DocketNumber: No. 2005AP060043.
Citation Numbers: 2006 Ohio 5686
Judges: HOFFMAN, J.
Filed Date: 10/25/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
{¶ 3} On January 17, 2006, appellant's counsel, Douglas A. Milhoan, filed an appeal on behalf of appellant, assigned as case number 2005AP0043. As sole error, the appeal argues:
{¶ 4} "I. THE IMPOSITION OF CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES IS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND CONTRARY TO THE LAW."
{¶ 5} Appellant asserts the imposition of non-minimum, consecutive sentences is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 6} In sentencing appellant, the trial court found:
{¶ 7} "In this case, we obviously have felonies of the first degree that carry a presumption of prison. There's no way to overcome that presumption with this history and with this fact pattern. The, these are very serious offenses. The recidivism factors, the likelihood of reoffending, are extensive. I did have in my notes from pretrial that there was prior prison, prior felony offenses and now your attorney has brought to my attention the drug factor.
{¶ 8} "* * *
{¶ 9} "I am going to impose a term of four years on each of the felonies of the fourth degree and six months on each of the felonies of the, I'm sorry, seven months on each of the felonies of the fifth degree, to be served consecutively and that would be nine years and two months. You will be eligible for a judicial release after five years if I read the current statute. Any release for on judicial release would be upon a properly filed motion, a clean institution report. So that means you have to make that decision now that you're going to follow the rules, okay. If your criminal history or even, you know, traffic history or whatever is any indication of your intent to follow the rules, you've got to start now and have a clean institution report and your attorney will file a motion at the appropriate time because that will tell me a lot about my decision to grant any judicial release.
{¶ 10} "The court costs will also be assessed in this case and the consecutive terms are imposed. We do have more than one event occurring within a short period of time. The extensive history, I'm going to make a specific finding that the consecutive terms are needed to protect the public, punish the offender and based upon that history."
{¶ 11} Tr. at 26-28.
{¶ 12} Recently, in State v. Foster, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2006 Ohio St.3d 856, the Ohio Supreme Court found various provisions of Ohio's sentencing statute violate the principles announced by the United States Supreme Court in Blakely v.Washington (2004),
{¶ 13} Appellant's April 26, 2005 sentence in the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas is vacated, and the matter remanded to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing in accordance with Foster.
By: Hoffman, J. Gwin, P.J. and Boggins, J. concur