Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
State v. Roberts
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided December 14, 2017No. 104474Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART:
{¶ 21} I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part. I dissent on the first assignment of error, but concur with the remaining opinion. It is my view that Roberts's sentence of almost 19 years in prison is not supported by the record and completely fails to consider the legislative intent of Ohio's comprehensive sentencing statutes.
A. Standard of Review
{¶ 22} Although the Ohio Supreme Court made clear in State v. Marcum , 146 Ohio St.3d 516 , 2016-Ohio-1002 , 59 N.E.3d 1231 , that our review of felony sentences is not an abuse…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Ring v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- State v. FosterOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. Marcum (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.