was a reasonable probability the trial court would have found him indigent and unable to pay that fine had his trial counsel filed the necessary affidavit.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- declining to adopt a statutory interpretation that would render one portion of the statute redundant when “another interpretation . . . avoids NW RES. INF. CTR. V. NW POWER & CONSERV. COUNCIL 17 such redundancy”
- “deference to a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute is based in part on the expertise it possesses in implementing federal policy in the general subject area”
- state’s interpretation of a federal statute received no deference because the state “lacks the expertise in implementing federal laws and policies and the nationwide perspective characteristic of a federal agency”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: S. Powell
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.