Legal Opinion

State v. Maag, 5-08-35 (1-12-2009)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 12, 2009No. 5-08-35PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

{¶ 1} Although originally placed on our accelerated calendar, we have elected, pursuant to Local Rule 12(5), to issue a full opinion in lieu of a judgment entry.

{¶ 2} Defendant-Appellant, William A. Maag, appeals from the judgment of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion for resentencing. On appeal, Maag argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for resentencing because his sentence fails to properly include multiple terms of post-release control pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(F)(1) and R.C. 2967.28(B), and because his sentence fails to comply with Crim.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. ReynoldsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State v. BezakOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  3. State v. ReynoldsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State v. SchmittOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
  5. State v. King, 2-07-24 (11-26-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. DeskinsOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  2. State v. BaughmanOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
  3. State v. HambyOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. State v. HendricksOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  5. State v. MaagOhio Court of Appeals · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API