124 Ohio App. 3d 225 - State v. Albert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(c) The offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Edwards, Unpublished Decision (3-1-2004) · State v. Kravochuck, Unpublished Decision (6-23-2005)

2. “(2) The court shall impose a sentence and shall make a finding that gives its reasons for selecting the sentence imposed in any of the following circumstances: {¶ 13} "* * * {¶ 14} "(c) If it imposes consecutive sentences under section 2929.14 of the Revised Code, its reasons for imposing the consecutive sentences; * * *.”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Edwards, Unpublished Decision (3-1-2004) · State v. Kravochuck, Unpublished Decision (6-23-2005)

3. ““I’m going to make the following statutorily required findings pursuant to Revised Code 2929.14(E)(4) and that is consecutive terms are necessary to protect the public. Consecutive terms are necessary to punish the offender. The terms are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and the danger the offender poses to the public, that the harm caused was so great that no single prison term adequately reflects the seriousness of the conduct. And, most certainly, because we have two victims in this case, that particular finding, of course, is very applicable. “In addition, the offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that the consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crimes by this defendant. “So, therefore, I’m going to sentence the defendant to four years, to run consecutive to the four years for [V.O.], so do an additional four years for perpetrating the GSI upon one [V.T.], so that will be a total of eight years.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 141 Ohio App. 3d 194 - State v. Gary