Legal Opinion

State v. Miranda

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 12, 2014No. 2012-1741PublishedCited by 57 opinions

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

  1. North Carolina v. PearceSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Missouri v. HunterSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. State v. JohnsonOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  4. United States v. Frank Kahled Burgos, United States of America v. Alexio Burnard GobernCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1996
  5. State v. CookOhio Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. State v. Dent (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
  2. State v. Beverly (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
  3. State v. FinnellOhio Court of Appeals · 2015
  4. State v. ChristianOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
  5. State v. LeasureOhio Court of Appeals · 2015

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

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

Powered by the Exa API