State v. Rogers
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtO’Donnell, J.
{¶ 1} The Eighth District Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, concluded that “where it is clear from a facial review of the charges that the offenses may be allied, even when facts necessary to determine the conduct of the offender are missing,” 2013-Ohio-3235, 994 N.E.2d 499, ¶ 24 (8th Dist.), a trial court has “a duty to inquire and determine under R.C. 2941.25 whether those offenses should merge” for sentencing purposes, id. at ¶ 63. The en banc court recognized that its decision conflicted with State v. Wallace, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-11-031, 2012-Ohio-2675, 2012 WL 2196290, and certified…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- United States v. YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- State v. LongOhio Supreme Court · 1978
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by590 opinions
- State v. Henderson (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
- State v. Williams (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. Dean (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
- State v. Myers (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
- State v. BaileyOhio Supreme Court · 2022
585 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.