Legal Opinion

State v. Rush

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 19, 1998No. Nos. 97-1778, 97-2121, 97-2123 and 97-2266PublishedCited by 117 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCook, J.

Today we decide the following issue: whether the amended sentencing provisions of S.B. 2 are applicable to those defendants who committed crimes prior-to, but were convicted after, its July 1, 1996 effective date. We conclude that the S.B. 2 sentencing provisions are inapplicable to those defendants.

STATUTORY ANALYSIS

With the passage of S.B. 2, the General Assembly effected significant changes in Ohio’s criminal code, modifying the classifications of criminal offenses and corresponding sentences. See 146 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 7136; Legislative Service Commission Analysis of Sub.S.B. No. 2,…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Collins v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. State v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. California Department of Corrections v. MoralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. Beazell v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  5. Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988

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

3Cited by117 opinions

  1. State v. MadrigalOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. State v. MadrigalOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. State v. RaglinOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. State v. CornwellOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State v. TaylorOhio Supreme Court · 2014

112 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