State v. Miranda
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
*185Kennedy, J.
{¶ 1} In this discretionary appeal from the Tenth District, we determine whether a trial court can impose separate sentences for engaging in a pattern of criminal activity under R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) (“RICO”1) and for the underlying predicate offenses. The appellant, Arnaldo R. Miranda, advances one proposition of law:
Ohio appellate courts are required to apply the new standard announced in State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061[,] when deciding whether the imposition of multiple convictions and sentences for the offense of engaging in a pattern of…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Missouri v. HunterSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- State v. JohnsonOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- United States v. Frank Kahled Burgos, United States of America v. Alexio Burnard GobernCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1996
- State v. CookOhio Supreme Court · 1998
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by57 opinions
- State v. Dent (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
- State v. Beverly (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
- State v. FinnellOhio Court of Appeals · 2015
- State v. ChristianOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
- State v. LeasureOhio Court of Appeals · 2015
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.