From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Newman

Supreme Court of Ohio
Sep 24, 2003
2003 Ohio 4754 (Ohio 2003)

Opinion

Nos. 2002-1722 and 2002-1723.

Submitted August 26, 2003.

Decided September 24, 2003.

Appeal from and Certified by the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 20981, 2002-Ohio-4250.

Sherri Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and Richard S. Kasay, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

David H. Bodiker, State Public Defender, and Stephen P. Hardwick, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.


{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing on the authority of State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, 793 N.E.2d 473.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

O'Connor, J., concurs separately.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.

O'Donnell, J., not participating.


{¶ 2} Although I dissented in State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463,2003-Ohio-4165, 793 N.E.2d 473, I recognize that Comer is now the law. As such, the sentencing procedure for ordering a consecutive sentence should be the same as for ordering a maximum sentence. Thus, I concur here.


{¶ 3} For the reasons expressed in Judge Grady's dissent in State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, 793 N.E.2d 473, I respectfully dissent.


Summaries of

State v. Newman

Supreme Court of Ohio
Sep 24, 2003
2003 Ohio 4754 (Ohio 2003)
Case details for

State v. Newman

Case Details

Full title:The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Newman, Appellant. Page 25

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Sep 24, 2003

Citations

2003 Ohio 4754 (Ohio 2003)
2003 Ohio 4754
795 N.E.2d 663

Citing Cases

State v. Streeter

Those reasons must be stated at the sentencing hearing. See State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463,…

State v. Langley

{¶ 75} When imposing the maximum sentence for an offense, the sentencing court is required to do two things:…