Case Law In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases

In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases

Document Cited Authorities (4) Cited in (148) Related

{¶ 1} The following dispositions of currently pending appeals and certified conflicts are hereby entered based on our decision in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470.

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'CONNOR, O'DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur.

I

{¶ 2} The judgments of the courts of appeals in the following cases are reversed, and the causes are remanded to the trial courts for resentencing. If propositions of law are noted, such reversals shall apply only to those portions of the judgments of the courts of appeals that are implicated by the applicable propositions of law:

{¶ 3} 2004-1259. State v. Taylor, Madison App. No. CA2003-07-025, 2004-Ohio-3171, 2004 WL 1373198.

{¶ 4} 2004-1561. State v. Blade, Cuyahoga App. No. 83796, 2004-Ohio-4486, 2004 WL 1902523. Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 5} 2004-1635. State v. Lett, Cuyahoga App. Nos. 83821 and 83822, 2004-Ohio-4094, 2004 WL 1753209. Proposition of Law No. VI of the appeal and Proposition of Law No. II of the cross-appeal.

{¶ 6} 2004-2074. State v. Sanders, Lake App. No. 2003-L-144, 2004-Ohio-5937, 2004 WL 2526405. Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 7} 2005-0046. State v. Wheeler, Washington App. No. 04CA1, 2004-Ohio-6598, 2004 WL 2827714. Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 8} 2005-0065. State v. Garrett, Clark App. No. 2003 CA 40, 2004-Ohio-6876, 2004 WL 2914968.

{¶ 9} 2005-0158. State v. Parsons, Ashtabula App. No. 2003-A-0030, 2004-Ohio-7237, 2004 WL 3090219. Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 10} 2005-0185. State v. Chewning, Clermont App. No. CA2004-01-002, 2004-Ohio-6661, 2004 WL 2849222. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 11} 2005-0202. State v. Hartsock, Lucas App. No. L-03-1215, 2004-Ohio-6905, 2004 WL 2924327. Proposition of Law No. III. Lanzinger, J., not participating.

{¶ 12} 2005-0234. State v. Barnette, Mahoning App. No. 02 CA 65, 2004-Ohio-7211, 2004 WL 3090228 and 2005-Ohio-477, 2005 WL 293804. Proposition of Law III of the appeal.

{¶ 13} 2005-0241. State v. Love, Mahoning App. No. 03 MA 19, 2004-Ohio-7062, 2004 WL 2980343. Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 14} 2005-0257. State v. Morris, Guernsey App. No. 03 CA 29, 2004-Ohio-6988, 2004 WL 2955226.

{¶ 15} 2005-0258. State v. Hardie, Washington App. No. 04CA21, 2004-Ohio-7278, 2004 WL 3090197. Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 16} 2005-0284. State v. Hardie, Washington App. No. 04CA24, 2004-Ohio-7277, 2004 WL 3090247.

{¶ 17} 2005-0296. State v. Morales, Lake App. No. 2003-L-025, 2004-Ohio-7239, 2004 WL 3090188. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 18} 2005-0316. State v. Curd, Lake App. No. 2003-L-030, 2004-Ohio-7222 2004 WL 3090211. Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 19} 2005-0339. State v. Ferguson, Hamilton App. No. C-040114, 2004-Ohio-7132, 2004 WL 3015093. Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 20} 2005-0371. State v. Rowles, Summit App. No. 22007, 2005-Ohio-14, 2005 WL 19440. Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 21} 2005-0374. State v. Walker, Hamilton App. No. C-040202.

{¶ 22} 2005-0380. State v. Jenkins, Summit App. No. 22008, 2005-Ohio-11, 2005 WL 19439. Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 23} 2005-0500. State v. Hall, Franklin App. No. 04AP-17, 2005-Ohio-335, 2005 WL 225312. Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 24} 2005-0535. State v. Murphy, Lake App. No. 2003-L-049, 2005-Ohio-412, 2005 WL 280357.

{¶ 25} 2005-0542. State v. Abdul-Mumin, Franklin App. Nos. 04AP-485 and 04AP-486, 2005-Ohio-522, 2005 WL 315062.

{¶ 26} 2005-0576. State v. Wilson, Washington App. No. 04CA18, 2005-Ohio-830, 2005 WL 459129. Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 27} 2005-0587. State v. Dinapoli, Lake App. No. 2003-L-169, 2005-Ohio-824, 2005 WL 449467. Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 28} 2005-0613. State v. Carson, Hamilton App. No. C-040042, 2005-Ohio-902, 2005 WL 497290. Proposition of Law No II.

{¶ 29} 2005-0614. State v. Bell, Hamilton App. No. C-040488. Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 30} 2005-0619. State v. Schaub, Lake App. No. 2003-L-091, 2005-Ohio-703, 2005 WL 407567.

{¶ 31} 2005-0622. State v. Battle, Franklin App. No. 03AP-1269, 2005-Ohio-707, 2005 WL 407572.

{¶ 32} 2005-0628. State v. Ashbrook, Stark App. No. 2004-CA-00109, 2005-Ohio-740, 2005 WL 428032. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 33} 2005-0632. State v. Billingsley, Putnam App. No. 12-04-14.

{¶ 34} 2005-0633. State v. Billingsley, Putnam App. No. 11-04-21.

{¶ 35} 2005-0637. State v. Cockroft, Franklin App. No. 04AP-608, 2005-Ohio-748, 2005 WL 428573. Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 36} 2005-0643. State v. Moore, Allen App. No. 1-04-09, 2005-Ohio-676, 2005 WL 405706.

{¶ 37} 2005-0666. State v. Clifford, Paulding App. No. 11-04-06, 2005-Ohio-958, 2005 WL 517514.

{¶ 38} 2005-0688. State v. Sieng, Franklin App. No. 04AP-556, 2005-Ohio-1003, 2005 WL 555664. Proposition of Law No. VI.

{¶ 39} 2005-0709. State v. Le, Cuyahoga App. No. 84429, 2005-Ohio-881, 2005 WL 488378.

{¶ 40} 2005-0713. State v. Austin, Montgomery App. No. 20445, 2005-Ohio-1035, 2005 WL 567305. Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 41} 2005-0723. State v. Malloy, Allen App. No. 1-04-64, 2005-Ohio-961, 2005 WL 517469.

{¶ 42} 2005-0732. State v. Newsome, Ashtabula App. No. 2003-A-0069, 2005-Ohio-1104, 2005 WL 583789.

{¶ 43} 2005-0737. State v. Rupert, Lake App. No. 2003-L-154, 2005-Ohio-1098, 2005 WL 583796. Proposition of Law No. I {¶ 44} 2005-0745. State v. Black, Allen App. No. 1-04-83, 2005-Ohio-1253, 2005 WL 638688.

{¶ 45} 2005-0769. State v. Curlis, Wood App. No. WD-04-032, 2005-Ohio-1217, 2005 WL 635025.

{¶ 46} 2005-0772. State v. John, Lucas App. No. L-03-1261, 2005-Ohio-1218, 2005 WL 635026. Proposition of Law No. II of the cross-appeal.

{¶ 47} 2005-0789. State v. Scott, Cuyahoga App. No. 84844, 2005-Ohio-1192, 2005 WL 628524. Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 48} 2005-0809. State v. Goins, Mahoning App. No. 02CA68, 2005-Ohio-1439, 2005 WL 704865. Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 49} 2005-0826. State v. Ward, Washington App. No. 04CA25, 2005-Ohio-1580, 2005 WL 737578.

{¶ 50} 2005-0848. State v. Andrews, Cuyahoga App. No. 84137, 2005-Ohio-1161, 2005 WL 616081. Proposition of Law No. IV.

{¶ 51} 2005-0868. State v. Scarberry, Logan App. No. 8-04-32, 2005-Ohio-1425, 2005 WL 696829.

{¶ 52} 2005-0875. State v. Colvin, Franklin App. No. 04AP-421, 2005-Ohio-1448, 2005 WL 704818.

{¶ 53} 2005-0876. State v. Allen, Lake App. No. 2004-L-038, 2005-Ohio-1415, 2005 WL 694351.

{¶ 54} 2005-0890. State v. Hill, Cuyahoga App. No. 84683, 2005-Ohio-1311, 2005 WL 678120. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 55} 2005-0903. State v. Burns, Summit App. No. 22198, 2005-Ohio-1459, 2005 WL 711927. Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 56} 2005-0906. State v. Worrell, Franklin App. No. 04AP-410, 2005-Ohio-1521, 2005 WL 736529. Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 57} 2005-0909. State v. Holt, Erie App. No. E-04-004, 2005-Ohio-1554, 2005 WL 737000. Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 58} 2005-0910. State v. Hyslop, Lucas App. No. L-03-1298, 2005-Ohio-1556, 2005 WL 736996.

{¶ 59} 2005-0917. State v. Rorie, Stark App. No. 2002CA00187, 2005-Ohio-1726, 2005 WL 845230.

{¶ 60} 2005-0954. State v. Whited, Washington App. No. 04CA31, 2005-Ohio-2224, 2005 WL 1048721.

{¶ 61} 2005-0966. State v. Wymer, Lucas App. No. L-03-1125, 2005-Ohio-1775, 2005 WL 859445.

{¶ 62} 2005-0983. State v. Harris, Fulton App. No. F-04-005, 2005-Ohio-1779, 2005 WL 859448. Proposition of Law No. III. The discretionary appeal as to Proposition of Law Nos. V and VI (previously held for the decision in 2004-1279 and 2004-1696, State v. Threatt) is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

{¶ 63} 2005-1020. State v. Daniels, Putnam App. No. 12-04-07, 2005-Ohio-1920, 2005 WL 941019. Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 64} 2005-1042. State v. Spellman, Geauga App. No. 2004-G-2565, 160 Ohio App.3d 718, 2005-Ohio-2065, 828 N.E.2d 695. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 65} 2005-1051. State v. Beltowski, Lake App. Nos. 2003-L-126 and 2003-L-150, 2005-Ohio-2075, 2005 WL 1007191. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 66} 2005-1056. State v. Bradford, Lake App. No. 2003-L-168, 2005-Ohio-2070, 2005 WL 1009821. Proposition of Law No. II.

{¶ 67} 2005-1117. State v. Todd, Butler App. No. CA2004-06-123, 2005-Ohio-2270, 2005 WL 1077179.

{¶ 68} 2005-1134. State v. Howard, Clark App. No. 2004CA29, 2005-Ohio-2237 2005 WL 1060621. Proposition of Law No. IV.

{¶ 69} 2005-1139. State v. Clifford, Paulding App. No. 11-04-18, 2005-Ohio-2357, 2005 WL 1131585. Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 70} 2005-1161. State v. Watkins, Allen App. No. 1-04-17, 2005-Ohio-2359, 2005 WL 1131576. Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 71} 2005-1164. State v. Farley, Butler App. No. CA2004-04-085, 2005-Ohio-2367, 2005 WL 1131745.

{¶ 72} 2005-1175. State v. Montgomery, Clermont App. No. CA2004-06-047, 2005-Ohio-2371, 2005 WL 1131734.

{¶ 73} 2005-1200. State v. Sebring, Butler App. No. CA2004-08-195.

{¶ 74} 2005-1207. State v. Krois, Hamilton App. No. C-040543.

{¶ 75} 2005-1242. State v. Calhoun, Butler App. No. CA2004-08-192.

{¶ 76} 2005-1249. State v. Fiedler, Lake App. No. 2003-L-190, 2005-Ohio-3388, 2005 WL 1538243.

{¶ 77} 2005-1250. State v. Semala, Lake App. No. 2003-L-128, 2005-Ohio-2653, 2005 WL 1272473.

{¶ 78} 2005-1303. State v. Mason, Butler App. Nos. CA2004-06-154 and CA2004-06-164, 2005-Ohio-2918, 2005 WL 1385221. Proposition of Law No. VII.

{¶ 79} 2005-1319. State v. Paynter, Muskingum App. No. CT2004-0015, 2005-Ohio-2911, 2005 WL 1384629. Proposition of Law Nos. III and IV.

{¶ 80} 2005-1321. State v. Coffeen, Butler App. No. CA2004-08-211.

{¶ 81} 2005-1324. State v. Langlois, Ashtabula App. No. 2003-A-0080, 2005-Ohio-2795, 2005 WL 1324724. Proposition of Law No. III.

{¶ 82} 2005-1343. State v. Satterwhite, Franklin App. Nos. 04AP-964 and 04AP-965, 2005-Ohio-2823, 2005 WL 1356445.

{¶ 83} 2005-1345. State v. Morris, Highland App. No. 04CA20, 2005-Ohio-2980, 2005 WL 1400033.

{¶ 84} 2005-1353. State v....

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio – 2012
Wagner v. Warden, Southern Ohio Corr. Facility
"... ... The state moved to consolidate the two cases for trial. The trial court granted the state's motion on October 23, 2002 ... CONTRARY TO LAW AND ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD FROM THE SENTENCING HEARING. R.C. 2953.08." State v. Wagner, 2004 WL 1672200, at *1-2 (Ohio ... Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856. See, In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases, 109 Ohio St.3d 313, 2006-Ohio-2109. Upon ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio – 2012
Murphy v. DeWine
"... ... MICHAEL DEWINE, Attorney General Of Ohio Respondent. Case No. 1:11-cv-581 UNITED STATES DISTRICT ... On the State's motion, Murphy and Dixon's cases were consolidated for trial which was granted. Id. at ... 6. The trial court erred by sentencing defendant consecutively for allied offenses of similar ...         In Ohio if a criminal defendant has evidence which he believes should have been ... "
Document | Ohio Court of Appeals – 2011
State v. Marcum
"... 2011 Ohio 3100 STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee ... JEROME B. MARCUM ... Edwards, J. OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Case ... are relevant to the proper venue in particular cases. To determine whether the application of a venue provision ... , reversed on other grounds and remanded for re-sentencing pursuant to State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 856; In re: Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases, 109 Ohio St.3d 313, 2006-Ohio-2109. In defining ... "
Document | Ohio Court of Appeals – 2011
State v. Marcum
"... 2011 Ohio 3709 STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. JEROME B. MARCUM ... OPINION         CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Case ... are relevant to the proper venue in particular cases. To determine whether the application of a venue provision ... , reversed on other grounds and remanded for re-sentencing pursuant to State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 856; In re: Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases, 109 Ohio St.3d 313, 2006-Ohio-2109. In defining ... "
Document | Ohio Court of Appeals – 2017
State v. Oller
"... 85 N.E.3d 1135 2017 Ohio 814 STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Timothy M ... Court of Common Pleas entered May 17, 2016, sentencing him to serve 21 years in prison. The sentence resulted from a criminal trial whereby a jury found him guilty of a single count of ... {¶ 28} But we do not reverse in criminal cases based on errors that are harmless beyond a reasonable ... -856, 845 N.E.2d 470 6 (finding a number of Ohio statutes 85 N.E.3d 1151 impermissibly required judicial factfinding ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio – 2012
Wagner v. Warden, Southern Ohio Corr. Facility
"... ... The state moved to consolidate the two cases for trial. The trial court granted the state's motion on October 23, 2002 ... CONTRARY TO LAW AND ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD FROM THE SENTENCING HEARING. R.C. 2953.08." State v. Wagner, 2004 WL 1672200, at *1-2 (Ohio ... Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856. See, In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases, 109 Ohio St.3d 313, 2006-Ohio-2109. Upon ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio – 2012
Murphy v. DeWine
"... ... MICHAEL DEWINE, Attorney General Of Ohio Respondent. Case No. 1:11-cv-581 UNITED STATES DISTRICT ... On the State's motion, Murphy and Dixon's cases were consolidated for trial which was granted. Id. at ... 6. The trial court erred by sentencing defendant consecutively for allied offenses of similar ...         In Ohio if a criminal defendant has evidence which he believes should have been ... "
Document | Ohio Court of Appeals – 2011
State v. Marcum
"... 2011 Ohio 3100 STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee ... JEROME B. MARCUM ... Edwards, J. OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Case ... are relevant to the proper venue in particular cases. To determine whether the application of a venue provision ... , reversed on other grounds and remanded for re-sentencing pursuant to State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 856; In re: Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases, 109 Ohio St.3d 313, 2006-Ohio-2109. In defining ... "
Document | Ohio Court of Appeals – 2011
State v. Marcum
"... 2011 Ohio 3709 STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. JEROME B. MARCUM ... OPINION         CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Case ... are relevant to the proper venue in particular cases. To determine whether the application of a venue provision ... , reversed on other grounds and remanded for re-sentencing pursuant to State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 856; In re: Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases, 109 Ohio St.3d 313, 2006-Ohio-2109. In defining ... "
Document | Ohio Court of Appeals – 2017
State v. Oller
"... 85 N.E.3d 1135 2017 Ohio 814 STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Timothy M ... Court of Common Pleas entered May 17, 2016, sentencing him to serve 21 years in prison. The sentence resulted from a criminal trial whereby a jury found him guilty of a single count of ... {¶ 28} But we do not reverse in criminal cases based on errors that are harmless beyond a reasonable ... -856, 845 N.E.2d 470 6 (finding a number of Ohio statutes 85 N.E.3d 1151 impermissibly required judicial factfinding ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex