State v. Dixon, 21823 (2-22-2008)
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant William Dixon appeals from his conviction and sentence on one count each of Complicity to commit: Aggravated Robbery; Aggravated Burglary; and Felonious Assault, each with a firearm specification. Dixon contends that his maximum, consecutive sentence violates State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856. We conclude that State v. Foster, permits a trial court, within its discretion, to impose maximum, consecutive sentences. On this record, we find no abuse of discretion.
{¶ 2} Dixon next contends that his trial counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- State v. MartinOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
- State v. BradleyOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. FosterOhio Supreme Court · 2006
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. DixonOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
- State v. DixonOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
- State v. Wells, 2008 Ca 6 (2-27-2009)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009
- State v. DixonOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
- State v. DixonOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.