State v. Edwards

Summary

The court affirmed the consecutive sentence imposed on Morris Edwards after resentencing. Edwards argued that applying State v. Foster retroactively violated due process and the ex post facto clause, but the court rejected this argument based on prior precedent.

Holdings

1. This court has repeatedly held that applying the remedial holding in Foster to a criminal defendant does not violate his due process rights or ex post facto principles.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by applying State v. Foster to resentence Edwards for crimes committed before that decision, in violation of due process and the ex post facto clause.

Disposition

affirmed