Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court held that, after State v. Foster severed certain consecutive-sentencing provisions, a trial court has discretion and inherent authority to order a prison sentence to run consecutively to a sentence previously imposed on the same offender by another Ohio court. The court affirmed the judgment of the Miami County Court of Appeals, concluding that no statutory or common-law impediment barred the consecutive sentence.
Holdings
- After Foster severed and excised former R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and former R.C. 2929.41(A), a trial court has the discretion and inherent authority to order a prison sentence within the statutory range to run consecutively to a prison sentence previously imposed on the same offender by another Ohio court.
Questions Presented
- Whether, after State v. Foster severed former R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and former R.C. 2929.41(A), a trial court has authority to order a prison sentence for a new felony conviction to run consecutively to a prison sentence previously imposed on the same offender by another Ohio court.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (12)
- State v. Bates, Miami App. No. 06-CA-08, 2006-Ohio-7086, 2006 WL 3849078(followed as procedural history)
- State v. Thompson, 5th Dist. No. 01CA62, 2002-Ohio-4717, 2002 WL 31013641(abrogated)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470(followed and applied)
- Woods v. Telb, 89 Ohio St. 3d 504, 507-508, 733 N.E.2d 1103 (2000)(cited)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004)(cited)
- State v. Jones, 49 Ohio St. 3d 51, 52, 550 N.E.2d 469 (1990)(cited)
- State v. Morris, 55 Ohio St. 2d 101, 112, 378 N.E.2d 708 (1978)(cited)
- State v. O'Mara, 105 Ohio St. 94, 136 N.E. 885 (1922)(cited)
- Stewart v. Maxwell, 174 Ohio St. 180, 187 N.E.2d 888 (1963)(followed)
- State ex rel. Stratton v. Maxwell, 175 Ohio St. 65, 191 N.E.2d 549 (1963)(cited)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…