Legal Opinion

State v. Milano

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided November 13, 1989No. 57501Published

1Per curiam

In an accelerated appeal, defendant Lee M. Milano argues that the trial court erroneously refused to hear or consider his motion for shock probation.

Shock probation is unavailable to a defendant serving a period of “actual incarceration.” R.C. 2947.061. Milano claims he was not sentenced to a period of actual incarceration, but, rather, he was given a “mandatory” sentence.

R.C. 2925.03(C)(4) mandated the imposition of an eighteen-month period of actual incarceration in this case and the trial court had no discretion to impose a lesser sentence. See State v. Oxenrider (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 60,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  2. State v. CravensOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
  3. State v. DelaneyOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. State v. OxenriderOhio Supreme Court · 1979

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API