Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Bivens

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 13, 1988No. 664Published

1DissentGrey, P.J.

I respectfully dissent.

When the legislature enacted the comprehensive Criminal Code and specifically enacted R.C. 2929.12 and 2929.13 for sentencing in felonies and R.C. 2929.22 for sentencing in misdemeanors, it “was a clear declaration of intent that sentencing be uniform. Uniformity in sentencing does not mean that sentences must be identical, because the circumstances of each crime and each defendant may differ. Uniformity in sentencing means that the same standards are used, regardless of the circumstances. I would sustain assignment of error one because, as noted in the majority…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. City of Cincinnati v. ClardyOhio Court of Appeals · 1978
  2. State v. DavisOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. City of Maple Heights v. DickardOhio Court of Appeals · 1986
  4. City of Miamisburg v. SmithOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
  5. City of Cleveland v. Technisort, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1985

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API