State v. Comer
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Five confirmed treatments are listed below. Of 72 flagged citations, 67 were read; the text of the other five could not be retrieved, so they remain unread.
72 later cases cite State v. Comer; 72 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; 67 of them have been read, and the text of 5 citing opinions could not be retrieved, so those remain unread. 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. Comer?
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
Abrogated
-
The Supreme Court of Ohio severed the statutory findings requirements on which Comer rested, ending the need for findings or reasons before imposing consecutive or nonminimum sentences.
State v. Foster · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed
We have held previously that R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and 2929.19(B)(2)(c) require trial courts that impose consecutive sentences to make the statutorily enumerated findings and to give reasons at the sentencing hearing to support those findings for review on appeal. State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, 793 N.E.2d 473. ... Accordingly, we have concluded that trial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Superseded by statute
-
The Eighth District held that H.B. 86 displaced Comer's requirement to give reasons for consecutive sentences.
State v. Warner · Ohio Court of Appeals, Eighth District · filed
Id. Therefore, because “neither R.C. 2929.14 nor 2929.19, as revised by H.B. No. 86, require[s] the trial court to give its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences,” the revisions of H.B. No. 86 must logically supersede the rationale of Comer, which was the original impetus for the amendment to Crim.R. 32(A)(4). Id. The Tenth District accordingly rejected the defendant’s attempt to interweave the Crim.R. 32(A) reasons requirement into consecutive sentencing post-H.B. No. 86, which is especially compelling because Crim.R. 32(A)(4) only requires reasons to support findings “if appropriate.” Thus, Warner’s reliance on Crim.R. 32(A)(4) is misplaced.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The Ninth District held that a defendant forfeits a Comer objection to missing oral findings by failing to object at sentencing.
State v. DiGiovanni · Ohio Court of Appeals, Ninth District · filed
Mr. DiGiovanni now complains that the trial court did not make the requisite findings on the record at the hearing, and therefore did not satisfy the statutory requirements for imposing more than the minimum sentence. See R.C.2929.14(B); State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165, at ¶ 11. ... Where the trial court fails to state its findings and reasons on the record, i.e., aloud at the hearing, the defendant must raise a timely objection to the trial court in order to preserve that error for appeal, otherwise that objection is forfeited.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Fifth District held that Comer's oral-findings rule did not require a separate justification for an agreed sentence.
State v. Wingert · Ohio Court of Appeals, Fifth District · filed
If the trial court is not required to independently justify the sentence, and if pursuant to R.C. 2953.08 (D), compliance with R.C. 2929.19(B) (2) (c) andState v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165,793 N.E.2d 473 is not required, then there would appear to be little, if any, grounds for appellant to appeal the sentence impose in this case. ... Under the circumstances of the case at bar, we find that the appellant agreed to the sentenced imposed by the trial court and therefore the trial court was not required to independently justify the sentence pursuant to R.C. 2929.12(A) and 2929.14(B).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Fifth District held that Comer did not apply retroactively to a sentence imposed before it was decided.
State v. Bowser · Ohio Court of Appeals, Fifth District · filed
As for the consecutive nature of the sentences, appellant cites the cases of Edmonson, supra, and State v.Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-4165. The Edmonson case involved minimum/maximum sentences and is therefore inapplicable. Appellant was sentenced prior to Comer and said case is not to be applied retroactively.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Comer 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