125 Ohio App. 3d 116 - State v. Cooks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““R.C. 2929.11 defines the overarching policy considerations underlying felony sentencing in this state. The statute specifically states: “ ‘(A) * * * The overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender. % Hi Hi “ ‘(B) A sentence imposed for a felony shall be reasonably calculated to achieve the two overriding purposes of felony sentencing * * * commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct * * *.’ “R.C. 2929.12 makes clear that, unless a prison term is statutorily mandated, the implementation of the principles set forth in R.C. 2929.11 rests in the sound discretion of the court. The statute also sets forth a number of factors which the court is directed to consider in the exercise of that discretion. R.C. 2929.12(B) through (E).””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 139 Ohio App. 3d 722 - State v. Nasrallah · State v. Broadway, L-07-1118 (1-25-2008)

2. “seriousness and recidivism factors under R.C. 2929.12 " in fashioning appellant's sentence. The court also found that appellant was not amenable to community control, and that a prison sentence was consistent with the purposes of R.C. 2929.11 . {¶ 39} Upon consideration of the foregoing, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in this case. The facts demonstrate that the trial court considered the entire record, which included evidence of appellant's prior convictions and imprisonment, as well as the principles and purposes of sentencing and the factors relative to the seriousness of appellant's conduct and the likelihood of recidivism, before sentencing appellant. Those factors, coupled with appellant's admitted lack of judgment and poor self-control, support the trial court's determination that appellant should be sentenced to serve a two-year prison term. Appellant's second assignment of error is not well-taken. {¶ 40} Appellant asserts in his third assignment of error that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay the costs of prosecution. {¶ 41} R.C. 2947.23 provides, in relevant part, that: {¶ 42} "(A)(1) In all criminal cases, * * * the judge or magistrate shall include in the sentence the costs of prosecution and render a judgment against the defendant for such costs. * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Thomas, Unpublished Decision (12-3-2004)