DocketNumber: No. 2006-CA-32.
Citation Numbers: 2006 Ohio 6609
Judges: GRADY, P.J.
Filed Date: 12/8/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} In 1997, Defendant pled guilty to attempted murder, aggravated arson, kidnapping and felonious assault. The trial court sentenced Defendant to consecutive and concurrent [D1] sentences totaling twelve years. On direct appeal we reversed and vacated Defendant's conviction for felonious assault, but in all other respects we affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. State v. Puckett (March 27, 1998), Greene App. No. 97CA43.
{¶ 3} On June 23, 2005, Defendant filed a "Motion to Reconsider Defendant's Sentencing Pursuant to Blakely v. Washington." CitingBlakely v. Washington (2004),
{¶ 4} On February 10, 2006, the trial court overruled Defendant's motion to reconsider sentencing. Days later, the Ohio Supreme Court held in State v. Foster,
{¶ 5} Defendant timely appealed to this court from the trial court's decision refusing to reconsider his sentences in light ofBlakely. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 6} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE, NON — MINIMUM SENTENCES BASED ON FINDINGS NOT MADE BY A JURY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT."
{¶ 7} Initially, we note that Defendant's "Motion To Reconsider Sentencing Pursuant To Blakely v. Washington" is in fact an R.C.
{¶ 8} In order to be timely filed, a petition for postconviction relief must be filed no later than one hundred eighty days after the date on which the trial transcript is filed in the court of appeals in the direct appeal from the judgment of conviction. R.C.
{¶ 9} A trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider untimely filed or successive post-conviction petitions unless one of the exceptions in R.C.
{¶ 10} New rules for the conduct of criminal prosecutions apply retroactively only to cases that are pending on direct review and are not yet final. State v. Hayden (August 5, 2005), Montgomery App. No. 20657,
Defendant's conviction has been final and has not been pending on direct review since 1998. Therefore, Defendant's conviction became final years before the Supreme Court's decision in Blakely, and accordingly, the new rule of law announced therein does not apply retroactively to Defendant. Having failed to establish the applicability of the exception in R.C.
{¶ 11} State v. Foster applies retroactively only to cases that are pending on direct review and are not yet final. Id. At ¶ 106. Defendant's case is not and was not pending on direct review at the timeFoster was decided. Therefore, Foster does not apply to this case, and reversal and remand for resentencing is not required. State v.Jones (September 22, 2006), Montgomery App. No. 21341,
{¶ 12} Defendant's assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
BROGAN, J. And DONOVAN, J., concur.