133 Ohio App. 3d 578 - State v. Roth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(1) At the time of committing the offense, the offender was under release from confinement before trial or sentencing, * * * or under post-release control * * * for an earlier offense. “(2) The offender previously was adjudicated a delinquent child * * * or the offender has a history of criminal convictions. “(3) The offender has not been rehabilitated to a satisfactory degree after previously being adjudicated a delinquent child * * * or the offender has not responded favorably to sanctions previously imposed for criminal convictions. “(4) The offender has demonstrated a pattern of drug or alcohol abuse that is related to the offense, and the offender refuses to acknowledge that the offender has demonstrated that pattern, or the offender refuses treatment for the drug or alcohol abuse. “(5) The offender shows no genuine remorse for the offense.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 144 Ohio App. 3d 58 - State v. Rose

2. “exaggerated and inaccurately depicted his past criminal record. This argument lacks merit. The presentence report and defense counsel at sentencing accurately portrayed Lamb's criminal history. Based on that criminal history, the record supports a finding under R.C. 2929.12 (D)(2). {¶ 21} Lamb also disputes the trial court's finding under R.C. 2929.12 (B)(3). This factor indicates that a defendant's conduct is more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense because”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lamb, Unpublished Decision (4-16-2004)

3. “The factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12 (B)(3)-(5) apply only to offenders who hold certain positions, of which being a parent is not one. Therefore, those factors are inapplicable to appellants on these facts and cannot be relied upon in finding appellant's offense more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lamb, Unpublished Decision (4-16-2004)