154 Ohio App. 3d 450 - State v. Vlahopoulos’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Ober is correct that the `sentence shall not impose an unnecessary burden on state or local government resources.' R.C. 2929.13 (A). According to criminal law experts, this resource principle `impacts on the application of the presumptions also contained in this section and upon the exercise of discretion.' Griffin and Katz, Ohio Felony Sentencing Law (1996-97), 62. Courts may consider whether a criminal sanction would unduly burden resources when deciding whether a second degree felony offender has overcome the presumption in favor of imprisonment because the resource principle is consistent with the overriding purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 . Id. {¶ 15} "Although resource burdens may be a relevant sentencing criterion, R.C. 2929.13 [A] does not require trial courts to elevate resource conservation above the seriousness and recidivism factors. Imposing a community control sanction on Ober may have saved state and local government funds; however, this factor alone would not usually overcome the presumption in favor of imprisonment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Wolfe, Unpublished Decision (6-10-2004) · State v. Hines, 07-Coa-027 (4-9-2008)

2. “R.C. 2929.13 (A) states that a sentence `shall not impose an unnecessary burden on state or local governmental resources.' Just what constitutes a `burden' on state resources is undefined by the statute, but the plain language suggests that the costs, both economic and societal, should not outweigh the benefit that the people of the state derive from an offender's incarceration. Some have argued that in cases where the multiple life tails might be involved, incarceration of aged offenders who require the kind of nursing care needed by elderly people might place a burden on the state's resources. Of course this is true, but it is only one type of cost associated with incarceration. The court must also consider the benefit to society in assuring that an offender will not be free to reoffend. Many people sleep better at night knowing that certain offenders are incarcerated. They would no doubt consider a lengthy incarceration worth the cost of housing those offenders.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Wolfe, Unpublished Decision (6-10-2004)