Legal Opinion

State v. Singleton

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 2009No. 2008-1255PublishedCited by 330 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Donnell, J.

*174{¶ 1} The question we confront in this case is whether the de novo sentencing procedures detailed in decisions of this court or the remedial procedures set forth in R.C. 2929.191 (see Appendix for the text of R.C. 2929.191), which became effective July 11, 2006, should be used by trial courts to properly sentence an offender when correcting a failure to properly impose postrelease control. The answer to this question is that in the absence of a statutory remedy, our caselaw provides a constitutional remedial procedure for trial courts to follow in correcting a court’s failure to properly…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. State v. SaxonOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. State v. JordanOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Jones v. ThomasSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. State v. BezakOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  5. State v. SimpkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2008

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

3Cited by330 opinions

  1. State v. LangOhio Supreme Court · 2011
  2. State v. KettererOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  3. State v. KettererOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  4. State v. Harper (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
  5. State v. Henderson (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020

325 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