State v. Thomas
Citations
- 2017 Ohio 9274
Syllabus
Resentencing vindictive sentencing rebuttable presumption maximum sentences. Presumption of vindictive sentencing applied where trial court, after defendant's successful appeal of nonmaximum sentences erroneously imposed based on law at the time of the commission of offenses, resentenced defendant to maximum sentences on remand. Presumption was not rebutted where trial court offered no explanation on the record as to why it imposed maximum sentences on remand when it did not impose maximum sentences originally.
Judges: Gallagher
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.
- North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court· 1969-06-23· cited 7,763×
- Bordenkircher v. HayesSupreme Court· 1978-03-06· cited 2,683×
- Alabama v. SmithSupreme Court· 1989-06-12· cited 1,589×
- Wasman v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1984-07-03· cited 595×
- Texas v. McCulloughSupreme Court· 1986-02-26· cited 534×
- State v. O'DellOhio Supreme Court· 1989-08-23· cited 174×
- State v. Rahab (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2017-04-18· cited 111×
- State v. Thomas (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2016-08-30· cited 24×
- State v. ThomasOhio Court of Appeals· 2015-02-05· cited 22×
- State v. PriceOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-02-18· cited 12×
- State v. CollinsOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-03-14· cited 6×
- State v. SchneiderOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-06-20· cited 5×
- State v. HoustonOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-06-09· cited 5×
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.