State v. Limbeck, 2007-T-0068 (6-27-2008)
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Concurrence
{¶ 28} I write separately to express my disagreement with the standard of review applied by the majority. By its decision in Foster, the Ohio Supreme Court certainly expanded the discretion of our trial courts in fashioning more-than-minimum, maximum, and consecutive sentences. Id., at paragraph seven of the syllabus. However, in State v. Saxon,109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, at ¶ 4, fn. 1, the Supreme Court cautioned that the sentencing review statute, R.C. 2953.08(G) remains effective, though irrelevant to the statutory sections severed by Foster. Consequently, I believe that in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. SaxonOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- State v. Burton, 06ap-690 (4-24-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
- State v. Moore, Ca2007-03-060 (3-31-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
- State v. Carter, 2006-P-0056 (9-21-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
- State v. Johnson, Unpublished Decision (11-9-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007