State v. Marcum
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
2,307 later cases cite State v. Marcum; 187 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on State v. Marcum?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The Supreme Court of Ohio confined Marcum's paragraph 23 statements about reviewing record support under R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 to nonbinding dicta.
State v. Jones · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed
The statements in Marcum at ¶ 23 suggesting that it would be “fully consistent” with R.C. 2953.08(G) for an appellate court to modify or vacate a sentence when the record does not support the sentence under R.C. 2929.11 or 2929.12 were made only in passing and were not essential to this court’s legal holding. The statements are therefore dicta.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Marcum and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace