State v. Townsend
Citations
- 2022 Ohio 692
Syllabus
Consecutive sentences findings proportionality nunc pro tunc. The trial court made the required statutory findings to support the imposition of consecutive sentences despite the fact that the court did not use the exact words from the statute. A review of the record demonstrates that the trial court found that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate to the danger appellant posed to the public. Further, the evidence in the record supports the trial court's findings. However, while the trial court made the requisite statutory findings, and those findings were supported by evidence in the record, it did not incorporate those findings into its journal entry. That error can be corrected through a nunc pro tunc.
Judges: Forbes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
9 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. EdmonsonOhio Supreme Court· 1999-09-08· cited 1,498×
- State v. Jones (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2020-12-18· cited 926×
- State v. VenesOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-05-09· cited 321×
- State v. MorrisOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-11-03· cited 38×
- State v. McGowanOhio Court of Appeals· 2018-07-26· cited 11×
- State v. TownsendOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-03-28· cited 10×
- State v. HernandezOhio Court of Appeals· 2018-09-13· cited 1×
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.