State v. Thomas
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 5481
Syllabus
R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; sentencing; factual findings. Judgment affirmed. A sentence is contrary to law if (1) the sentence falls outside the statutory range for the particular degree of offense, or (2) the trial court failed to consider the purposes and principles of sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11, and the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. When sentencing for a felony, the trial court \shall be guided by the overriding purposes of felony sentencing.\ Seriousness and recidivism factors should be considered by the trial court should consider when imposing a felony sentence. However, trial court is not required to make any specific factual finding on the record regarding its consideration of these factors, even when imposing a more-than-minimum sentence. Upon review, this court finds that the trial court considered the necessary factors and the defendant's sentence is not contrary to law.
Judges: Groves
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
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. Jones (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2020-12-18· cited 926×
- State v. ArnettOhio Supreme Court· 2000-03-15· cited 630×
- State v. KeithOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-08-04· cited 77×
- State v. WrightCourt of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County· 2018-03-15· cited 57×
- State v. PhillipsOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-08-12· cited 32×
- State v. EvansOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-10-14· cited 8×
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.