Legal Opinion

State v. Dixon, 21823 (2-22-2008)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided February 22, 2008No. 21823PublishedCited by 11 opinions

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

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. State v. MartinOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. State v. BradleyOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  5. State v. FosterOhio Supreme Court · 2006

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. DixonOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
  2. State v. DixonOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
  3. State v. Wells, 2008 Ca 6 (2-27-2009)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009
  4. State v. DixonOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
  5. State v. DixonOhio Court of Appeals · 2018

6 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