State v. Foster

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court considers whether Ohio’s felony-sentencing statutes violate the Sixth Amendment under Apprendi v. New Jersey and Blakely v. Washington. The court concludes that portions of the sentencing scheme are unconstitutional because they require judicial fact-finding and adopts a severance remedy modeled on United States v. Booker, rendering certain statutory requirements advisory. The consolidated cases involve challenges to minimum, maximum, consecutive, repeat-violent-offender, and major-drug-offender sentences.

Holdings

1. R.C. 2929.14(B) and the related provision in R.C. 2929.19(B)(2) are unconstitutional because they require judicial fact-finding before a court may impose more than the shortest prison term authorized for the offense.
2. R.C. 2929.14(C) is unconstitutional because it requires judicial fact-finding before a maximum prison term may be imposed.
3. R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and the related concurrency provision in R.C. 2929.41(A) are unconstitutional insofar as they require judicial fact-finding before consecutive prison terms may be imposed.
4. R.C. 2929.14(D)(2)(b) and (D)(3)(b) are unconstitutional because they require judicial fact-finding before additional repeat-violent-offender or major-drug-offender prison penalties may be imposed.
5. Ohio's lower-level-felony community-control provisions do not violate Blakely because they do not create a presumption that community control is the maximum sentence absent judicial findings.
6. The unconstitutional sentencing provisions are severable and must be excised, leaving trial courts with full discretion to impose prison terms within the statutory ranges and to impose consecutive terms without the previously required judicial findings.
7. Foster, Quinones, and Adams must be remanded for new sentencing hearings, and the new rule applies to all cases pending on direct review; Horn's sentence was affirmed because it did not include an unconstitutional additional major-drug-offender penalty.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ohio's statutory requirements for imposing more-than-minimum prison terms violate the Sixth Amendment when based on judicial fact-finding.
2. Whether Ohio's statutory requirements for imposing maximum prison terms violate the Sixth Amendment under Apprendi and Blakely.
3. Whether Ohio's statutory requirements for imposing consecutive prison terms violate the Sixth Amendment.
4. Whether Ohio's repeat-violent-offender and major-drug-offender additional penalty provisions violate the Sixth Amendment when they require judicial fact-finding.
5. Whether Ohio's default provisions for community control in lower-level felonies violate Blakely.
6. Whether the unconstitutional sentencing provisions could be severed and excised rather than invalidating the entire sentencing scheme.
7. Whether the defendants were entitled to new sentencing hearings and whether the remedy applied to cases pending on direct review.

Disposition

other