State v. McGowan

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. McGowan

62 N.E.3d 178, 147 Ohio St. 3d 166

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 17, 2016

DocketNo. 2015-1596

StatusPublished

Cited by31 cases

This text of 62 N.E.3d 178 (State v. McGowan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. McGowan, 62 N.E.3d 178, 147 Ohio St. 3d 166 (Ohio 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} In State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, we held that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence only when it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is (1) contrary to law and/or (2) unsupported by the record. Id. at ¶ 7.

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals in the instant case is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of Marcum.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

{¶ 1} In State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231, we held that R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) allows an appellate court to increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence only when it clearly and convincingly finds that the sentence is (1) contrary to law and/or (2) unsupported by the record. Id. at ¶ 7.

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals in the instant case is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of Marcum.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 N.E.3d 178, 147 Ohio St. 3d 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcgowan-ohio-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack