State v. Hunter

123 Ohio St. 3d 164, 2009-Ohio-4147 (Ohio 2009) · Supreme Court of Ohio · August 25, 2009 · No. 2008-0661

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that State v. Foster excised judicial fact-finding requirements from former R.C. 2929.14(D)(2) but did not eliminate the repeat violent offender specification. The court further held that designating an offender as a repeat violent offender under former R.C. 2929.01(DD) did not violate the Sixth Amendment, particularly where the defendant waived a jury determination, stipulated to the relevant facts, and the court considered information from the prior conviction’s judicial record. The court affirmed the judgment imposing the repeat violent offender enhancement.

Holdings

  1. State v. Foster excised judicial fact-finding from former R.C. 2929.14(D)(2) but did not eliminate the repeat violent offender specification defined in former R.C. 2929.01(DD).
  2. The trial court did not violate Hunter's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by designating him a repeat violent offender under former R.C. 2929.01(DD).
  3. When designating an offender as a repeat violent offender under former R.C. 2929.01(DD), a trial court does not violate the Sixth Amendment by considering relevant information about the offender's prior conviction that is part of the judicial record.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether State v. Foster eliminated the repeat violent offender specification from Ohio law.
  2. Whether designating Hunter as a repeat violent offender under former R.C. 2929.01(DD), based on facts concerning a prior conviction, violated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.
  3. Whether the trial court could consider relevant information about the prior conviction contained in the judicial record when making the repeat violent offender designation.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (19)

  • State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470(followed and clarified)
  • Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S. Ct. 1254, 161 L. Ed. 2d 205 (2005)(followed)
  • Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000)(applied)
  • Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S. Ct. 2428, 153 L. Ed. 2d 556 (2002)(applied)
  • Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004)(applied)
  • United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738, 160 L. Ed. 2d 621 (2005)(applied)
  • State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St. 3d 54, 2006-Ohio-855, 846 N.E.2d 1(applied)
  • State v. Payne, Lake App. No. 2004-L-118, 2005-Ohio-7043(cited)
  • State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St. 3d 502, 2007-Ohio-4642, 873 N.E.2d 306(applied)
  • Smith v. Petkovich, 562 F. Supp. 2d 912 (N.D. Ohio 2008)(persuasive)

Showing top 10 of 19.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Supreme Court